QUESTIONS: The Gemara discusses the source for Kidushei Bi'ah. Rebbi Yochanan says that the source is the verse, "Be'ulas Ba'al" (Devarim 22:22). Rebbi says that the source is the verse, "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Ve'alah" (Devarim 24:1). The Gemara explains that Rebbi Yochanan does not derive Kidushei Bi'ah from the verse of "u'Ve'alah" because that verse implies that Kidushin takes effect only with both Kesef and Bi'ah, as it says, "Ki Yikach (Kesef)... u'Ve'alah (Bi'ah)."

(a) Why does Rebbi Yochanan argue with Rebbi? Rebbi Yochanan is an Amora (see TOSFOS to Kesuvos 8a, DH Rav) who may not argue with Rebbi, a Tana.

(b) The Gemara cites Rava who derives from the verse "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Ve'alah" that "Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Vi'ah" is not a valid Kidushin. This means that when a man is Mekadesh a woman with whom he cannot consummate the marriage (with Bi'ah), the Kidushin is not valid (for example, a man is Mekadesh one of two sisters without specifying which one). The Gemara asks that the verse already teaches something else -- that Kidushei Bi'ah is a valid form of Kidushin, as Rebbi says. How, then, can Rava derive from it a second Halachah? The Gemara answers that Rava maintains that the verse must be teaching both Halachos, because if it intended to teach only the law of Kidushei Bi'ah it would have said, "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah O Va'alah," as Kidushei Kesef and Kidushei Bi'ah are two unrelated forms of Kidushin. Since the verse says, "Ki Yikach... u'Ve'alah," it teaches a Halachah about Kidushei Kesef which involves Bi'ah. It teaches that the act of "Ki Yikach" (the Kidushin of Kesef) must have an element of "u'Ve'alah" -- the Kidushin must be "Mesurin l'Vi'ah."

The Gemara's question on Rava is based on the assumption that Rava follows the view of Rebbi and derives from "u'Ve'alah" that Kidushei Bi'ah is a valid form of Kidushin. Why does the Gemara assume that Rava follows the view of Rebbi? Perhaps he follows the view of Rebbi Yochanan who does not derive Kidushei Bi'ah from "u'Ve'alah," and thus the Gemara should have no question on Rava! (Although Rebbi Yochanan also derives a different Halachah from "u'Ve'alah" (that an Amah Ivriyah is not acquired through Bi'ah), the Gemara already explained that it is possible to learn both Halachos from "u'Ve'alah" from the fact that the Torah says "u'Ve'alah" instead of "u'Va'al.") (REBBI AKIVA EIGER)

(a) The Rishonim give several explanations for why Rebbi Yochanan, an Amora, may argue with Rebbi, a Tana.

1. The RAMBAN (Pesachim 114b) and the MAHARI BEIRAV indeed assert that Rebbi Yochanan has the status of a Tana. However, Tosfos in Kesuvos (loc. cit.) and most other Rishonim do not agree with this.

2. The YOSEF DA'AS points out that TOSFOS in Shabbos (70b, DH Lo Mashma Lei) asks a similar question on Shmuel and answers that Shmuel received a tradition (Kabalah) from the Tana'im that a Tana espoused the opinion he advocated. Rebbi Yochanan also may have received a Kabalah that there was a Tana who derived Kidushei Bi'ah from the verse of "Be'ulas Ba'al."

3. The RAMBAN and RASHBA suggest that Rebbi's source for Kidushei Bi'ah depends on the dispute between Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rebbi Yonasan in Bava Metzia (94b). Those Tana'im argue about whether the letter "Vav," as a "Vav ha'Chibur," means exclusively "and" or whether it also means "or." Rebbi Yoshiyah maintains that the "Vav" means exclusively "and." Rebbi Yonasan maintains that the "Vav" also means "or" unless the verse specifies otherwise.

Rebbi Yochanan does not derive Kidushei Bi'ah from "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Ve'alah" because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yoshiyah. According to his opinion, the "Vav" of "u'Ve'alah" means "and," and thus the verse cannot be teaching that Kidushei Bi'ah may be used alone without Kesef. Rebbi follows the opinion of Rebbi Yonasan. Since the Vav of "u'Ve'alah" may mean "or," it does not imply that Kidushei Bi'ah must be used together with Kesef.

Accordingly, Rebbi Yochanan is expressing the opinion of a Tana (Rebbi Yoshiyah) who disagrees with Rebbi.

(b) The OR CHADASH suggests that according to the Ramban and Rashba, perhaps the Gemara assumes that Rava follows the view of Rebbi because in Bava Metzia (95b) Rava explicitly follows the view of Rebbi Yonasan. As the Ramban and Rashba explain, one who follows the view of Rebbi Yonasan would not be bothered by Rebbi Yochanan's question and would learn like Rebbi. This is why the Gemara assumes that Rava learns the verse of "u'Ve'alah" like Rebbi.

However, HE'OROS B'MASECHES KIDUSHIN asks that the Gemara here implies the opposite. The Gemara's answer to its question implies that Rava follows the view of Rebbi Yoshiyah and not the view of Rebbi Yonasan. The Gemara explains that according to Rava, since the verse says "u'Ve'alah" instead of "O Va'alah," an additional Halachah may be derived from the verse (that the Kidushin made by Kesef must be "Mesurin l'Vi'ah"). If Rava follows the view of Rebbi Yonasan, the word "u'Ve'alah" may be interpreted as "O Va'alah," and thus Rava should not be able to infer anything from the fact that the Torah writes "u'Ve'alah" instead of "O Va'alah"!

(See PNEI YEHOSHUA who suggests another explanation for the Gemara's question on Rava, according to which Rava learns like Rebbi Yochanan and like Rebbi Yoshiyah. However, RASHI (DH ul'Rava) does not explain that way.)

Moreover, even if Rava follows the view of Rebbi Yonasan, he does not necessarily derive Kidushei Bi'ah from "u'Ve'alah." Perhaps he derives from "u'Ve'alah" that an Amah Ivriyah is not acquired with Bi'ah, and that "Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Vi'ah" is not a valid Kidushin, and he derives from "Be'ulas Ba'al" that a woman becomes Mekudeshes through Bi'ah, as Rebbi Yochanan says.

It seems that the Gemara indeed could have answered that Rava learns like Rebbi Yochanan. However, the Gemara wanted to explain how Rava would explain the verse even if he learns like Rebbi. Conversely, the Gemara wanted to show that according to Rava, even Rebbi maintains that "Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Vi'ah" is not valid, and there is no Machlokes Tana'im with regard to this Halachah.