QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah proves from a Kal va'Chomer that an Arusah Bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah. His Kal va'Chomer asserts that since a Shifchah Kena'anis is not acquired through Bi'ah and thus cannot eat Terumah after Bi'ah, and yet she may eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kesef, certainly a Bas Yisrael who can be acquired through Kidushei Bi'ah should be permitted to eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kesef. RASHI (DH Zo) explains that the source that a Bas Yisrael may eat Terumah as a result of Kidushei Bi'ah is the verse, "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha Yochal Oso" (Bamidbar 18:11).

Why does Rashi give this verse as the source for an Arusah's right to eat Terumah? The Gemara itself (5a in the name of Ula and as cited later by the Gemara here, and in Kesuvos 57b) teaches that a Bas Yisrael who is betrothed to a Kohen may eat Terumah because she is considered "Kinyan Kaspo" (Vayikra 22:11)!

ANSWER: RASHI's intent is to point out that the Gemara here maintains that "Kinyan Kaspo" is not the source for the right of a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Kohen to eat Terumah. The Gemara assumes (in its Kal va'Chomer) that Bi'ah enables a woman to eat Terumah more than Kidushei Kesef does. If the source is "Kinyan Kaspo," there is no difference between Bi'ah and Kesef; Kidushin with Kesef enables her to eat Terumah just as Bi'ah does. Therefore, Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah learns that Bi'ah (which makes Nisu'in) allows an Arusah to eat Terumah from the verse "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha," which teaches that a woman is considered "in the house" of her husband only after Nisu'in, and therefore only Bi'ah (which makes Nisu'in) allows her to eat Terumah. Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah derives from a Kal va'Chomer that even Kidushei Kesef allows her to eat Terumah.

Why, then, does the Gemara elsewhere (in the name of Ula) cite a different source and say that an Arusah Bas Yisrael may eat the Terumah of her Kohen husband because of "Kinyan Kaspo"? Apparently, Ula follows the second version of the Gemara here which maintains that an Arusah may eat Terumah without the Kal va'Chomer.

TOSFOS in Yevamos (68b) asks why the verse of "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" is necessary according to Ula, who derives from the verse of "Kinyan Kaspo" that an Arusah may eat Terumah. If an Arusah may eat Terumah, she certainly may continue to eat Terumah when she becomes a Nesu'ah! Tosfos there answers that "Kol Tahor" is merely an Asmachta.

Tosfos here (DH u'Mah and DH Zo), however, seems to take a different approach. Tosfos explains that both verses are necessary. The verse of "Kol Tahor" reveals that the Kidushin of a woman is in the category of "Kinyan Kaspo." One might have thought that only an Amah or Eved who is fully owned by her master is considered "Kinyan Kaspo"; this verse teaches that even an Ishah who is not actually owned by her husband is still considered "Kinyan Kaspo," and thus she may eat Terumah from the time of Erusin.

This approach may answer another question which the Acharonim ask. The Halachah is that if a Shifchah of a Kohen becomes a Zonah, she still may eat Terumah. In contrast, if the wife of a Kohen becomes a Zonah, she may not eat Terumah. If both women are entitled to eat Terumah because they are the "Kinyan Kaspo" of a Kohen, why should each one be subject to different Halachos? (See KOVETZ HE'OROS #61.)

The answer may be that their rights to eat Terumah indeed are different. The wife eats not because she is owned by the husband but because she is part of the home of the husband, and thus she is given the same status as her husband because of "Ishto k'Gufo." Consequently, it is possible for her to become disqualified from eating Terumah by becoming a Zonah. Since she eats Terumah based on her own merit, she is able to lose the right to eat Terumah if she forfeits that merit. This is based on the verse, "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha," which teaches that the wife of a Kohen may eat Terumah.

QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah proves from a Kal va'Chomer that an Arusah Bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah. His Kal va'Chomer asserts that since a Shifchah Kena'anis is not acquired through Bi'ah and thus cannot eat Terumah after Bi'ah, and yet she may eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kesef, certainly a Bas Yisrael who can be acquired through Kidushei Bi'ah should be permitted to eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kesef.

The Gemara asks, to which type of Bi'ah and to which type of Kesef does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah refer? If he refers to Bi'ah with Chupah and to Kesef with Chupah, in both cases she is permitted to eat Terumah. Why does the Beraisa conclude that the Rabanan decreed that she may not eat Terumah with Kesef? Once Chupah has been performed, there is no Gezeirah that prohibits her from eating Terumah.

RASHI explains that when the Gemara suggests that the Bas Yisrael may eat Terumah when she is married through Bi'ah or Kesef together with Chupah, it means that she may eat Terumah when "Bi'ah was done after Chupah," and she may eat Terumah when she is betrothed with Kesef and afterwards she enters the Chupah.

Rashi seems to refer to the Bi'ah and Kesef of Kidushin which permit a woman to eat Terumah when done together with Chupah, as all of the Acharonim explain. Why, then, does Rashi write that Bi'ah was done after the Chupah? If Bi'ah creates Kidushin, Rashi should write that the Bi'ah was done before the Chupah, just as he writes with regard to Kesef. How can Chupah be done before the act of Kidushin?

The RASHASH and other Acharonim answer that Rashi indeed maintains that Chupah may be performed before Kidushin, such that when the Kidushin takes effect the wife does not need another Chupah, as the HAGAHOS MORDECHAI (#546) writes in Rashi's name.

However, even if Chupah performed before Kidushin is valid, why does Rashi explain Bi'ah and Kesef differently? He should explain either that both were done before Chupah or that both were done after Chupah. Moreover, why does Rashi need to explain that the Gemara discusses such a strange form of Chupah (one performed before the Bi'ah)? Why does he not explain that the Gemara refers to the normal form of Chupah which is done after the Kidushei Bi'ah? (ATZMOS YOSEF, RASHASH, and others)

ANSWER: Apparently, Rashi is bothered by the manner in which the Gemara rejects this way of understanding the Kal va'Chomer of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah. The Gemara says that if Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah refers to Bi'ah together with Chupah and to Kesef together with Chupah, why does the Beraisa conclude that the Rabanan decreed that a woman should not eat Terumah when she is betrothed with Kidushei Kesef? After Kesef with Chupah, she certainly should be permitted to eat Terumah!

Why does the Gemara accept the Kal va'Chomer and raise a problem only with the conclusion of the Beraisa? The Kal va'Chomer itself should be problematic if Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah refers to Kesef together with Chupah! Why does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah learn that Kesef acquires with Chupah from the fact that Bi'ah acquires with Chupah? If Bi'ah acquires with Chupah, it does so because the verse states that she may eat Terumah once she is married -- "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" (Bamidbar 18:11; see previous Insight). The same verse should teach that a woman may eat Terumah when Chupah is performed after Kidushei Kesef! (See IMREI BINYAMIN.)

This question prompts Rashi to understand that the Gemara is suggesting that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah derives Kesef with Chupah from the case of a woman who performs Bi'ah after her Chupah. The Gemara means that perhaps the verse of "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" refers not only to a woman who is married but also to a woman who has entered the Chupah and performed Bi'ah ("Nichnesah l'Chupah v'Niv'alah"). Accordingly, the verse teaches only that a woman eats Terumah through Bi'ah after Chupah, but not that she may eat Terumah following a normal Chupah performed after Kidushin.

Therefore, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah derives from the Kal va'Chomer that every Chupah, even without Bi'ah, should allow the woman to eat Terumah.

The Gemara rejects this interpretation of the Beraisa on the grounds that the Beraisa should not have concluded that the Rabanan prohibited the woman from eating Terumah when Kesef is given together with Chupah. The Halachah is that a married woman certainly may eat Terumah even before Bi'ah.

Once the Gemara rejects this interpretation, it returns to the understanding that the verse "Kol Tahor b'Veis'cha" indeed refers to a case of "Nichnesah l'Chupah v'Lo Niv'alah" -- when she entered the Chupah but did not yet perform Bi'ah, and that the Kal va'Chomer teaches that even Erusin alone should permit her to eat Terumah.

According to this interpretation, Rashi is not discussing the Bi'ah of Kidushin, and thus he does not mean that Chupah may be done before Kidushin. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Ravina explains that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's Kal va'Chomer teaches that the Rabanan did not prohibit an Arusah from eating Terumah because of the fear of "Simpon." According to Ravina, the Kal va'Chomer asserts that since a Shifchah Kena'anis may eat Terumah when she is acquired with Kinyan Kesef even though Kinyan Bi'ah does not allow her to eat Terumah, certainly a wife whom the Rabanan permitted to eat Terumah after Bi'as Nisu'in should be permitted to eat Terumah after Kesef of Erusin, and the Rabanan should not prohibit her because of "Simpon."

How can such a Kal va'Chomer override the consideration of "Simpon"? The reason why a woman may eat Terumah after Nisu'in is that there is no concern for "Simpon," since a man thoroughly examines his future wife for defects before Nisu'in (Rashi DH Zo). In contrast, after Erusin the husband has not finished examining his wife and thus the concern for "Simpon" remains. How can a Kal va'Chomer dictate that the Rabanan should not prohibit her from eating Terumah, when logically the concern for "Simpon" exists? (PNEI YEHOSHUA, MAHARIT)

(a) The ATZMOS YOSEF explains that according to Ravina, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah does not actually derive this Halachah from a Kal va'Chomer. Rather, he is suggesting a simple "Meh Matzinu": just as the Rabanan did not decree that a Shifchah may not eat Terumah because of the concern for "Simpon," the Rabanan should not decree that a wife may not eat Terumah because of the concern of "Simpon."

In fact, the RAMBAN and RITVA explain throughout the Sugya that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah relies on a "Meh Matzinu." He clearly is not proposing a Kal va'Chomer based on the fact that a Shifchah is not acquired through Bi'ah, because the Kinyan of Bi'ah is not applicable to a Shifchah in the first place (since her Kinyan is a monetary Kinyan and not one of Ishus, matrimony). It is obvious that Bi'ah can create only a bond of Ishus and not a monetary Kinyan; an act of Bi'ah cannot be used to acquire a piece of property. Therefore, the fact that a Shifchah cannot be acquired through Bi'ah does not prove that she is less able to eat Terumah than a wife.

(b) The MAHARIT suggests that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah indeed relies on his Kal va'Chomer, for the following reason. If the Rabanan take into consideration the concern for "Simpon," they should be more concerned for "Simpon" in the case of a Shifchah than in the case of a wife. This is because the possibility that a "Simpon" will occur will remain throughout the Shifchah's servitude, since at any time he may discover a blemish which renders the Kinyan a "Mekach Ta'us." In contrast, a "Simpon" is not a lasting concern in the case of a wife, since at the time they perform Nisu'in the husband has determined that she has no defects. After Nisu'in, there is no longer any concern for the possibility of "Simpon."

According to this reasoning, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's Kal va'Chomer is that the Rabanan did not prevent a Shifchah from eating Terumah even though "Simpon" in the case of a Shifchah is a perpetual concern, because there is no Bi'ah with a Shifchah which would prompt the owner to examine her. Accordingly, the Rabanan certainly should not decree that a wife cannot eat Terumah because of "Simpon," because "Simpon" is less of a concern in the case of a wife due to the husband's eventual conclusion (at the time of Nisu'in) that there is no "Simpon." (Moreover, since a man marries a woman in order to have an intimate relationship with her, he certainly ascertains that there is no "Simpon" from the time of Kidushin.)