12th CYCLE DEDICATIONS
 
YEVAMOS 57-58 (13-14 Tamuz) - Dedicated by Andy & Nancy Neff in honor of the completion of thirty days since the passing of Leah Miriam bat Yisroel (Lucy) Rabin. Beloved mother of Nancy Neff, Valerie, Doug and Andy Rabin, and wife of Sidney Rabin, Lucy Rabin was Nifteres this past 14th of Sivan.

57b----------------------------------------57b

1) "EIN CHUPAH L'PESULOS"
QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether "Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos" (Rav) or "Ein Chupah l'Pesulos" (Shmuel). Is the Chupah which a Kohen performs with a Bas Kohen who is not permitted to marry a Kohen (such as a divorcee) considered a valid Chupah such that it terminates her rights to eat Terumah?
The Gemara's discussion seems unnecessary. It should be obvious that such a Chupah disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah. The Mishnah records a dispute among Tana'im whether Erusin (betrothal) with a woman who is Pesulah l'Kehunah disqualifies her from eating Terumah. According to Rebbi Meir who maintains that Erusin disqualifies her from eating Terumah, Chupah certainly should disqualify her since Chupah follows Erusin.
It is unlikely that Shmuel permits the woman to eat Terumah only according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (in the Mishnah) who permit an Arusah to eat Terumah. If that is his intent, Rami bar Chama (at the end of the page) should say simply, "Ein Chupah l'Pesulos," like Shmuel. Instead, Rami bar Chama says, "Just as the Tana'im of the Mishnah argue with regard to Erusin, they argue with regard to 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos.'" His words imply that according to Shmuel all of the Tana'im in the Mishnah agree that "Ein Chupah l'Pesulos."
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (DH Yesh Chupah) explains that the case in which Rav and Shmuel disagree is a Chupah without Kidushin (the word "Kidushin" is synonymous with "Erusin"). TOSFOS elucidates and says that Rashi means that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rav Huna in Kidushin (5a) who says that Chupah may be performed as a form of Kidushin, like "Kesef" and "Shtar." Why, though, does it have less of an effect on the woman than an ordinary act of Erusin? According to Shmuel, Chupah works to accomplish Kidushin by demonstrating "Kiruv Bi'ah" -- it shows that the man is beginning to bring the woman into his home and to feel comfortable with her. Accordingly, Chupah can work only with a woman to whom he is permitted. Chupah with a woman to whom he is prohibited accomplishes nothing because it cannot serve as a sign of "Kiruv Bi'ah," as Bi'ah is prohibited.
When the Gemara later (58a) applies Shmuel's ruling to a case of a Chupah done after Kidushin, it does so only because Shmuel maintains that Chupah cannot accomplish Nisu'in with a woman who is Pesulah l'Kehunah (for the same reason it cannot accomplish Erusin with such a woman). Even though she entered the Chupah, the act is meaningless and is as if nothing was done. When the Gemara here discusses whether or not such a Chupah disqualifies her from eating Terumah, it must refer to a Chupah done in order to effect Kidushin (for, otherwise, the Erusin already disqualified her from Terumah), but the same question would apply to a Chupah done after Kidushin (does such a Chupah give her the status of a Nesu'ah or not?).
(b) The words of Rashi, however, imply a different intent. Rashi later (58a, DH l'Rebbi Meir) cites the opinion which disagrees with Rav Huna in Kidushin. Rashi writes that Chupah cannot be Koneh a woman at all without an act of Kidushei Kesef, Shtar, or Bi'ah, even when the woman is permitted to marry the man and is not Pesulah. The RASHBA and RITVA also assert that Rashi does not mean to explain the Gemara according to the opinion that Chupah effects Kidushin, but only according to the opinion that Chupah effects Nisu'in. This is also the understanding of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 7:21).
The Rishonim, however, question Rashi's explanation. How can a Chupah which precedes Kidushin disqualify the woman? Such a Chupah is meaningless and accomplishes nothing! The Rashba answers that even though Chupah cannot be Koneh in place of Kidushin, the Chachamim enacted (perhaps as a penalty; see Ritva) that she becomes prohibited from eating Terumah since she has brought herself closer to Bi'ah Pesulah. (The Ritva, who considers this suggestion as well, rejects it on logical grounds.)
Perhaps Rashi maintains that an act of Chupah accomplishes something even when it is done before Kidushin: if a proper Kidushin is later done, the act of Chupah done before Kidushin suffices and it is unnecessary to do another act of Chupah after Kidushin (as cited in the name of Rashi by the HAGAHOS MORDECHAI, Kidushin #546). Rashi alludes to this view in Kidushin (10b, DH Heichi Dami), as the RASHASH mentions.
Accordingly, the Gemara's question applies to a case of Chupah done before Kidushin. The Gemara is in doubt whether such a Chupah with a woman who is Pesulah is more of a cause (than Erusin with a Pesulah) to disqualify her from eating Terumah, because the act of Chupah brings her closer to the Bi'ah which will disqualify her from Terumah. On the other hand, Chupah done before Kidushin might be less of a reason to disqualify her from Terumah because it does not accomplish a "Kinyan" by itself (without Kidushin), as opposed to Kidushin which is a Kinyan by itself. (When Rashi later discusses the opinion of Rav Sheshes (58a, DH u'Shema Minah), he also alludes to the possibility that Chupah with a Pesulah does not disqualify her from eating Terumah because it cannot create Nisu'in at all when the woman is not permitted to the husband, as Tosfos suggests (see (a) above).)
(c) TOSFOS explains that the Gemara refers to a Chupah performed after Erusin. The reason why Shmuel says that even Rebbi Meir permits her to eat Terumah is that he refers to a case in which the woman was widowed or divorced after the Chupah but before the Bi'ah. The Mishnah says that when a woman is divorced as an Arusah (after Erusin and before Nisu'in), even Rebbi Meir agrees that she may continue to eat Terumah. When a woman is divorced as a Nesu'ah (after Nisu'in), even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that she may not continue to eat Terumah. The dispute between Rav and Shmuel is whether a divorce after the Chupah (but before Bi'ah) is equivalent to a divorce during Erusin or to a divorce during Nisu'in. Rami bar Chama compromises and says that according to Rebbi Meir (who is more stringent) it is like a divorce from Nisu'in, but according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (who are more lenient) it is like a divorce from Erusin.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF