ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 10
KIDUSHIN 7-10 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi
Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak
Ozer) Turkel, A"H.
(a) Rebbi learns from "Be'ulas Ba'al" that only her husband makes her a
Be'ulah through a Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah, but not someone else. Rebbi Zeira
reconciles this with the Beraisa (which we quoted a little earlier), where
Rebbi commutes the sentence of the subsequent nine adulterers to Chenek - by
confining the D'rashah from "Be'ulas Ba'al" to K'nas (when she is not an
Arusah, but not to their death-penalty, when she is).
We just explained how according to Rebbi, a husband renders a woman a
Be'ulah (even though others don't) from "Be'ulas Ba'al". Rebbi Yochanan
(who derives Kidushei Bi'ah from there), learns that a husband renders a
woman a Be'ulah (even though others don't) from the expression "Be'ulas
Ba'al" (when the Torah should otherwise have written "Be'ulas Ish").
(b) He learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the rape of a Na'arah
Besulah)"u'Meis ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah *Levado*" - that when it comes to
the death penalty, only the first adulterer receives Sekilah, as we just
(c) The Rabbanan (who hold that all ten receive Sekilah) explain "Levado"
like Rebbi Yonasan in a Beraisa, who learns from there - that a man who
commits adultery with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, receives Sekilah even though
the girl does not (i.e. if she is a Ketanah).
(d) Rebbi Yoshiyah disputes this. He learns from the Pasuk there (in
connection with the same case, but where the woman was a willing partner)
"u'Meisu Gam Sheneihem" - that the man is only Chayav if the girl is Chayav
too (but not if she is a Ketanah).
(a) One of the ramifications of the She'eilah whether it is the beginning of
Bi'ah (Ha'ara'ah) that acquires the woman or the end is, if, should she
accept Kidushin from another man between the two, the second Kidushin is
valid or not. The other one concerns a Kohen Gadol - whether he is permitted
to acquire a wife through Bi'ah. Because, by the time he concludes the
Bi'ah, she is already a Be'ulah, and, assuming that he did not acquire her
at the time of Ha'ara'ah, he will not fulfil his obligation of marrying a
(b) Ameimar Amar Rava rules - that the Mekadesh has in mind to acquire the
woman only at the end of Bi'ah (like the second side of the She'eilah).
(c) We ask whether Bi'ah makes Nisu'in or Erusin. The three ramifications of
this She'eilah are - regarding inheritance and burying her in the event of
her death and annuling her vows.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa list the rights of a father in his daughter.
The three rights that he has over and above those concerning the Kesef,
Sh'tar and Bi'ah of her Kidushin and concerning her Get are - in what she
finds, in what she produces and regarding unnuling her Nedarim.
(b) The rights that he does not have, which her husband subsequently does
are - that he does the Peiros of any property that she inherits from
(c) Abaye attempts to prove from the fact that the Tana mentioned her
marriage, after 'Kesef, Sh'tar and Bi'ah', that Bi'ah makes Kidushin. We
refute this however, on the grounds that - her marriage refers to the other
two cases of Kidushin, which certainly make Eirusin and not Nisuin.
(a) Rava too, tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa. The Beraisa
says 'Miskadeshes be'Bi'ah, ve'Im Ba Alehah Yavam, Kan'ah ve'Chayavin Alehah
Mishum Eishes Ish' - about a girl who has turned three.
If the girl who is over three marries a Kohen, she is permitted to eat
Terumah, and if one of the Arayos has relations with her, *he* is Chayav
even though she is not. We refute Rava's proof from the fact that this Tana
too, after mentioning Bi'ah, adds 've'Im Niseis le'Kohen ... ' (implying
that Bi'ah makes Eirusin) - by explaining it to mean that if the
aforementioned Nisu'in (through Bi'ah) was to a Kohen, she may eat Terumah.
(b) When the Tana says 'u'Metamah es Bo'alah Letamei Mishkav Tachton
ke'Elyon' - he means that someone who is Bo'el a Nidah is Tamei for seven
days, to the point of making any sheets on which he subsequently lies (even
if there are ten sheets beneath him) Rishon le'Tum'ah (to make food and
drink a Sheini, but not people and vessels), like the sheets that cover a
(c) A Nidah herself is more stringent in this regard - inasmuch as she
renders all the sheets underneath her an Av ha'Tum'ah (to render even people
and vessels Tamei, too).
(d) If she is under three - the Bo'el will be Tamei for only one day, like
someone who touches a Nidah.
We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Kinyan Kaspo Hu Yochal Bo" - that whatever belongs to the Kohen,
such as his Eved Cana'ani, may eat Terumah.
2. ... "Kol Tahor be'Veischa Yochal Oso" - that even his wife may eat
(a) ben Bag-Bag sent to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira querying what he had heard
in his name - that an Arusah bas Yisrael to a Kohen is permitted to eat
(b) The latter replied that he was surprised to hear that he (ben Bag-Bag
did not agree with this, seeing as we could learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer'
from Shifchah Cana'anis, who could not eat Terumah through Bi'ah, yet she
could eat it through Kesef, in which case an Arusah bas Yisrael, who could
eat Terumah through Bi'ah, could certainly eat it through Kesef.
(c) Bi'ah with a Shifchah Cana'anis does not feed her Terumah, because
neither does it make her 'Kinyan Kaspo', nor is Kidushin applicable with a
(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira ascribes the prohibition of an Arusah to eat
Terumah as a Takanas Chachamim (in case she hands a cup of Terumah to her
siblings, who are forbidden to drink it).
(a) With regard to the 'Kal va'Chomer' (regarding learning an Arusah bas
Yisrael from a Shifchah Cana'anis, the Tana cannot be speaking ...
1. ... when both the Bi'ah and the Kesef were followed by Chupah - because
then Kesef would feed her Terumah, too.
(b) So we attempt to establish the Beraisa - when both are speaking when
there was no Chupah, proving that Bi'ah makes Chupah (otherwise why would it
be more obvious that Bi'ah acquires more than Kesef?
2. ... (according to our initially understanding) when the Bi'ah was
followed by Chupah but the Kesef was not - because then how could we learn
that Kesef (on its own) should acquire, from the fact that Bi'ah acquires
together with Chupah?
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes the proof by establishing the Beraisa
when the Bi'ah was followed by Chupah, but the Kesef was not. He dispenses
with the problem that we just had with this - by entering that very point
into the 'Kal va'Chomer' and saying that if a Shifchah Cana'anis, who could
not eat Terumah through Bi'ah (even in conjunction with Chupah), yet she
could eat it through Kesef alone, then an Arusah bas Yisrael, who could eat
Terumah through Bi'ah in conjunction with Chupah, could certainly eat it
through Kesef alone.
(d) ben Bag-Bag counters Rebbi Yehudah's 'Kal va'Chomer', by making a clear
distinction between the Kinyan Kesef of an Arusah - which is still lacking
Chupah, and that of a Shifchah Cana'anis, which is complete. It would
therefore be logical to say that even if a Shifchah can eat, an Arusah
(a) According to Ravina, ben Bag-Bag concedes that min ha'Torah, an Arusah
bas Yisrael is permitted to eat Terumah. The message that he sent to Rebbi
Yehudah ben Beseira was - that he was surprised that he did not forbid it
because of 'Simpon' (perhaps he will find some blemish on her which will
render the Kidushin invalid, nullifying her right to eat Terumah
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira replied - that, if we did not worry about
Simpon regarding a Shifchah whom Kinyan Kesef permits to eat Terumah (even
though Bi'ah does not), then we should certainly not worry about Simpon with
regard to an Arusah bas Yisrael, whom even a Kinyan Kesef feeds Terumah too!
(c) ben Bag-Bag argues with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira however, inasmuch as,
in his opinion, the entire concept of Simpon does not apply to Avadim (in
which case there is no room for a 'Kal va'Chomer'), as we shall now see.