(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kesuvos, 58

1) THE REASON WHY AN "ARUSAH" WHO IS BETROTHED TO A KOHEN MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah regarding the reason why the Rabanan decreed that a woman who is betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah. According to Ula, we are afraid that she might feed the Terumah to her brothers and sisters (who are not Kohanim) since she is still living in her father's home. According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, we are afraid of "Simpon" (a "revocation" of the marriage) -- the husband might discover later that the woman has a blemish, making the Kidushin a "Mekach Ta'us" (an acquisition in error). The betrothal will be annulled retroactively, and thus retroactively the woman will have transgressed the Isur d'Oraisa of eating Terumah.

The Gemara says that the practical difference between these two opinions are the cases of "Kibel, Masar, v'Halach" (literally, "he accepted, he gave over, and he went"). RASHI explains that "Masar v'Halach" refers to when the father "gave over" his daughter to the husband, or when the father's emissaries "went" with the emissaries of the husband when bringing the Kalah to the husband's home. In such cases, there is still a fear of "Simpon" (because the husband does not fully examine her for blemishes until the time that he starts supporting her), but there is no fear that she will feed Terumah to her siblings, because she has already left her father and her father's home.

The Gemara concludes later on this page that nowadays the Kalah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is performed, not like the original enactment mentioned in the Mishnah. This is because of "Simpon," since the husband does not finish examining her for blemishes until the Chupah.

According to the Gemara's conclusion, it should be clear that if the father gives over his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, she still cannot eat Terumah, because there still is a fear of "Simpon." How can this be reconciled with the Gemara earlier (48b) in which Rav Asi states that from the time of the Mesirah (giving over) of the woman to the emissaries of the husband, the woman may eat Terumah? (It is true that Rav argues in that Gemara and says that she may not eat Terumah at that point. However, Rav Asi maintains that she can. How can his view be reconciled with the Gemara here?)

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS YESHANIM (in the margin of the Gemara) writes that Rav and Rav Asi argue whether the husband already checks for blemishes at the time the father gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries (as Tosfos says on 48b, DH Rav Asi). Our Sugya follows the opinion of Rav. Rav Asi holds the husband *does* check for blemishes at the time he gives over his daughter to the husband's emissaries, and therefore Mesirah ("Masar") will not be a practical difference between the reasons given by Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah. (See Tosfos there who raises a question on this answer.)

(b) TOSFOS in Kidushin (11a, DH Kibel) and the RITVA in our Sugya explain that the words "Masar v'Halach" are not two different cases, but they refer to a single case. The case to which they refer is when the father gave over ("Masar") his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, and then the father went along with them ("Halach") to the husband's home. (That explains why it says "Halach" in the singular ("he went") and not "Halchu" in the plural ("they went").) Since the father is traveling with the husband's emissaries, the woman cannot eat Terumah even according to Rav Asi.

(c) The RA'AVAD, cited by the RASHBA, explains that all three words are describing a single case. "Kibel" means that the father accepted the money of Kidushin, and "Masar v'Halach" means that immediately upon receiving the Kidushin, the father gave his daughter over to the husband, who took her with him to his home. There is a fear of "Simpon" because the husband obviously did not have enough time to check for blemishes.

Accordingly, it is possible that Rav Asi maintains that she may eat Terumah only when the father gives her over to the husband after a period of time long enough for the husband to have checked her for blemishes.

(d) RASHI (48b) suggests the simplest answer. He says that Rav and Rav Asi, who argue whether the Kalah may eat Terumah from the time of the Mesirah, also argue concerning the reason why the Rabanan prohibited an Arusah from eating Terumah. Rav holds like Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, that the reason she may not eat Terumah is because of "Simpon," and that is why she is still prohibited from eating Terumah after Mesirah. Rav Asi holds like Ula, that the reason she may not eat Terumah is because she might feed her siblings Terumah, and thus once she has left her father's home, she may eat Terumah because there is no fear that she will feed her siblings.

Although our Gemara concludes that nowadays a Kalah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah because of "Simpon" (and not because of the fear that she might feed Terumah to her siblings), there is a Tana in Kidushin (10b) who says that the reason an Arusah may not eat Terumah until the Chupah is because she might feed her siblings, and not only because of "Simpon" (see PNEI YEHOSHUA on 48b and SHITAH MEKUBETZES there). Even though she normally eats what her Chasan gives her in a separate section of the house, there is still a concern that she might feed her siblings (even after twelve months have passed).

However, there is a problem with this answer. According to Rashi's explanation, "Halach" means that the emissaries of the father went along with the emissaries of the husband. How could that be a practical difference between Ula and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah? In such a case, even Rav Asi -- who holds like Ula that we are afraid that she will feed her siblings Terumah -- says that she cannot eat Terumah. If the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband, all Amora'im agree that she cannot eat Terumah until she is formally given over through Mesirah to the emissaries of the husband. How can Rashi say that there is no fear that she might feed her siblings Terumah in a case of "Halach!" (PNEI YEHOSHUA 48b, and REBBI AKIVA EIGER here)

To answer this, we must first answer another question on Rashi's explanation. How could Rashi say that in a case of "Halach," where the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband, there is no concern that she will feed Terumah to her siblings because they are not with her? According to that reasoning, we should say that every time she walks out of her father's home without her siblings she is permitted to eat Terumah! Obviously this is not the case, since we assume that she is going to come back into the home and eat again with her siblings, and thus we prohibit her from eating Terumah because she is still going to eat with her siblings in the future. Accordingly, the same should apply to a case where the emissaries of the father went with the emissaries of the husband. Perhaps the emissaries of the father, in whose custody he put his daughter, will turn back and return the daughter to her father's home. In the case of "Masar" this is not a problem, since the Kalah has already been given over to the husband and she is now under his guardianship and she cannot return to live in her father's home. But while she is still in the guardianship of her father, she should be prohibited to eat Terumah! (See He'aros b'Maseches Kesuvos, for a similar question in the name of Hagaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.)

The answer to this question appears to be as follows. Rashi does not mean that she is permitted to eat Terumah from the moment that the emissaries of the father walk away with the emissaries of the husband. She is still prohibited to eat Terumah at that point, since they might turn around and bring her back to her father's home. Rather, after the emissaries of the father give her over to the emissaries of the husband, then she may begin eating Terumah because she is in the husband's domain.

Why, though, does Rashi say that at the time that the emissaries of t2he father went with the emissaries of the husband, she may already eat Terumah? The answer is that Rashi understands that once the emissaries of the father give her over to the emissaries of the husband, then that shows that from the time that the emissaries of the father left his home to escort her to the husband's home, she was not going to come back, and thus *retroactive1y* she could eat Terumah from that point.

If, practically, she cannot actually eat Terumah from that point (since she cannot *eat* retroactively!), what difference does it make to say that she may eat Terumah from the time that the emissaries of the father depart with her with the emissaries of the husband? The practical difference might be in a case where the woman ate Terumah after the emissaries of the father left with the emissaries of the husband but *before* before they gave her over to the emissaries of the husband. If she was prohibited mid'Rabanan from eating Terumah, then she would have to pay restitution of "Keren v'Chomesh" (the principal plus a fifth) like any non-Kohen who eats Terumah. But if, retroactively, it becomes permitted for her to eat Terumah, then she does not have to pay restitution if she improperly ate Terumah before she was handed over to the emissaries of the husband.

It is now clear why Rav Asi states that it is permitted for her to eat Terumah from the time of Mesirah. Rav Asi is referring to when she is permitted to eat Terumah *l'Chatchilah*. The Gemara here, on the other hand, says that as soon as she goes with the emissaries of the father in order to be given to the emissaries of the husband, b'Di'eved she may eat Terumah from that point after she has been given over to the emissaries of the husband.

Why does Rashi explain the Gemara this way? Why does he not explain that "Halach" means that the emissaries of the father gave her over to the emissaries of the husband? Why does he say that they *went* with the emissaries of the husband? The answer is that Rashi understands that if that is what "Halach" means, then there would be no reason for the Gemara to mention "Masar v'Halach" as two different cases. If she is permitted to eat Terumah in both cases because she has been given over to the husband or to his emissaries, then it does not make a difference who gave her over, her father or his emissaries. That is why Rashi learns that the case of "Halach" refers to *before* she was given over to the emissaries of the husband. (M. Kornfeld)


58b

Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il