Kiddushin

so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a zab].1 If she married2 a priest, she may partake of terumah;3 if any of the forbidden degrees4 interdicted by Scripture cohabited with her, they are executed on her account,5 but she is exempt;6 if an unfit person7 cohabits with her, he disqualifies her from priesthood.8 Thus [here too] intercourse is taught,9 and also ‘if she married’! — This may be its meaning: If this marriage10 was with a priest, she may partake of terumah. Come and hear: Johanan b. Bag Bag had already sent [word] to R. Judah b. Bathyra at Nisibis:11 I have heard of you that you maintain, An arusah, the daughter of an Israelite [betrothed to a priest], may eat terumah. He sent back: And do you not rule likewise? I am certain of you that you are well versed in the profundities12 of the Torah [and able] to infer a minori. Do you not know: if a Gentile bondmaid, whose intercourse does not permit her to eat of terumah,13 yet her money14 permits her to eat of terumah; then this one [an arusah], whose intercourse [with a priest] permits her to eat of terumah, surely her money15 permits her to eat terumah. But what can I do, seeing that the Sages ruled: An arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, may not eat terumah until she enters huppah?16 How so? If [the reference is to] intercourse following huppah, and money followed by huppah, in both cases she may certainly eat. But if to intercourse with huppah, and money without huppah: here there are two, while there is only one,17 Hence it must surely refer to both intercourse and money without huppah. Now, if you say that it [intercourse] effects nissu'in, it is well: hence it is obvious to him that Intercourse is stronger than money.18 But if you say that it effects only kiddushin [i.e., erusin], why is he certain in the one case and doubtful in the other? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: After all, I can tell you that [the reference is to] intercourse with huppah and money without huppah. And as to your objection, here there are two, while there is only one: nevertheless the a minori proposition holds good, and it was thus he sent word to him: If a Gentile bondmaid, whose intercourse does not permit her to eat of terumah even after huppah, yet her money even without huppah authorizes her to eat terumah,’ then this one, whose intercourse when accompanied by huppah permits her to eat terumah, Surely her money even without intercourse permits her to eat terumah. But what can I do, seeing that the Sages ruled: An arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, may not partake of terumah until she enters huppah, on account of ‘Ulla's statement.19 And [Johanan] b. Bag Bag?20 — In the case of a Gentile bondmaid he omits nothing of her acquisition;21 but here he has left undone part of her acquisition.22 Rabina said: By Biblical law he was quite certain that she may eat, and it was only by Rabbinical law that he [R. Johanan b. Bag Bag] sent word to him [that she is forbidden], and he sent thus to him: I have heard of you that you rule: An arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, may eat of terumah, and you disregard the possibility of nullification.23 He sent back: And do you not rule likewise? I am certain that you are well versed in the profundities of the Torah, [and able] to infer a minori. Do you not know: if a Gentile bondmaid, whose intercourse does not permit her to eat terumah, yet her money does, and we do not fear the possibility of nullification;24 then this one [sc. an arusah], whose intercourse permits her to eat terumah,25 surely her money does, and we may disregard the possibility of nullification. But what can I do, seeing that the Sages ruled: An arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, may not partake of terumah actually touch it. But the degree of uncleanliness it thereby acquires is not the same as that of the bedding upon which she herself or a zab (v. Glos.) lies. For in the latter case, the bedding in turn defiles any person or utensil with which it comes into contact; whereas in the former, it can only defile foodstuffs and liquids. This is the same degree of uncleanliness possessed by a garment which has lain upon or been borne by a zab, v. Nid. 44b. so that the marriage cannot be consummated, and hence she may not eat terumah. Obermeyer, p. 229. the question of the status conferred by intercourse, since all admit that even an arusah may, Biblically speaking, eat terumah.