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


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

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 57

YEVAMOS 46-60 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel argue whether "Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos" (Rav) or "Ein Chupah l'Pesulos" (Shmuel); that is, they argue whether or not the Chupah that a Kohen performs with a woman, who is a Bas Kohen but is Pesulah from marrying a Kohen (for example, she is an Almanah and is marrying a Kohen Gadol), makes her Pesulah from eating Terumah.

What is the Gemara's question? It should be obvious that such a Chupah will invalidate a woman from eating Terumah! The Mishnah records a Machlokes Tana'im whether doing *Erusin* with a woman who is Pesulah l'Kehunah will invalidate her from eating Terumah. According to Rebbi Meir, who rules that it does, certainly Chupah should invalidate her from eating Terumah, since Chupah follows Erusin!

It does not seem that Shmuel is permitting the woman to eat Terumah only according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon of the Mishnah, who permit an Arusah to eat Terumah. If that was his intention, why didn't Rami Bar Chama (at the end of the Amud) simply say "Ein Chupah l'Pesulos," like Shmuel? Instead Rami Bar Chama said "Just as the Tana'im of the Mishnah argue regarding Erusin, they argue regarding 'Yesh Chupah l'Pesulos,'" implying that according to Shmuel *all* the Tana'im of the Mishnah agree that Ein Chupah l'Pesulos.


(a) RASHI (DH Yesh Chupah) explains that the Gemara is discussing a Chupah *without* Kidushin (Kidushin is another word for Erusin). TOSFOS expands on this and says that Rashi means that our Gemara follows the opinion of Rav Huna in Kidushin (5a) who says that Chupah can be performed as a form of Kidushin, just like "Kesef" and "Shtar." Why, though, should it have less effect on the woman than normal Erusin? According to Shmuel, the way that Chupah works and accomplishes Kidushin is 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. This applies only to a woman to whom he is permitted. Doing Chupah with a woman to whom he is prohibited, though, does not accomplish anything, because it cannot be a sign of "Kiruv Bi'ah" if Bi'ah is prohibited.

Even though the Gemara later (58a) applies Shmuel's ruling to a Chupah done *after* Kidushin, that is because Shmuel holds 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 walks beneath the Chupah, it will be as if nothing was done. Our Gemara, which is discussing whether such a Chupah invalidates her from eating Terumah, must be referring to a Chupah that is done in order to effect Kidushin (for otherwise the Erusin already invalidated her), but the same would apply to a Chupah done after Kidushin, with regard to whether or not she is considered a Nesu'ah after such a Chupah.

(b) From Rashi's words, however, it does not seem that this is Rashi's intention. Rashi later (58a, DH l'Rebbi Meir) cites the opinion that argues with Rav Huna in Kidushin. Rashi writes that Chupah cannot be Koneh a woman at all without Kidushei Kesef, Shtar, or Bi'ah, even when the woman is completely permitted to marry the man and is not Pesulah. The RASHBA and RITVA also assert that Rashi is *not* explaining the Gemara according to the opinion that Chupah effects Kidushin, but rather Chupah can only effect Nisu'in. This is also the understanding of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 7:21).

They question Rashi's explanation, though, and ask how Chupah that precedes Kidushin can make the woman Pesulah? That Chupah does not effect anything! The Rashba answers that even though Chupah is not Koneh in place of Kidushin, nevertheless since she brought herself closer to Bi'ah Pesulah, the Chachamim enacted (perhaps as a penalty, see Ritva) that she should be prohibited her from eating Terumah. The Ritva, who considers this suggestion as well, rejects it on logical grounds.

It could be, however, that Rashi is following his own opinion elsewhere, that Chupah actually accomplishes something even when done before Kidushin. What it accomplishes is that if Kidushin is later performed, it will not be necessary to have another Chupah (as cited in Rashi's name by the HAGAHOS MORDECHAI in Kidushin #546). Rashi hints to this view in Kidushin (10b, DH Hechi Dami), as the RASHASH points out there.

Accordingly, the Gemara's question refers to when Chupah is done before Kidushin. The doubt of the Gemara is that perhaps such a Chupah with a Pesulah is *greater* cause (than Erusin with a Pesulah) to invalidate her from eating Terumah, because the act of Chupah is closer to making her Pesulah to Terumah (through Bi'ah). On the other hand, it might be *less* reason to invalidate her, because it does not accomplish a "Kinyan" in and of itself (i.e. without first effecting Kidushin), as opposed to Kidushin, which is a Kinyan in and of itself. (Rashi later, 58a DH u'Shema Mina, when discussing the opinion of Rav Sheshes, also alludes to the possibility that Chupah with a Pesulah does not invalidate her from eating Terumah because it cannot create Nisu'in altogether when the woman is not permitted to the husband -- as Tosfos suggested, (a) above.)

(c) TOSFOS says that the Gemara is referring to a Chupah performed after Erusin. The reason Shmuel says that even Rebbi Meir permits her to eat Terumah is because he is referring to a case where the woman was *widowed or divorced* after the Chupah but before the Bi'ah. Our Mishnah says that after being divorced from Erusin, even Rebbi Meir agrees that she may continue to eat Terumah. After being divorced from Nisu'in, even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon agree that she may *not* continue to eat Terumah. The Machlokes 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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,