Commentary for Yevamot 114:1

יש חופה לפסולות ושמואל אמר אין חופה לפסולות

'The bridal chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is huppah' (v. Glos.), even if it was unaccompanied by any other form of betrothal such as money, deed, or cohabitation (Rashi). On huppah v. Kid., Sonc. ed. p. 5, n. 7, ');">¹</span> constitutes <i>kinyan</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To deprive the woman of her right to eat terumah where, as the daughter of a priest, she had previously been entitled to this privilege. ');">²</span> with ineligible women'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom one is not permitted to marry; a widow, e.g., to a High Priest or a divorcee to a common priest. On Rashi's interpretation which is followed here, both Rab and Samuel hold with R. Huna (v. Kid. 3a) that huppah by itself constitutes kinyan. They differ, however, in the case of ineligible women, Samuel being of the opinion that huppah with them constitutes no kinyan, since it does not allow them to enter into marital union. Rabbenu Tam, on the other hand, explains huppah here as having been preceded by kiddushin and with reference to the last clause of our Mishnah, the point at issue being whether with ineligible women it is considered nissu'in disqualifying the widow, or erusin; v. Tosaf s.v. [H]. ');">³</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 114:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.