Commentary for Yevamot 114:2

אמר שמואל ומודה לי אבא בתינוקת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד הואיל ואין לה ביאה אין לה חופה

and Samuel said, 'The bridal chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If unaccompanied by any other forms of matrimonial kinyan. V. supra n. 11. ');">⁴</span> does not constitute <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 114:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.