Commentary for Yevamot 115:5

נכנסו מכלל דנישאו נישאו ממש

R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: Any woman whose cohabitation entitles her to the eating of <i>terumah</i> is also entitled to the eating of it through her entry into the bridal chamber, and any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat <i>terumah</i> is not entitled through her entry into the bridal chamber also to the eating of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she was the daughter of an Israelite (v. Keth. 57a). As the bridal chamber and cohabitation are in this case placed on the same level, it follows that in the case of the daughter of a priest also, if she loses her right to the terumah by cohabitation, she also loses it by entry into the bridal chamber. Thus it has been shewn that the question referred to by Rami b. Hama is a matter of dispute between the first Tanna and R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Broka. ');">⁸</span> Whence, [however, the proof]? Is it not possible that R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka is of the same opinion as R. Meir, who maintains that through betrothal alone a woman is not entitled to eat! — Instead, then, of the statement 'Any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat <i>terumah</i> is not entitled through her entry into the bridal chamber also to the eating of it', the statement should have run, 'Any woman upon whom cohabitation does not confer the right to eat <i>terumah</i>, is not entitled through her money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The token of betrothal. ');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 115:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.