Kiddushin 20

so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a zab].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man who has sexual connections with a menstruant woman defiles that upon which he lies, even if he does not 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.');">¹</span> If she married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 8.');">²</span>

a priest, she may partake of terumah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an Israelite's adult daughter who married a priest. But if she is less than three years old, she is sexually immature, so that the marriage cannot be consummated, and hence she may not eat terumah.');">³</span> if any of the forbidden degrees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., her father or brother.');">⁴</span>

interdicted by Scripture cohabited with her, they are executed on her account,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are of those forbidden on pain of death.');">⁵</span> but she is exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being a minor.');">⁶</span>

if an unfit person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a heathen or bastard.');">⁷</span> cohabits with her, he disqualifies her from priesthood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., she may not marry a priest.');">⁸</span>

Thus [here too] intercourse is taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that intercourse only effects erusin.');">⁹</span> and also 'if she married'! - This may be its meaning: If this marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the intercourse mentioned in the first clause.');">¹⁰</span>

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A city in N.E. Mesopotamia; its Jewish population was already of importance during the second Temple. J.E. s.v.; Obermeyer, p. 229.');">¹¹</span>

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 profundities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'chambers'.');">¹²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest cohabits with her without having previously acquired her with money.');">¹³</span> yet her money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money given for her by a priest.');">¹⁴</span>

permits her to eat of terumah; then this one [an arusah], whose intercourse [with a priest] permits her to eat of terumah, surely her money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby she is acquired as an arusah.');">¹⁵</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., becomes a nesu'ah.');">¹⁶</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can money without huppah be deduced from intercourse and huppah?');">¹⁷</span>

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it certainly authorises her to eat terumah, and he proceeds to deduce that money has the same power.');">¹⁸</span>

But if you say that it effects onl 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹⁹</span> And [Johanan] B'Bag Bag?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not accept this a minori deduction?');">²⁰</span> - In the case of a Gentile bondmaid he omits nothing of her acquisition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once he gives the money, she is absolutely his.');">²¹</span> but here he has left undone part of her acquisition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After intercourse she still lacks huppah before he ranks as her heir and may defile himself on her account.');">²²</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through a bodily defect discovered in the woman, which may invalidate the betrothal. Hence this has no bearing on the question of the status conferred by intercourse, since all admit that even an arusah may, Biblically speaking, eat terumah.');">²³</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bodily defect which may entitle the priest to cancel the purchase.');">²⁴</span> then this one [sc. an arusah], whose intercourse permits her to eat terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since the arus would not have had intercourse with her without first making enquiries concerning her (Tosaf.) .]');">²⁵</span> 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