Yevamot 114

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>

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>

אמר רבא אף אנן נמי תנינא בת שלש שנים ויום אחד מתקדשת בביאה ואם בא עליה יבם קנאה וחייבין עליה משום אשת איש ומטמאה את בועלה לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון

&nbsp; Said Samuel: Abba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab, whose proper name was Abba. The former name (Rab = Master) was a title of honour conferred upon him as the Master par excellence of his time. According to Rashi, a.l., 'Abba' was a term of respect synonymous with 'prince' and 'master' by which Samuel, his younger contemporary, referred to Rab. ');">⁵</span> agrees with me in the case of a girl who is under three years of age and one day; since cohabitation with her constitutes no <i>kinyan</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 385, n. 12. ');">⁶</span> the bridal chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which constitutes kinyan only where cohabitation is possible, but which is not the case with a child under the age mentioned. ');">⁷</span>

נשאת לכהן אוכלת בתרומה בא עליה אחד מכל הפסולין פסלה

also constitutes no <i>kinyan</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 385, n. 12. ');">⁶</span> Raba said, We also learned a similar Baraitha:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which the ruling on which Rab and Samuel are in agreement may he inferred. ');">⁸</span> <font>A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is deemed to be his legal wife. ');">⁹</span></font>

בת שלש שנים ויום אחד הוא דמפסלה בביאה מפסלה בחופה הא פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד דלא מפסלה בביאה לא מפסלה נמי בחופה שמע מינה

one incurs through her the guilt of intercourse with a married woman; she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During her period of menstruation. ');">¹⁰</span> defiles her cohabitor in respect of his imparting defilement to the lower, as well as to the upper couch;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he lies on a number of couches (coverlets, bed-spreads, and the like) resting one upon the other, he imparts levitical defilement to all, though he comes in direct contact with the uppermost one only. ');">¹¹</span> if she was married to a priest she may eat <i>terumah</i>, and anyone ineligible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bastard, for instance, ');">¹²</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא יש חופה לפסולות באנו למחלוקת רבי מאיר ורבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון

who cohabited with her causes her ineligibility.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, supra p. 385, n, 12. Cf. Kid. 10af, v. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 376, n. 2. ');">¹³</span> Thus only a girl of the age of three years and one day, who is rendered ineligible by cohabitation, is also rendered ineligible through the bridal chamber; <font>but a girl younger than three years and one day, who is not rendered ineligible by cohabitation</font>, is not rendered ineligible through the bridal chamber either.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 3. ');">¹⁴</span> This proves it. Rami b. Hama stated: [In regard to the question whether] the bridal chamber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 385, n, 11. ');">¹⁵</span> constitutes <i>kinyan</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 12. ');">¹⁶</span> with ineligible women,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 13. ');">¹⁷</span> we arrive at a difference of opinion between R. Meir and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon.