Ketubot, Daf Nun Zayin, Part 6
Introduction
This sugya discusses why the rabbis prohibited a woman from eating terumah until she
reaches huppah.
:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ ארוסה בת ישראל אוכלת בתרומה‬,‫ דבר תורה‬:‫ אמר עולא‬.‫הגיע זמן ולא נישאו‬
‫ מה טעם אמרו אינה‬,‫ והאי נמי קנין כספו הוא‬,‫ וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו‬+‫ויקרא כ"ב‬+
.‫אוכלת? שמא ימזגו לה כוס בבית אביה ותשקה לאחיה ולאחותה‬
If the time had come and they were not married: Ulla stated: The daughter of an
Israelite who is betrothed [to a priest] is, according to toraitic law, permitted to
eat terumah, for it said, "But if a priest buy any person, the purchase of his
money" and that [woman] also is the purchase of his money. What then is the
reason why [the rabbis] ruled that she is not permitted to eat [terumah]? Lest
they mix her a cup [of terumah] in her father's home and she gives it her brother
or sister to drink.
According to Ulla, from the point of betrothal, a woman is considered a priest’s wife such
that she could eat terumah. However, the rabbis prohibited this lest by giving her terumah in
her father’s house, where she is living while still betrothed, she come to give some terumah
wine to her family who are not priests.
.‫ הגיע זמן ולא נישאו נמי! התם דוכתא מייחד לה‬,‫אי הכי‬
If so, [the same should apply] if the time had come and they were not married?
In that case he designates for her a special place.
The mishnah said that when the time to be married arrives, the husband may give her terumah
even though she is still in her father’s home. But why are we not concerned lest she gives the
terumah to her non-kohanic family? The answer is that when the time to marry comes, the
husband will designate a place for her to live. [Note, I doubt that this reflects historical
reality].
,‫ דלמא אתו למיכל בהדיה! השתא מדידהו ספו ליה‬,‫ לקיט כהן לישראל לא ליכול בתרומה‬,‫אלא מעתה‬
?‫מדידיה אכלי‬
If so, a kohen harvest worker [working] for an Israelite should not be allowed to eat terumah,
since it is possible that [members of household of the Israelite] would come to eat with him!
How so! Now that they are feeding him from their own [food], would they really eat of his?
If we are concerned that a person would give terumah to others around him who are not
allowed to eat terumah, then why are we not concerned that a Kohen working with nonkohanim would give them terumah? The answer is that when a Kohen goes and works in an
Israelite farm, the Israelite will feed him. Therefore we need not worry that the Kohen will
give his terumah to the Israelites.
‫ נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה נמי! התם‬,‫ אי הכי‬.‫ משום סימפון‬:‫רב שמואל בר רב יהודה אמר‬
.‫מיבדק בדיק לה והדר מעייל‬
R. Shmuel b. R. Yehudah said: because of simpon.
If so, [the same should be true] if she entered the huppah but had not yet had
relations.
In that case he arranges for her to be first examined and only then takes her in.
R. Shmuel b. R. Yehudah gives another reason why an Israelite girl betrothed to a priest
cannot eat terumah. The word he uses is “simpon.” “Simpon” refers to an annulment of an
agreement. In this passage, originally it referred to a way of annulling betrothal. If the
betrothed wife eats terumah and then the betrothal is annulled, it would turn out that she was
an Israelite eating terumah which is strictly forbidden. The Talmud assumes that “simpon”
means physical flaws. If the husband finds some sort of disgusting physical blemish on her
(for instance a giant festering perpetual sore), he can annul the marriage (she can do the same
if she finds a horrible blemish on him).
The problem is that the betrothal could be annulled even after she enters the huppah, so long
as they have not had sex, at which point they would see each other’s physical flaws. So why
is she allowed to eat terumah as soon as she enters the huppah, even before they have had
sex?
The answer is that he examines her before the huppah. [Again, I do not believe that this is an
accurate reflection of reality].
‫ לא ליכול בתרומה משום סימפון! סימפון בעבדים‬,‫ עבד כהן שלקחו מישראל‬,‫אלא מעתה‬
,‫ לא איכפת ליה‬- ‫ ושבסתר‬,‫ למלאכה קא בעי‬- ‫ ואי דגואי‬,‫ הא קחזי ליה‬- ‫ דאי דאבראי‬,‫ליכא‬
‫ הנהו קלא‬,‫ מאי איכא? לסטים מזויין או מוכתב למלכות‬,‫ הגיעו‬- ‫נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס‬
.‫אית להו‬
If so, the slave of a priest, bought from an Israelite, should not be allowed to eat
terumah on account of a simpon.
There is no simpon for slaves, for if it is external, he would have seen it [and
bought the slave anyways] and if it is internal, he wants the slave for the
purpose of work, and if it is hidden, he does not care. If it turns out that the
slave is a thief or a gambler, the acquisition is still valid. An armed robber or
assigned to death by the government—these are well-known.
The Talmud now asks why a slave bought by a priest bought from an Israelite should not be
allowed to eat terumah lest the sale be annulled due to “simpon.” The answer is that there is
no way that the sale of a slave could be annulled by “simpon.” If the flaw is internal or
hidden, then the owner should not care about it, because the slave is bought only for work. If
the flaw is visible outside of the clothes, then the purchaser accepted the flaw when he bought
the slave. If the slave turns out to be a thief or gambler, the sale cannot be annulled. And if
the slave turns out to be an armed robber or condemned to die, the sale cannot be invalidated
because the purchaser should have known about this before he bought the slave.
.‫ והלך‬,‫ מסר‬,‫ קבל‬:‫ מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו‬,‫מכדי בין למר ובין למר לא אכלה‬
Whether according to the [explanation of the one] Master or according to that of
the other Master she is not permitted to eat [terumah], what then is the practical
difference between them?
The difference between them [is the case where her intended husband] accepted
[her defects, or where her father] delivered [her to the intended husband's
agents] or went [with them].
The Talmud asks the question it often does—what is the practical difference between the two
reasons why a woman does not eat terumah until she enters the huppah? There are two such
differences. First of all, if the husband accepts all of his wife’s defects, then R. Shmuel b.
Yehudah would say that she can eat terumah immediately. But Ulla would say she cannot lest
she give the terumah to her family members. The other difference is a case where the father
delivered his daughter to the husband’s agents or even if the father’s agents have gone with
the husband’s agents. In both of these cases the marriage could still be annulled, so R.
Shmuel would not allow her to eat terumah. But she is no longer with her family, so there is
no fear that she will give to her family.