לְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כְּעֶלְיוֹן.

And he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one. One who engages in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman renders the objects upon which he lies ritually impure even if he has no direct contact with them.

וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן – אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִכָּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה – מוּמָּתִין עַל יָדָהּ וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה. וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין – פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

And if she marries a priest she may partake of teruma from that point onward. And if one of those with whom sexual relations are forbidden by the Torah (see Leviticus, chapter 18) engages in intercourse with her, he is put to death due to his sin with her, and she is exempt from punishment as a minor. And if someone of unfit lineage, i.e., a man who would disqualify her from marrying a priest if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, engages in intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. This concludes the baraita .

קָתָנֵי בִּיאָה, וְקָתָנֵי נִישֵּׂאת. הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי הָנֵי נִשּׂוּאִין דְּכֹהֵן נִינְהוּ – אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה.

The Gemara analyzes this source. It is taught in that baraita : She can be betrothed through sexual intercourse, and it is taught separately: And if she marries a priest. This indicates that intercourse does not effect marriage. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the baraita said: If this betrothal through intercourse is a marriage to a priest, she may partake of teruma . It is possible that there are not two separate stages here but a single action, as sexual intercourse effects marriage.

תָּא שְׁמַע: וּכְבָר שָׁלַח יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בַּג בַּג אֵצֶל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה לִנְצִיבִין: שָׁמַעְתִּי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. שָׁלַח לוֹ: וְאַתָּה אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן? מוּחְזַקְנִי בְּךָ שֶׁאַתָּה בָּקִי בְּחַדְרֵי תוֹרָה, לִדְרוֹשׁ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ?!

Come and hear a proof from a baraita : And Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag already sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in the city of Netzivin: I heard about you that you say that the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma . Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent back this reply to him: And do you not say so? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teach halakhot based on an a fortiori inference?

וּמַה שִּׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה – כַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה, זוֹ שֶׁבִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁכַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה? אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה.

The a fortiori inference is as follows: If in the case of a Canaanite maidservant, whose sexual intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma , as she is not betrothed to him, her money, i.e., if a priest acquires her through money, allows her to partake of teruma , is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose sexual intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma , that her betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma ? If this is indeed the case, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest should be permitted to partake of teruma . But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma until she enters the wedding canopy.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי בְּבִיאָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה, וְכֶסֶף שֶׁעַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה – בְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ מֵיכַל אָכְלָה.

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the comparison between money and sexual intercourse? If it is referring to a case of sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy, i.e., after they are married, and betrothal through money where the marriage is then completed by means of a wedding canopy, in both cases she may partake of teruma even by rabbinic law, as she is a full-fledged married woman.

וְאֶלָּא בְּבִיאָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה, וְכֶסֶף שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה – הָכָא תַּרְתֵּי וְהָכָא חֲדָא. אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּבִיאָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה, וְכֶסֶף שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה.

Or rather one could say that this comparison is referring to sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy, and betrothal through money not by means of a wedding canopy. If so, the a fortiori inference is not valid, as here, in the case of intercourse, there are two stages of acquisition, intercourse followed by the wedding canopy, and here, in the case of money, there is only one stage. Rather, is it not correct to say that the comparison between money and intercourse is referring to sexual intercourse not by means of a wedding canopy and also money not by means of a wedding canopy?

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא נִשּׂוּאִין עוֹשָׂה – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּאַלִּימָא לָהּ בִּיאָה מִכֶּסֶף. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ קִדּוּשִׁין עוֹשָׂה – מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּמִסַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ?

Granted, if you say that intercourse by itself effects marriage, it is due to that reason that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that the mode of sexual intercourse is stronger than money, and allows her to partake of teruma . But if you say that sexual intercourse effects only betrothal, what is different here, in the case of betrothal through intercourse, that it is obvious to him that it allows her to partake of teruma , and what is different here, in the case of betrothal through money, that he is uncertain and must derive the matter through an a fortiori inference? In both cases she is only betrothed.

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ בְּבִיאָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה, וְכֶסֶף שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: הָכָא תַּרְתֵּי וְהָכָא חֲדָא – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיהָא אִיתֵיהּ.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Actually, I will say to you that he is speaking about sexual intercourse by means of a wedding canopy and money not by means of a wedding canopy. And as for that which you said in opposition to this a fortiori inference: Here there are two stages of acquisition, and here there is only one stage. In any event, there is a valid a fortiori inference.

וְהָכִי שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: וּמַה שִּׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה אֲפִילּוּ עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה – כַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בְּלֹא חוּפָּה, זוֹ שֶׁבִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה עַל יְדֵי חוּפָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁכַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה בְּלֹא חוּפָּה?

And this is what Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent him, i.e., his statement should be understood as follows: If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma , even by means of a wedding canopy, and yet her money allows her to partake of teruma without the means of a wedding canopy, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma by means of a wedding canopy, that her betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma without the means of a wedding canopy?

אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּעוּלָּא.

But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma until she enters the wedding canopy, due to the reason stated by Ulla. According to Ulla, there is a concern that she may feed her siblings or members of her family teruma while she is still living in her father’s house.

וּבֶן בַּג בַּג, גַּבֵּי שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית – לָא שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנָהּ; הָכָא – שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנָהּ.

And ben Bag Bag explains why one cannot accept this a fortiori inference involving a Canaanite maidservant: With regard to a Canaanite maidservant who is purchased with money, the buyer does not leave out anything from her acquisition, i.e., he completes the purchase in full. Here, in the case of betrothal, he leaves out part of her acquisition, as the stage of marriage has yet to be performed. Therefore, these two cases are dissimilar.

רָבִינָא אֲמַר: מִדְּאוֹרַיְיתָא – מִיפְשַׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּאָכְלָה, וּמִדְּרַבָּנָן הוּא דִּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ.

Ravina said that by Torah law, it is obvious to Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag that she may partake of teruma also when she is betrothed to a priest through money alone, as she is acquired with his money. And the question that he sent him is referring to the halakha by rabbinic law.

וְהָכִי שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: שָׁמַעְתִּי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, וְלָא חָיְישַׁתְּ לְסִימְפוֹן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: וְאַתָּה אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן? מוּחְזַקְנִי בְּךָ שֶׁאַתָּה בָּקִי בְּחַדְרֵי תוֹרָה, לִדְרוֹשׁ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ?

Ravina elaborates: And this is the question that he sent to him: I heard about you that you say that in practice the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma , and we are not concerned about an annulling factor [ simfon ], i.e., that he might find some blemish in her through which the betrothal would be considered retroactively invalid. If so, she would have eaten teruma when she was not permitted to do so. And it was with regard to this issue that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent to him: And do you not say this? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teach halakhot based on an a fortiori inference?

וּמַה שִּׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה – כַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְסִימְפוֹן. זוֹ שֶׁבִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁכַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה וְלָא נֵיחוּשׁ לְסִימְפוֹן? אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה

The a fortiori inference is as follows: If a Canaanite maidservant, whose engaging in intercourse with a priest does not allow her to partake of teruma , and yet her receiving purchase money allows her to partake of teruma , and we are not concerned about simfon , i.e., that the Canaanite maidservant may have some physical blemish that nullifies her purchase retroactively, is it not logical with regard to this betrothed woman, whose intercourse with a priest allows her to partake of teruma , that her receiving betrothal money from the priest should allow her to partake of teruma even before entering the wedding canopy, and we should not be concerned about simfon ? But what can I do, as the Sages said: By rabbinic law the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may not partake of teruma