אֵין הָאִשָּׁה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחוּפָּה.

A woman may not partake of teruma until she has actually entered the wedding canopy.

גמ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דַּאֲמַר קְרָא ״וַיֹּאמֶר אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ תֵּשֵׁב הַנַּעֲרָה אִתָּנוּ יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר״.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, Rav Ḥisda said it is based on the fact that the verse states with regard to Rebecca: “And her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten” (Genesis 24:55).

מַאי ״יָמִים״. אִילֵימָא תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי – מִשְׁתָּעֵי אִינִישׁ הָכִי? אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי – אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ עֲשָׂרָה יוֹמֵי?! אֶלָּא מַאי ״יָמִים״ – שָׁנָה, דִּכְתִיב ״יָמִים תִּהְיֶה גְאוּלָּתוֹ״.

The Gemara first analyzes the language of the verse: What is the meaning of “days”? If we say two days, the minimum number justifying the use of the plural, does a person really speak like this? Rebecca’s relatives said to Abraham’s servant that they wanted her to stay for two days, after which he said to them no, as he did not want to wait even that long. If so, is it possible that after that they said to him that they wanted her to stay for ten days? Consequently, it is impossible to explain the word “days” as two days and “ten” as ten days. Rather, what is the meaning of “days”? It means: A year, as it is written: “For days he shall have redemption” (Leviticus 25:29), and there it is explained that “days” is referring to a year. Consequently, in the verse “And her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten” (Genesis 24:55), “days” refers to a year, and “ten” refers to a shorter period of similar magnitude, i.e. ten months, in order to prepare for her wedding.

וְאֵימָא חֹדֶשׁ, דִּכְתִיב ״עַד חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים״? אָמְרִי: דָּנִין ״יָמִים״ סְתָם מִ״יָּמִים״ סְתָם, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״יָמִים״ סְתָם מִ״יָּמִים״ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״חֹדֶשׁ״.

The Gemara asks: And let us say that “days” means a month, as it is written: “But a whole month of days” (Numbers 11:20), and the verse about Rebecca might then have meant that her family wanted to wait for a month, or at least for ten days. They say: One derives the meaning of an unspecified use of the term “days” from another unspecified instance of the term “days,” which means a year. And one does not derive the meaning of an unspecified use of the term “days” from an instance of the term “days,” about which the term “month” is stated. Consequently, it can be derived from the verse that the ordinary amount of time required for a virgin to prepare for marriage is twelve months.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, תָּנָא: קְטַנָּה, בֵּין הִיא וּבֵין אָבִיהָ יְכוֹלִין לְעַכֵּב. בִּשְׁלָמָא אִיהִי – מָצֵי מְעַכְּבָא, אֶלָּא אָבִיהָ, אִי אִיהִי נִיחָא לָהּ – אָבִיהָ מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינָּהּ? סָבַר: הָשְׁתָּא לָא יָדְעָה, לְמָחָר מִימְרְדָא וְנָפְקָא, וְאָתְיָא וְנָפְלָה עִילָּוַאי.

§ Rabbi Zeira said: It was taught in the Tosefta ( Ketubot 5:1) with regard to a minor girl: Either she or her father may delay the wedding until she has reached majority. The Gemara asks: Granted, she, the girl herself, may delay the wedding if she feels she is not ready, as she is the one who will be directly affected, but why should her father be allowed to delay her wedding? If it is suitable for her to get married, what difference does it make to her father? The Gemara answers: He thinks: Perhaps she agrees to get married now because she does not fully know what she is doing. But tomorrow, she will realize the marriage was a mistake, rebel, and leave her husband, and then she will come back and become a burden to me. Therefore, her father prefers that she wait until she has reached majority and marry when she is completely aware of what is involved.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר לֵוִי: אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַל הַקְּטַנָּה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה, אֲבָל פּוֹסְקִין עַל הַקְּטַנָּה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מְעַיְּילָא פַּחֲדָא מֵהָשְׁתָּא וְחָלְשָׁה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

Rabbi Abba bar Levi said: One may not finalize an agreement to marry a minor girl in order to marry her while she is still a minor, but one may finalize an agreement to marry a minor girl in order to marry her when she becomes an adult woman. With regard to the latter halakha , the Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? If he will marry her when she becomes an adult woman, there is nothing unusual about this case. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one should be concerned that she might become afraid of marriage from making plans now, and this will cause her resolve to weaken, and then even when she becomes an adult she will maintain reservations about the matter, Rabbi Abba bar Levi therefore teaches us that one need not be concerned about this. One may finalize an agreement to marry her as an adult even when she is a minor girl.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בָּגְרָה יוֹם אֶחָד וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה – נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּאַלְמָנָה. מֵיתִיבֵי: בָּגְרָה – הֲרֵי הִיא כִּתְבוּעָה, מַאי לָאו – כִּתְבוּעָה דִּבְתוּלָה? לָא, כִּתְבוּעָה דְּאַלְמָנָה.

§ Rav Huna said: If she has reached her majority, even for just one day, and then she is betrothed, she is given her thirty days to prepare for her wedding, like a widow, since prior to reaching adulthood she presumably had already prepared everything needed for her marriage. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : If she grew up, she is similar to a betrothed woman who has been asked to marry her betrothed. What, is it not that she is similar to a virgin who has been asked to marry, and she has twelve months to prepare? The Gemara answers: No, it means that she is similar to a widow who has been asked to marry her betrothed, who gets only thirty days to prepare. Only young women who have not reached majority and who are virgins get a year to prepare; after majority, all women, regardless of whether they are virgins, get thirty days.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְחַיָּיב בַּעְלָהּ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ – יָפֵר! אֵימָא: בּוֹגֶרֶת וְשֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וּבַעְלָהּ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ – יָפֵר.

The Gemara attempts another refutation of Rav Huna’s statement: Come and hear a proof from a mishna ( Nedarim 73b): If a grown woman waited twelve months since betrothal and is still not married, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he may also nullify her vows Say that if a grown woman waited thirty days or a young woman waited twelve months, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he may nullify her vows.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְאָרֵס אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה, בֵּין שֶׁתְּבָעָהּ הַבַּעַל וְהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת, וּבֵין שֶׁתָּבְעָה הִיא וּבַעַל מְעַכֵּב – נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מִשְּׁעַת תְּבִיעָה, אֲבָל לֹא מִשְּׁעַת אֵירוּסִין. וּבָגְרָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּתְבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד? בָּגְרָה יוֹם אֶחָד וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה – נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְלַאֲרוּסָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

The Gemara attempts another refutation of Rav Huna’s statement: Come and hear a baraita : If someone betrothed a virgin, whether the husband asks to marry her and she delays the process because she says that she requires more time or whether she asks to marry him and the husband delays the process because he is not yet ready, she is given twelve months from the time the request was issued but not from the time of the betrothal, even if that was much earlier, and a grown woman is similar to one who has been asked to marry. How is this so? If she has reached her majority for one day, and she is then betrothed, she is given twelve months from the day of her betrothal, because it is the same as the day of her majority. One who was already a betrothed woman when she reached majority is given thirty days. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.

מַאי וְלַאֲרוּסָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם? אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בְּבַגְרוּת, וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה – נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּאַלְמָנָה.

The Gemara asks: What is meant by the words: And one who was already a betrothed woman is given thirty days? Rav Pappa said: This is what it is saying: With regard to a grown woman who has been an adult for twelve months and is then betrothed, she is given thirty days, like a widow, and not another twelve months.

״הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ״. אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ, קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ״ – וְהַאי נַמִי קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא. מַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת – שֶׁמָּא יִמְזְגוּ לָהּ כּוֹס בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, וְתַשְׁקֶה לְאָחִיהָ וְלַאֲחוֹתָהּ.

§ The mishna states: If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married, she may partake of teruma . Ulla said: By Torah law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma immediately, even before the wedding date arrives, as it is stated: “If a priest buy any soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11), and this woman is also an acquisition of his money through the betrothal. Therefore, she is entitled to partake of teruma . What, then, is the reason the Sages said that she may not partake? It is lest someone pour her a cup of teruma wine while she is in her father’s house. Although she may drink it as the betrothed of a priest, since she is still living in her father’s house there is a concern that she will give her brother or sister to drink from the wine, which is prohibited, as they are non-priests.

אִי הָכִי, הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ נַמִי! הָתָם דּוּכְתָּא מְיַיחֵד לָהּ.

The Gemara asks: If so, then if the time arrived and they did not get married, there should also be concern that she might give it to members of her family, as she is still in her father’s house. Why, then, does the mishna say that she is permitted to partake of teruma at that time? The Gemara answers: There, after the time for the wedding has arrived, he designates a specific place for her. Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he will want to ensure that she receives her food in a particular place so that she not use it to feed her family. This mitigates the concern that she may inadvertently give it to her brother or sister to drink.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה לָקִיט כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא לֵיכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה, דִּלְמָא אָתוּ לְמֵיכַל בַּהֲדֵיהּ! הָשְׁתָּא מִדִּידְהוּ סָפוּ לֵיהּ, מִדִּידֵיהּ אָכְלֵי?!

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then the halakha should also be that a gleaner who is a priest and is employed by an Israelite may not partake of teruma , lest the other members of the household come to eat with him from the teruma . The Gemara rejects this: Now, even though the members of the Israelite household feed the priest from their food, as he is their employee, would they eat from his food? They would not. Therefore, there is no reason for concern and no reason to prohibit him from eating teruma . This is Ulla’s opinion.

רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר: מִשּׁוּם סִימְפוֹן.

However, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said: The reason for the rabbinic decree is due to abrogation [ simfon ], cancellation of the contract. It may become known after the betrothal that she has blemishes that can retroactively annul the betrothal, and it would then become apparent that she had partaken of teruma unlawfully.

אִי הָכִי נִכְנְסָה לַחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה נַמִי! הָתָם מִיבְדַּק בָּדֵיק לָהּ, וַהֲדַר מְעַיֵּיל.

The Gemara asks: If so, if the rabbinic decree that prohibits a woman betrothed to a priest from partaking of teruma is due to concern for possible abrogation of the marriage, then a woman who entered the wedding canopy but has not yet engaged in sexual intercourse should also be prohibited from partaking of teruma , as the husband does not yet know whether she has blemishes. The Gemara answers: There, in that situation, he investigates her through the agency of his female relatives and only then enters the wedding canopy. Consequently, there is no longer any concern about abrogation.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לָא לֵיכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה מִשּׁוּם סִימְפוֹן! סִימְפוֹן בַּעֲבָדִים לֵיכָּא; דְּאִי דְּאַבָּרָאֵי – הָא קָחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, וְאִי דְּגַוָּאֵי – לִמְלָאכָה קָא בָּעֵי, וְשֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר – לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ. נִמְצָא גַּנָּב אוֹ

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then according to this rationale, a priest’s slave whom the priest purchased from an Israelite should not partake of teruma , due to concern of abrogation. Perhaps the priest will discover a defect in the slave, resulting in the retroactive cancellation of the acquisition and causing the slave to return to his Israelite master after he had mistakenly eaten teruma . The Gemara answers: There is no abrogation with regard to slaves, since no type of defect could cause the cancellation of the transaction. The reason for this is that if the defect is external, then he sees it at the point of sale and accepts it. And if the defect is internal, since he needs him for labor, concealed defects do not concern him. With regard to other types of defects, e.g., if he was discovered to be a thief or