QUESTION: The Mishnah records a dispute about whether a divorcee (Gerushah) who is now an Arusah (betrothed) to a Kohen may eat Terumah. Rebbi Meir maintains that she may not eat Terumah, while Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon rule that she may eat Terumah.

RASHI gives two explanations for the case of the Mishnah. According to the first explanation, the Mishnah refers to a Bas Kohen who, until now, was entitled to eat Terumah because she returned to her father's home when she was divorced. The dispute is whether she may continue to eat Terumah or whether she becomes disqualified from eating Terumah once she becomes betrothed to a Kohen (to whom she, a Gerushah, is prohibited). According to this explanation, all Tana'im seem to agree that when the Arusah is not a Bas Kohen she may not begin to eat Terumah when she becomes engaged to a Kohen, since she is betrothed to a man to whom she is prohibited. (RASHI DH Kach Shamati)

Rashi, however, prefers his second explanation, according to which the Mishnah refers even to a Bas Yisrael, and the dispute is whether or not she may begin to eat Terumah as a result of her betrothal to the Kohen (to whom she, a Gerushah, is prohibited). (Although the Halachah is that a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah lest she give it to her family members, or lest the marriage is never consummated, the Chachamim once enacted that she may eat Terumah after twelve months of Erusin since, at that point, she begins to receive financial support from her future husband. According to this explanation of Rashi, the Mishnah was redacted at the time this enactment was in effect.)

Rashi cites support for the second explanation from the wording of the Beraisa which states that "they may not feed Terumah to their wives (Ein Ma'achilin)," rather than "they invalidate (Poslos) their wives from eating Terumah." (The Gemara later (75a, "b'Machlokes Shenuyah") also implies that a Bas Yisrael may begin to eat Terumah based on her marriage to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited.)

The Gemara presents Rebbi Meir's argument, a Kal v'Chomer which teaches that a Gerushah who is betrothed to a Kohen may not eat Terumah: if Kidushin with a man whom the woman is permitted to marry does not allow her to eat Terumah, certainly Kidushin with a man whom she is prohibited from marrying does not allow her to eat Terumah.

Rashi explains, according to the second approach, that the permissible Kidushin in Rebbi Meir's Kal v'Chomer refers to Kidushin with a Yisrael (a non-Kohen). Rebbi Meir argues that if a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Yisrael may not eat Terumah, certainly a Bas Yisrael who is a divorcee who becomes betrothed to a Kohen (to whom she is prohibited) may not eat Terumah.

Rashi's second explanation of the Gemara is very difficult to understand.

How can Rebbi Meir posit that since a Yisrael does not enable his Arusah, to whom he is permitted, to eat Terumah, certainly a Kohen does not enable his Arusah, who is a Gerushah and to whom he is prohibited, to eat Terumah? There is absolutely no reason why a Yisrael should enable his Arusah to eat Terumah in the first place. Betrothal or marriage to a Yisrael never enables the Arusah to eat Terumah; as non-Kohanim, neither he nor she has any rights to eat Terumah. Rebbi Meir's logic has no basis whatsoever.

Because of this question, all of the Rishonim favor Rashi's first explanation, according to which the Mishnah discusses a Bas Kohen who becomes betrothed to a Kohen. According to that explanation, Rebbi Meir's Kal v'Chomer is based on the case of a Bas Kohen who becomes betrothed to a Yisrael.

Moreover, REBBI AKIVA EIGER asks that even according to Rashi's second explanation, the Mishnah does not discuss only a Bas Yisrael who becomes betrothed to a Kohen. It also discusses a Bas Kohen who becomes betrothed to a Kohen. Rebbi Meir teaches two Halachos: the first is that a Bas Yisrael who is a Gerushah who becomes betrothed to a Kohen does not become entitled to eat Terumah, and the second is that a Bas Kohen who is a Gerushah who becomes betrothed to a Kohen becomes disqualified from eating Terumah (which she was permitted to eat until the Erusin).

Why, then, does Rebbi Meir derive the Kal v'Chomer from a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Yisrael? That Kal v'Chomer proves only that a Bas Yisrael who is a Gerushah does not become entitled to eat Terumah when she becomes betrothed to a Kohen. It does not prove Rebbi Meir's second teaching, that a Bas Kohen who is a Gerushah becomes disqualified from eating Terumah. Rebbi Meir should have derived the Kal v'Chomer from a Bas Kohen betrothed to a Yisrael, who not only does not obtain any rights to eat Terumah but also loses her rights to eat Terumah. That Kal v'Chomer proves both teachings of Rebbi Meir -- that the Bas Kohen loses her right to Terumah through her betrothal to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited, and that a Bas Yisrael certainly may not begin to eat Terumah on the bases of her betrothal to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited.

ANSWER: These strong questions on Rashi's second explanation may be resolved as follows:

According to Rashi's second explanation, Rebbi Meir does not find it necessary to prove that a Bas Kohen betrothed to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited loses her "rights of Kehunah" which allowed her to eat Terumah until now; this is obvious. Similarly, it should be obvious that a Bas Yisrael does not gain the "rights of Kehunah" (to eat Terumah) by virtue of her betrothal to such a Kohen. Why, then, does Rebbi Meir find it necessary to prove that a Bas Yisrael does not begin to eat Terumah based on her betrothal to a Kohen to whom she is prohibited?

Rebbi Meir's logic may be understood as follows. A man may eat Terumah only if he is a Kohen, and an unmarried woman may eat Terumah only if she is the daughter of a Kohen. A man who is not a Kohen and a woman who is not a Bas Kohen are prohibited by the Torah from eating Terumah because they have the status of a Zar, a non-Kohen.

However, when a woman becomes married, she enters the domain of her husband through the Kinyan of Kidushin. As the "Kinyan" of her husband, does she retain the positive status of a Zar, or, as a "Kinyan," does she not have the status of a Zar, since a Kinyan is not considered to have its own, individual identity? A person has the status of a Zar only when he eats food by virtue of his own, independent power. Accordingly, when a Bas Yisrael becomes betrothed to a Yisrael and she attains the status of his "Kinyan," she might lose her status as a Zar since she no longer has her own, independent identity. One might have thought that since she is not a Zar, she is entitled to eat Terumah! (That is, if a Kohen gives her his Terumah, she may eat it. Obviously, she may not eat Terumah that was not yet given to a Kohen, because such Terumah is the collective property of all Kohanim and is not hers to take.)

Despite this logic, the Torah does not grant a woman the right to eat Terumah when she becomes married to a Yisrael; she does not lose her status of a Zar. Rather, she assumes the status of her husband; his "Zarus" prevents her from eating Terumah (even though she is only an Arusah and not a Nesu'ah). (His "Zarus" also prevents his other possessions, such as his servants and animals, from eating Terumah; see TOSFOS to 66b, DH Lo Ya'achilenah, and TOSFOS YESHANIM.)

Accordingly, Rebbi Meir's Kal v'Chomer may be read as follows. When a Bas Yisrael becomes betrothed to a Yisrael (to whom she is permitted), the fact that she is a Kinyan and loses the status of a Zar does not permit her to eat Terumah, since she is subsumed by her husband's "Zarus," or lack of Kehunah. If that is the case with a Bas Yisrael who marries a Yisrael, then when a Gerushah becomes betrothed to a Kohen to whom she is forbidden (because she is "Mishtameres l'Bi'ah Pesulah," a prohibited relationship is pending), certainly she should not be permitted to eat Terumah. The prohibited relationship makes her a "pending Zonah" (or Chalalah); it disqualifies her from Kehunah and prevents her from eating Terumah.

This approach answers Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question as well. Rebbi Meir deliberately derives his Kal v'Chomer from the case of a Bas Yisrael betrothed to a Yisrael and not from the case of a Bas Kohen betrothed to a Yisrael. A Bas Kohen who becomes the "Kinyan" of another person certainly loses her own rights to eat Terumah. This is obvious and needs no proof. However, one might have thought that although she loses her own rights to eat Terumah, she (and a Bas Yisrael who becomes the Arusah of a Kohen) nevertheless does not become a "Zarah" since her husband is not a Zar. Hence, perhaps she may eat Terumah since she is married to a Kohen.

Rebbi Meir proves that this is not true from the Kal v'Chomer. If an Arusah's relationship with her "Zar" husband is strong enough to make her a "Zarah" and prohibit her from eating Terumah, certainly such a relationship is strong enough to cause her to become a "pending Zonah" (which disqualifies her from Terumah because of the Aveirah) and to disqualify her from eating Terumah. (M. Kornfeld)