Yevamot 100
בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ נִינְהוּ. עֶבֶד נָמֵי — דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקֵי מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין. עָרֵל וְטָמֵא — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיסִי. נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ — מִשּׁוּם קְנָסָא. אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא?
as they are each an unusual creature of their own kind. With regard to a slave it is also clear, since if he is given teruma, perhaps the court will come to elevate him to the presumptive status of priestly lineage. Teruma may not be distributed to an uncircumcised man and a ritually impure man, because these situations are repulsive and it is unseemly to give them teruma in public. One may not distribute teruma to one who marries a woman unfit for him, due to a penalty that expropriates his priestly rights as long as he persists in his transgression. But for what reason is teruma not distributed to a woman?
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. חַד אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם גְּרוּשָׁה. וְחַד אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד.
Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, disagree on this issue. One said that it is due to the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest and got divorced, thereby losing her permission to partake of teruma. Teruma is not distributed to women in public at all, lest this divorcée continue to receive teruma. And the other one said that it is due to the concern that the owner and the woman might be alone together in the granary.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ בֵּי דָרֵי דִּמְקָרַב לְמָתָא, וְלָא שְׁכִיחִי בְּהוּ אִינָשֵׁי. אִי נָמֵי: דִּמְרַחַק, וּשְׁכִיחִי בֵּהּ אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a granary that is close to town but is not frequented by people. Because it is close to town, the owner of the granary would know if she was divorced. However, since there are not many people there, the concern about their being alone together remains. Alternatively, there is a practical difference in the case of a granary that is distant but is frequented by people. There, there is concern that the owner of the granary might not know if she was divorced, but the concern that they might be alone together does not exist.
וְכוּלָּן מְשַׁגְּרִין לָהֶם לְבָתֵּיהֶן, חוּץ מִטָּמֵא וְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ. אֲבָל עָרֵל מְשַׁגְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, מַאי טַעְמָא?
It is stated in the baraita under discussion: And with regard to all of them, one may send teruma to them, to their homes, with the exception of a ritually impure man and one who marries a woman unfit for him. The Gemara infers: However, to an uncircumcised man one may send it. What is the reason? How does he differ from an impure man?
מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲנִיס. טָמֵא נָמֵי, הָא אֲנִיס? הַאי נְפִישׁ אוּנְסֵיהּ, וְהַאי לָא נְפִישׁ אוּנְסֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: One may send him teruma. It is because of circumstances beyond his control, i.e., the death of his brothers from their circumcision, that he was not circumcised. The Gemara asks: Isn’t an impure man also in his state due to circumstances beyond his control? Why is teruma not sent to him? The Gemara answers: This man is uncircumcised because of circumstances entirely beyond his control, as circumcision is considered life-threatening for him, whereas that impure man is not under circumstances entirely beyond his control, as one can protect himself from ritual impurity.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה, אֵין חוֹלְקִין לָהֶם תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין — נוֹתְנִין לָאִשָּׁה תְּחִלָּה וּפוֹטְרִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. מַאי קָאָמַר?
§ The Sages taught: One may not distribute teruma to a slave or a woman if they are in the granary. And in a place where people do distribute it to them, the woman is given first and released immediately. The Gemara asks: What is this saying? If one may not distribute teruma to them, how can there be a place where it is distributed?
הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי — נוֹתְנִין לְאִשָּׁה תְּחִלָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם זִילוּתָא.
The Gemara explains that this statement is not referring to teruma. This is what it is saying: In a case where the poor man’s tithe is distributed to the poor from the owner’s house, the woman is given teruma first. What is the reason? She is given the tithe first because it is demeaning for a woman to have to wait in the company of men for a lengthy period of time.
אָמַר רָבָא: מֵרֵישָׁא, כִּי הֲווֹ אָתוּ גַּבְרָא וְאִתְּתָא לְדִינָא קַמַּאי, הֲוָה שָׁרֵינָא תִּיגְרָא דְגַבְרָא בְּרֵישָׁא. אָמֵינָא: דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּמִצְוֹת. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא, שָׁרֵינָא תִּיגְרָא דְּאִתְּתָא בְּרֵישָׁא. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם זִילוּתָא.
Rava said: Initially, when a man and a woman would come for judgment before me, each for a different case, I would resolve the man’s quarrel first. I would say that since he is obligated in many positive mitzvot I should not waste his time by causing him to wait. However, since I heard this baraita, I resolve the woman’s quarrel first. What is the reason? I resolve her quarrel first because it is demeaning for her to be waiting in the company of men.
הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת וְכוּ׳. שִׁיחְרְרוּ, אִי בָּעֵי — אִין, אִי לָא בָּעֵי — לָא, וְאַמַּאי? לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל! אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא: כּוֹפִין אוֹתָן, וּמְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
§ It is stated in the mishna: If the mixed sons matured and freed each other, they may marry women fit for the priesthood. The use of the past tense indicates that this halakha applies after the fact. If one of the sons desires to free the other, he may, but if he does not desire to do so, he is not obligated. And why not? Neither of them can marry a maidservant in case he is a priest, nor can either of them marry a free woman, as he might be a slave. They are therefore unable to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply in their current state and should be obligated to free each other. Rava said: Say that the mishna means that we coerce them and they free each other.
נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶם חוּמְרֵי וְכוּ׳. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמִנְחָתָם נִקְמֶצֶת כְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת כְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בְּעַצְמָן.
It is stated in the mishna that we place upon them both the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated, beyond those cited specifically in the mishna? Rav Pappa said: It is stated with regard to their meal-offering: The handful is taken from it like the meal-offering of an Israelite, unlike that of a priest, which is burned in its entirety. However, the offering does not get eaten, like the meal-offering of priests. How so? How is the practice performed so that both stringencies are kept? The handful is sacrificed and burned by itself, and the remainder of the offering is offered by itself.
אִיקְּרִי כָּאן: כֹּל שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים, הֲרֵי הוּא בְּ״בַל תַּקְטִירוּ״.
The Gemara asks: How can it be performed in this manner? There is a principle that should apply here, that whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of “you may not make…as an offering” (Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, e.g., the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal-offering, is burned on the altar, then burning any of its other parts, which are not designated for burning, is prohibited. How, then, can the remainder of the meal-offering be sacrificed?
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: דְּמַסֵּיק לְהוּ לְשׁוּם עֵצִים, כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ״ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשׁוּם עֵצִים.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the remainder is brought up to the altar only for the purpose of wood, i.e., as fuel for the altar, not as an offering. In this manner, it is permitted. This answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: “But they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar” (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a “sweet savor,” i.e., an offering. However, you may bring up leaven, and honey, and other materials for the purpose of wood.
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּעָבֵיד לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁירַיִם מִתְפַּזְּרִין עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא, אֲבָל הָכָא — אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Elazar. However, according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar and hold that it may not be burned for the purpose of fuel, what can be said? What is to be done with the remainder? The Gemara answers that the offering is treated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered over the place of the ashes. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, only with regard to a sinner’s meal-offering that belongs to priests, as it is fit to be sacrificed in its entirety. However, here, in the case of an uncertain priest, even the Rabbis agree that the remainder is scattered over the ashes, as it cannot be offered in case he is a non-priest.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעֲלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְנִשֵּׂאת, וְיָלְדָה, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אִם בִּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן — הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָנִים מִן הַשֵּׁנִי, חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין. וְכֵן הוּא לָהֶם — חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם.
MISHNA: With regard to a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband, and remarried and gave birth to a son, and it is not known if he was born after nine months of pregnancy to the former husband or if he was born after seven months to the latter husband, if she had sons of certain patrilineage from the first husband and sons of certain patrilineage from the second one, and the son of uncertain patrilineage married and died childless, then the brothers from both husbands must perform ḥalitza with his wife, as they might be his paternal brothers. But they may not perform levirate marriage with her, in case he is only their maternal half brother, and his wife is forbidden to them. And similarly, with regard to him and their wives, if one of them dies childless, he performs ḥalitza and not levirate marriage.
הָיוּ לוֹ אַחִים מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאַחִים מִן הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁלֹּא מֵאוֹתָהּ הָאֵם — הוּא חוֹלֵץ וּמְיַיבֵּם, וְהֵם — אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם.
If he had half brothers from the first husband and half brothers from the second, not from the same mother but from the same father, he performs ḥalitza or levirate marriage with their widows. If he is indeed their paternal half brother, then the widows are his yevamot; if not, he may marry them like any other man. And similarly, with regard to them and his wife, one half brother from one father performs ḥalitza and one from the other father performs levirate marriage.
הָיָה אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים. וְאִם נִטְמָא — אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאִם אָכַל — אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. וּמוֹכֵר הַתְּרוּמָה, וְהַדָּמִים שֶׁלּוֹ.
If one of his two uncertain fathers was an Israelite and one was a priest, he may marry only a woman fit to marry a priest, due to the possibility that he is a priest. And he may not become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse because he might be a priest. But if he became impure, he does not receive the forty lashes, as he might be a non-priest. Likewise, he does not partake of teruma, in case he is a non-priest. However, if he ate teruma he does not pay the principal and the additional fifth, as he might be a priest. And he does not receive teruma at the granary. However, he may sell the teruma of his own produce and the money is his. It cannot be taken away from him due to the uncertainty with regard to his status.
וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וּפָטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּיבָה. וּבְכוֹרוֹ יְהֵא רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב. וְנוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי כֹּהֲנִים וְחוּמְרֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים.
And he does not receive a share of the sacred of the consecrated offerings, and one may not give him the consecrated offerings to sacrifice. However, the hides of his own offerings may not be appropriated from his possession. And he is exempt from giving a priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw of his non-consecrated animals. And the firstling of his animal should graze until it becomes unfit to be sacrificed because it gets a blemish. And in general, we place upon him the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites.
הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים — הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם, וְהֵם אוֹנְנִים עָלָיו. הוּא אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם, וְהֵם אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִים לוֹ. הוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן, אֲבָל הֵם יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ.
If both uncertain fathers were priests, then if they die he is in a state of acute mourning over each of them, in case the deceased is his father. And if he dies, they are both in a state of acute mourning over him, as one of them is his father. He may not become ritually impure to bury them, as each one may not be his relative, and they may not become ritually impure to bury him for the same reason. He does not inherit from them, as the heirs of both husbands can reject his claims. However, they inherit from him if he has no sons and split his inheritance equally.
וּפָטוּר עַל מַכָּתוֹ וְעַל קִלְלָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה. עוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמִשְׁמָר אֶחָד — נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק אֶחָד.
And he is exempt from capital punishment for striking and for cursing both this father and that one. Although one who strikes or curses his father or mother is liable to receive the death penalty, he cannot be held liable, as it is unknown which of the men is his father. He must ascend to the Temple service with the priestly watch of this father and of that one, as he belongs to one of these watches and is obligated to serve with them. However, he does not receive a share of the portion of the offerings that gets eaten, as the members of each watch can claim that he is a member of the other watch. If both uncertain fathers were in one priestly watch, he receives one share, as he certainly belongs to that watch.
גְּמָ׳ דַּוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא — לָא, דְּקָא פָגַע בִּיבָמָה לַשּׁוּק.
GEMARA: The mishna stated that if the son has paternal half brothers from each of his two uncertain fathers and he dies childless, a half brother from one father performs ḥalitza and the other performs levirate marriage. The Gemara comments that ḥalitza is specifically performed first and only afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage is not performed first, as that would breach the prohibition against a yevama engaging in intercourse with a member of the public in the event that she is not his yevama but rather the yevama of the other half brother.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים, וּפֵירַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם, וּבָעַל — הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. מַאי ״שְׁתוּקִי״? אִילֵימָא שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִנִּכְסֵי אָבִיו — פְּשִׁיטָא! מִי יָדְעִינַן אֲבוּהּ מַנּוּ? אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהוּנָּה.
Shmuel said that if ten priests were standing in one place, and one of them, who is unidentified, left the group and engaged in intercourse with a woman, and she gave birth, the child is a silenced one, i.e., a child whose father’s identity is not known. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase silenced one [shetuki] in this regard? If we say that he is silenced from any claim to his father’s property, this is obvious; do we know who his father is? Rather, it means that he is silenced from the status of priesthood, as well. Although his father certainly is a priest, he is not given this status.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״, בָּעֵינַן זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו, וְלֵיכָּא.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And it shall be to him and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). It is derived from “and to his seed after him” that we require a priest’s descendants to be attributed to his lineage, and here that is not the case, as there is no certain father.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה גַּבֵּי אַבְרָהָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ״, הָתָם מַאי קָא מַזְהַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא? הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא תִּנְסַב גּוֹיָה וְשִׁפְחָה, דְּלָא לֵיזִיל זַרְעָךְ בָּתְרַהּ.
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, since the same phrase is written with regard to Abraham: “To be a God to you and to your seed after you” (Genesis 17:7), what is the Merciful One warning him there? Can it possibly mean that one who cannot identify his parents is not obligated to serve God as a Jew? The Gemara answers that this is what He said to him: You may not marry a gentile woman or a maidservant, so that the status of your offspring will not follow her status, as the child of a Jewish man and a gentile woman or maidservant receives the status of his mother.
מֵיתִיבִי: רִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְהָא בָּעֵינַן זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו, וְלֵיכָּא! זַרְעוֹ מְיוּחָס אַחֲרָיו — דְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא. וְכִי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן — בִּזְנוּת, בְּנִשּׂוּאִין לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises an objection: A baraita (37a) teaches that if a priest performed levirate marriage with his brother’s wife within three months of his brother’s death, and she gave birth to a son who is either her deceased husband’s son or her brother-in-law’s son, this first son born after the levirate marriage is fit even to be a High Priest. But don’t we require his descendants to be attributed to his lineage, and that is not so in this case, as the father’s identity is unknown? The Gemara answers: The requirement that his descendants be attributed to his lineage is rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, not the actual source. And when the Sages decreed that one whose father’s identity is unknown is not a priest, they did so only with regard to a case of licentious intercourse. With regard to a case of marriage, as is the case in the baraita, the Sages did not apply the decree.
וּבִזְנוּת מִי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן? וְהָתְנַן: מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to a case of licentious intercourse, did the Sages in fact issue a decree? Didn’t we learn in the mishna about a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband and remarried and gave birth to a son?
מַאי ״אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ״? אִילֵימָא אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם, וְהֵם אוֹנְנִים עָלָיו. בִּשְׁלָמָא הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם — מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּנִשּׂוּאִין דְּשֵׁנִי וְלִיקּוּט עֲצָמוֹת דְּקַמָּא. אֶלָּא: הֵם אוֹנְנִים עָלָיו, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? קַמָּא הָא מִית לֵיהּ!
What is the meaning of the phrase: After separating from her husband? If we say it means after her husband’s death, say the latter clause of the mishna: If they die, he is in a state of acute mourning over each of them, and if he dies, they are both in a state of acute mourning over him. Granted, if they die, he is in a state of acute mourning over them. You find this case with regard to his uncertain father from his mother’s marriage to the second man. If the second husband dies, the child must mourn for him, and he is also in a state of acute mourning following the gathering of the bones of the first husband, who died before he was born. When the bones of a person who was buried are dug up for proper burial in his ancestor’s plot, his relatives mourn for him a second time. But with regard to the statement that if he dies they are in a state of acute mourning for him, how can you find these circumstances? The first husband is already dead.
וְאֶלָּא בִּגְרוּשָׁה, וּמַאי ״אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ״ — אַחַר גֵּט בַּעְלָהּ. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּא אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין לוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא הֵן אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין לוֹ — לְחוּמְרָא, דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד דִּלְמָא לָאו בְּרֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא הוּא אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהֶם, אַמַּאי?
And assume the mishna’s statement is rather with regard to a divorcée. And accordingly what is the meaning of the phrase: After separating from her husband? It means: After she received a bill of divorce from her husband. If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: He may not become impure to bury them, and they may not become impure to bury him. Granted, they may not become impure to bury him, as the ruling is stringent, as with regard to each one of them perhaps he is not his son. However, why may he not become impure to bury them?
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְשֵׁנִי לָא לִיטַּמֵּי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְרִאשׁוֹן לִיטַּמֵּי לֵיהּ מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי בְּרֵיהּ הוּא — שַׁפִּיר קָא מִטַּמֵּא לֵיהּ, וְאִי בַּר בָּתְרָא הוּא — שַׁפִּיר קָא מִטַּמֵּא לֵיהּ, דְּחָלָל הוּא.
Granted, for the second one he should not become impure, as he might not be his son. However, for the first he should be allowed to become impure whichever way you view it: If he is his son, it is appropriate for him to become impure to bury him, as even a priest must become ritually impure to bury his father. And if he is the son of the latter one, it is appropriate for him to become impure to bury him, as he, the son, is a ḥalal. If his mother is a divorcée, his father, the latter husband, is prohibited as a priest to marry her, and a child born from this relationship is a ḥalal, who is unfit for the priesthood. There would then be no prohibition against his becoming ritually impure.
אֶלָּא לָאו, בִּזְנוּת. וּמַאי ״אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ״ — אַחַר בּוֹעֲלָהּ. וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָר שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה. וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל!
Rather, is the mishna’s statement not with regard to the licentious intercourse of an unmarried woman? And what is the meaning of the phrase: After she separated from her husband [ba’ala]? Is it not: After separating from the man with whom she engaged in intercourse [bo’ala], meaning that she engaged in intercourse with a man less than three months before marrying another man, and therefore she does not know the identity of the father? And it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that the son ascends to the Temple service with the priestly watch of this one and of that one, which implies that he is considered a priest, although the identity of his father is uncertain due to the licentious intercourse of his mother. And this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel.
אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָא: בִּמְמָאֶנֶת.
Rav Shemaya said: The mishna’s statement pertains to a girl who refused her husband. A minor girl who was orphaned from her father may be married off by her brothers. However, she may subsequently refuse her husband before reaching majority. This nullifies the marriage entirely, so she is not considered a divorcée, for whom it is prohibited to marry a priest. In the case of the mishna, she did not wait three months after her refusal before marrying again, so she does not know who the father of her child is.
מְמָאֶנֶת מִי קָא יָלְדָה? וְהָתָנֵי רַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ: קְטַנָּה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וּמְנִיקָה. קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתָמוּת, מְעוּבֶּרֶת — שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּרָהּ סַנְדָּל, מְנִיקָה — שֶׁמָּא תִּגְמוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ וְיָמוּת. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה — מִבַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד עַד בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן אוֹ יָתֵר עַל כֵּן — מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara asks: Can a girl who refuses her husband give birth? Didn’t Rav Beivai teach before Rav Naḥman that women in three situations may engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent, despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited: A minor girl, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman? A minor girl may do so lest she become pregnant and die, as the fetus might endanger her life. A pregnant woman may do so lest she get pregnant a second time and her previous fetus becomes a sandal, i.e., it is squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. A nursing woman may do so lest she wean her child prematurely, as pregnancy will cause her milk to dry up, and he will die of hunger. And who is considered a minor girl in this context? A girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she is younger than this or older than this, she should go ahead and engage in intercourse in her usual manner. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, וּמִן הַשָּׁמַיִם יְרַחֲמוּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוֹמֵר פְּתָאִים ה׳״!
And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one, i.e., women in any cases, should go ahead and engage in intercourse in their usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy and prevent them from getting pregnant, as it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6). Evidently, a girl who is a minor and therefore young enough to refuse her husband cannot become pregnant without endangering her health.
מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, וְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת.
The Gemara answers: You find a solution in the case of a mistaken betrothal. For example, if the first husband betrothed her conditionally and the condition was unfulfilled, the marriage is nullified. This woman may marry a priest. If she did so within three months, the identity of her child’s father is uncertain, which fits the statement in the mishna. And this is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states with regard to a sota: “Neither was she [hi] coerced in the act” (Numbers 5:13). It may be inferred that she is forbidden to her husband only if she was not coerced by the adulterer; if she was coerced she is permitted to him.
וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה, מוּתֶּרֶת. וְאֵי זוֹ — זוֹ שֶׁקִּדּוּשֶׁיהָ קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּנָהּ מוּרְכָּב לָהּ עַל כְּתֵפָהּ — מְמָאֶנֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לָהּ.
And the superfluous word “she” indicates that you have another woman who, although she engaged in intercourse willingly and was not coerced, is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as the intercourse is not considered adultery. And who is this? This is referring to a woman whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as even if her child is riding on her shoulders, she may refuse her husband and go off on her way. She is considered an unmarried woman, and she is therefore permitted to return to her husband, even if she engaged in intercourse with another man. The mishna may therefore be explained in a way that does not contradict Shmuel.
