Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 9, 2022 | 讞壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 33 – Shabbat April 9

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

There are three different interpretations brought to explain what the issue of debate was between Rabbi Chiya and Bar Kapara in the three cases in the braita. Were they debating whether issur chal al issur regarding an issur kollel according to Rabbi Yosi? Or was it regarding a case when both prohibitions came about at the same time and according to Rabbi Yosi? Or both at the same time, but according to Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara analyzes the different options and rejects the first two. What is the Shabbat prohibition in the case of a non-kohen who works in the Temple on Shabbat? If two men betrothed two women and they switched them after the kiddushin, what happens if each one takes home the other鈥檚 wife? The Gemara establishes that the Mishna must have been referring to a case where it was unintentional.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 住讘专 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara suggests that they disagree with regard to the issue of a more inclusive prohibition, and this dispute pertains to the status of a more inclusive prohibition specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi 岣yya holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, one is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on one count.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讝专 诪注讬拽专讗 砖专讬 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗住讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗转讬讗 诇讛 砖讘转 诪讙讜 讚拽讗 诪讬转住专 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诪讬转住专 谞诪讬 讘注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And what more inclusive prohibition is there here in these cases? Granted, in the case of a non-priest who served in the Temple on Shabbat, initially he was permitted to perform labor every day and was prohibited from engaging in the Temple service. When Shabbat came, since he is now prohibited from engaging in prohibited labor in all contexts due to Shabbat, he is also prohibited from engaging in labors related to the Temple service due to Shabbat. Indeed, the additional prohibition of Shabbat was added to the previously existing prohibition against performing service in the Temple. This is a more inclusive prohibition since it also includes prohibited labor outside of the Temple.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 砖专讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗住讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讙讜 讚拽讗 诪讬转住专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬转住专 谞诪讬 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The same is true with regard to a blemished priest who served in the Temple while ritually impure: Initially, prior to his becoming ritually impure, he was allowed to eat from the consecrated animals but was prohibited from performing the Temple service, like all blemished priests. When he was rendered ritually impure, since he is now prohibited from eating of the consecrated items, he is also prohibited from performing the Temple service due to that same ritual impurity. There is, then, a more inclusive prohibition here. However, with regard to the case of a bird that was killed by pinching, you find that the prohibition against the eating of consecrated items by a non-priest and the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass take effect simultaneously. You do not, however, find a more inclusive prohibition here as there was no original prohibition that took effect beforehand. Instead, this is a case of two prohibitions that take effect simultaneously.

讗诇讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讜讘专 拽驻专讗 住讘专 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

Rather, the previous explanation is rejected and the Gemara suggests instead that they disagree with regard to an additional prohibition that takes effect simultaneously, and this dispute pertains to the status of these prohibitions specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi 岣yya holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable on two counts in cases of prohibitions that take effect simultaneously. And bar Kappara holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on a single count.

讜讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讘砖讘转 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜 讝专讜转 讜砖讘转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But here, in the first two instances, what case of simultaneous prohibitions is there here? In the two previous cases the prohibitions took effect one after the other, and not simultaneously. The Gemara answers that these cases can also be interpreted as occurring simultaneously as follows: With regard to the non-priest who served on Shabbat, this would be in a case where a minor grew two pubic hairs, signaling adulthood on Shabbat. Before that point he was considered a minor and therefore not liable for his actions. Therefore, this is a case where the prohibition against serving as a non-priest and the prohibition against violating Shabbat took effect together.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讞转讱 讗爪讘注讜 讘住讻讬谉 讟诪讗讛

With regard to the case of one who was blemished, this can be explained as well: This is referring to a case where a minor grew two pubic hairs and was immediately rendered ritually impure. This is a case where the prohibition with regard to a blemished priest and the prohibition with regard to ritual impurity took effect together. Alternatively, it could be a case where he cut off his finger with a ritually impure knife. Here, the cut and removal of his finger rendered him simultaneously blemished and ritually impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖拽讜专讬 拽讗 诪砖拽专

Following this clarification of the dispute, the matter is now considered from a different angle: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, the dispute between his version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling and that of bar Kappara can be explained as follows: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabbi 岣yya, he taught him according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yosei holds that there are cases where two prohibitions can both take effect. And when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught bar Kappara, he did so according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that a new prohibition can never take effect where another prohibition already exists. Therefore, Rabbi 岣yya could understand why bar Kappara insisted on his opinion. Rabbi 岣yya thought that bar Kappara was in fact relating an accurate statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was relating to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi 岣yya assumed that bar Kappara did not understand that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement was not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion. According to bar Kappara, however, was Rabbi 岣yya then telling a falsehood? How would bar Kappara relate to Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 oath? Did he think that Rabbi 岣yya would swear that he heard words from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that were never said?

讗诇讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽讗 诪讬砖转讘注 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讝拽讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讗砖转讘讜注讬 拽砖讬讗

Rather, this must be explained differently: Rabbi 岣yya and bar Kappara disagree with regard to cases where two prohibitions take effect simultaneously, and this dispute pertains to the status of these prohibition specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It could be suggested that when the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously, Rabbi Shimon would concede that they both take effect. However, this explanation raises a difficulty as well: Granted, according to Rabbi 岣yya it is clear why he was swearing. He did so in order to exclude the understanding of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that was based on his presumed opinion. As it was known that Rabbi Shimon holds that a new prohibition cannot take effect where another prohibition exists; this is the default understanding of his opinion. Therefore, it was incumbent upon Rabbi 岣yya to take an oath in order to emphasize that despite Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 general opinion, in cases where the prohibitions take effect simultaneously, he would concede that both prohibitions can take effect. However, according to bar Kappara, why was it necessary to swear? It would have sufficed for him simply to make his statement, as it concurs with the default understanding of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 专讘讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 拽驻专讗 砖拽讜专讬 拽讗 诪砖拽专

One can raise a difficulty with this explanation from a different angle as well: Granted, according to bar Kappara, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught him, he taught him according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two prohibitions cannot take effect even in cases when they occur simultaneously, and when he taught the ruling to Rabbi 岣yya it was according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Accordingly, Rabbi 岣yya did in fact swear that he heard that one is liable only on one count, but he wrongly understood that this was Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion. However, according to Rabbi 岣yya, who holds that Rabbi Shimon concedes that in cases where the prohibitions take effect simultaneously one is liable for both, was bar Kappara lying? His statement would accord neither with Rabbi Shimon nor with Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 专讘讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 转专转讬 诇驻讟讜专 讗转谞讬讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣yya could have said to you that this is what transpired: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught him, bar Kappara, he taught him two cases involving exemptions, i.e., the cases of a non-priest who served in the Temple on Shabbat and that of the blemished priest who served while ritually impure. Both of these are cases of more inclusive prohibitions, and he was informing bar Kappara that Rabbi Shimon holds them liable on only one count, because Rabbi Shimon holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists only if the prohibitions take effect simultaneously, but not in cases of more inclusive prohibitions.

讜讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪诇讬拽讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛 注专讘讛 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜注讬讬谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 讗诇讗 讘讘转 讗讞转

And he taught him the ruling with regard to a more inclusive prohibition, that in such cases there is an exemption, and this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And bar Kappara then saw the case of a non-priest who ate a bird killed by pinching, and since it was similar to the previous cases, he mixed them together. Then, sometime later, it seemed to him as though he had in truth heard all of these cases together from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but when he examined this last case, he found that it could exist only if the events occurred simultaneously.

讜住讘专 诪讚讛讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讗 谞诪讬 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜诪讚讛谞讱 诇驻讟讜专 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诇驻讟讜专

And he concluded that since the case of a non-priest eating a bird killed by pinching can occur only in a scenario where the prohibitions take effect simultaneously, the other cases are instances of simultaneous prohibitions as well. And similarly, since he was taught to exempt one individual from a second prohibition in those cases, these cases were taught to exempt one individual from a second prohibition as well. Therefore, according to Rabbi 岣yya, bar Kappara did not knowingly speak falsely. Rather, he heard certain matters from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and then mistakenly merged with them other matters. As a result, he confused the issue.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖砖讬诪砖 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讜诪砖讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬诇讜 诪诇讬拽讛 砖讬讬专讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of bar Kappara from a baraita: In the case of a non-priest who served on Shabbat and the case of a blemished priest who served while ritually impure, there is liability here, due to the prohibition against serving as a non-priest; and due to the prohibition against desecrating Shabbat; and due to the prohibition against serving as a blemished priest; and due to the prohibition against serving after contracting ritual impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: There is liability here only due to the prohibition against serving as a non-priest and due to the prohibition against serving as a blemished priest. The Gemara notes: And yet the case of a non-priest who ate a bird killed by pinching was left out and not mentioned among the cases subject to this dispute.

诇诪讗谉 砖讬讬专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛砖转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专 讗讘诇 讘讗讬住讜专 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讘专 拽驻专讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks: According to whom was this left out? That is, according to the opinion of which tanna would this question arise? If we say that this was left out according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is difficult. Now that Rabbi Yosei holds, even in cases of a more inclusive prohibition, that one is liable on two counts, as was stated with regard to a non-priest who served on Shabbat, is it necessary to state that in the case where the additional prohibition takes effect simultaneously one would be liable on two counts? Rather, is it not according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that this case was left out, as Rabbi Shimon would concede that in this case one is liable on two counts? Therefore, Rabbi Shimon exempts one from liability for the second prohibition in cases of more inclusive prohibitions, but in cases of simultaneous prohibitions he would deem one liable on two counts. The Gemara summarizes: The refutation of the opinion of bar Kappara is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his statements are rejected.

讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 讘拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a question with regard to one of the laws mentioned above. The baraita mentioned the case of a non-priest who served on Shabbat. The Gemara wonders: In what form of service did he perform in the Temple? If this is referring to a case where a non-priest performed the slaughtering of the sacrificial animal, there would be no prohibition, as the slaughtering by a non-priest is valid. And if it is referring to receiving the blood and carrying the blood to the altar, while this is a case where he would be liable as a non-priest performing the service of a priest, insofar as Shabbat is concerned this is a case only of moving, and it does not entail a violation of any prohibited labor.

讗讬 讘讛拽讟专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪讗转讛

If he served by burning the sacrificial portions on the altar, then this discussion follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei say that the prohibition against kindling on Shabbat was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat merely violates a prohibition? This is as opposed to the other prohibited labors, which incur death penalties when violated willfully and entail the bringing of a sin-offering when violated unintentionally. Why, then, would Rabbi Yosei deem one liable for two sin-offerings?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讘砖讞讬讟转 驻专讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 谞诪讬 砖讝专 讗爪诇讜 拽讗诪专

Rav A岣 bar Yaakov said: The service referred to in this case is the slaughtering of the High Priest鈥檚 bull on Yom Kippur, and this is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the slaughtering of the High Priest鈥檚 bull is disqualified if performed by a non-priest, for this service is designated specifically for the High Priest alone. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to the slaughtering of the High Priest鈥檚 bull, then why specifically state a non-priest? The same would hold true even for a common priest as well. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who is as a non-priest in relation to the High Priest and not to an actual non-priest. The Hebrew word zar literally means foreigner, and this type of service is considered foreign to a common priest as well as a non-priest.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讞讟讗讜转 拽转谞讬 讗讜 诇讗讜讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讜讘专讜 讘讬谉 专砖注讬诐 讙诪讜专讬诐

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: The previous rejection that was based on the idea that the act of burning was not a full-fledged prohibited labor is in fact groundless. Is the tanna teaching how many sin-offerings would be incurred, or is he teaching how many negative mitzvot are being violated? Rather, he merely enumerates the prohibitions violated by a certain action, without detailing their severities, and therefore the desecration of Shabbat involved in the Temple service can be any Shabbat violation. The Gemara asks: What practical difference does it make how many prohibitions are involved? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not to bury him among the completely wicked. If he violated two prohibitions, he is considered wicked on two counts and consequently must be buried accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖拽讬讚砖讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讘砖注转 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讛讞诇讬驻讜 讗转 砖诇 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讗转 砖诇 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 讗讞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 讗讞讬讜转 诪砖讜诐 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讚讜转 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

MISHNA: In the case of two men who betrothed two women, and at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, after the betrothal, the men switched this wife with that wife and that one with this one, then these two men are liable for engaging in forbidden sexual relations with a married woman, since each of them had intercourse with his fellow鈥檚 wife. The act of betrothal is sufficient to prohibit a woman to all other men as a married woman. Therefore, when the women were switched, both men transgressed this violation. And if they were brothers, then they are also liable for forbidden sexual relations with a brother鈥檚 wife. And if these women were sisters, then they are liable for taking a wife and her sister as well. And if they were menstruating women, they would be liable for intercourse with a menstruating woman as well.

讜诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诪讗 诪注讜讘专讜转 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 拽讟谞讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讜转 诇讬诇讚 诪讞讝讬专讬诐 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 讻讛谞讜转 谞驻住诇讜 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

And following these forbidden sexual relations, we separate these women from their husbands for three months, lest they were impregnated by that forbidden act of intercourse. Doing so makes it possible to distinguish a child born of these relations, so that he could be rendered a mamzer. And if they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them to their original husbands. And if they were daughters of priests, they are thereby disqualified from eating of teruma. By engaging in illicit sexual acts, they were rendered forbidden to priests and disqualified from eating teruma.

讙诪壮 讛讞诇讬驻讜 诪讬讚讬 讘专砖讬注讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 拽专讘谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬 讛讜讞诇驻讜

GEMARA: In the mishna it states: They switched this one with that one. Are we dealing with such wicked individuals that they would intentionally switch their wives? And furthermore, consider that which Rabbi 岣yya taught on this subject: There are sixteen sin-offerings here, four sin-offerings for each of the men and four for each of the women. Yet, if they had acted intentionally would there be an offering? Sacrifices are brought only for unintentional acts. Rav Yehuda said: Teach instead they were switched, which indicates that the switching was not done intentionally; rather, the women were accidentally mixed up.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 拽讟谞讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讜转 诇讬诇讚 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讬 砖专讬讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 驻讬转讜讬 拽讟谞讛 讗讜谞住 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讜谞住 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬

The Gemara comments: This, too, stands to reason from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them. And if this had been done intentionally, would it be permitted to return a woman who had engaged in illicit sexual acts to her husband? The Gemara comments: This is not difficult and does not disprove the notion that the act was intentional. Even if the act was intentional, these women would be permitted to return to their husbands. This is because the seduction of a minor girl is considered rape, and after rape a woman is permitted to return to an Israelite husband.

讗诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诪讗 诪注讜讘专讜转 讛谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪注讜讘专讜转 砖专讬讬谉 讜讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讞诇驻讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

However, this can be derived from a different point that the mishna teaches: We separate these women from their husbands for three months, as perhaps they became pregnant. From here it can be deduced: Were it to become clear after three months that they are not pregnant, they are permitted to return to their husbands. And if they had acted intentionally, would this be permitted? Rather, must one not conclude from here that the mishna is referring to a case where they were switched inadvertently? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the case.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn various scenarios that begin with three brothers, two of which marry two sisters. We will...
har hamenuchot nofar shuster

To Dust You Shall Return

Proper burial is a very significant idea in Judaism. We go to great lengths to ensure that the body is...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 3: Visual Tools for Yevamot (26-32)

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...

Yevamot 33 – Shabbat April 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 33 – Shabbat April 9

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 住讘专 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara suggests that they disagree with regard to the issue of a more inclusive prohibition, and this dispute pertains to the status of a more inclusive prohibition specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi 岣yya holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, one is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on one count.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讝专 诪注讬拽专讗 砖专讬 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗住讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗转讬讗 诇讛 砖讘转 诪讙讜 讚拽讗 诪讬转住专 讘诪诇讗讻讛 诪讬转住专 谞诪讬 讘注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And what more inclusive prohibition is there here in these cases? Granted, in the case of a non-priest who served in the Temple on Shabbat, initially he was permitted to perform labor every day and was prohibited from engaging in the Temple service. When Shabbat came, since he is now prohibited from engaging in prohibited labor in all contexts due to Shabbat, he is also prohibited from engaging in labors related to the Temple service due to Shabbat. Indeed, the additional prohibition of Shabbat was added to the previously existing prohibition against performing service in the Temple. This is a more inclusive prohibition since it also includes prohibited labor outside of the Temple.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 砖专讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗住讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讙讜 讚拽讗 诪讬转住专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬转住专 谞诪讬 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The same is true with regard to a blemished priest who served in the Temple while ritually impure: Initially, prior to his becoming ritually impure, he was allowed to eat from the consecrated animals but was prohibited from performing the Temple service, like all blemished priests. When he was rendered ritually impure, since he is now prohibited from eating of the consecrated items, he is also prohibited from performing the Temple service due to that same ritual impurity. There is, then, a more inclusive prohibition here. However, with regard to the case of a bird that was killed by pinching, you find that the prohibition against the eating of consecrated items by a non-priest and the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass take effect simultaneously. You do not, however, find a more inclusive prohibition here as there was no original prohibition that took effect beforehand. Instead, this is a case of two prohibitions that take effect simultaneously.

讗诇讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讜讘专 拽驻专讗 住讘专 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

Rather, the previous explanation is rejected and the Gemara suggests instead that they disagree with regard to an additional prohibition that takes effect simultaneously, and this dispute pertains to the status of these prohibitions specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi 岣yya holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable on two counts in cases of prohibitions that take effect simultaneously. And bar Kappara holds that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on a single count.

讜讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讘砖讘转 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜 讝专讜转 讜砖讘转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But here, in the first two instances, what case of simultaneous prohibitions is there here? In the two previous cases the prohibitions took effect one after the other, and not simultaneously. The Gemara answers that these cases can also be interpreted as occurring simultaneously as follows: With regard to the non-priest who served on Shabbat, this would be in a case where a minor grew two pubic hairs, signaling adulthood on Shabbat. Before that point he was considered a minor and therefore not liable for his actions. Therefore, this is a case where the prohibition against serving as a non-priest and the prohibition against violating Shabbat took effect together.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讞转讱 讗爪讘注讜 讘住讻讬谉 讟诪讗讛

With regard to the case of one who was blemished, this can be explained as well: This is referring to a case where a minor grew two pubic hairs and was immediately rendered ritually impure. This is a case where the prohibition with regard to a blemished priest and the prohibition with regard to ritual impurity took effect together. Alternatively, it could be a case where he cut off his finger with a ritually impure knife. Here, the cut and removal of his finger rendered him simultaneously blemished and ritually impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖拽讜专讬 拽讗 诪砖拽专

Following this clarification of the dispute, the matter is now considered from a different angle: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, the dispute between his version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling and that of bar Kappara can be explained as follows: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabbi 岣yya, he taught him according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yosei holds that there are cases where two prohibitions can both take effect. And when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught bar Kappara, he did so according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that a new prohibition can never take effect where another prohibition already exists. Therefore, Rabbi 岣yya could understand why bar Kappara insisted on his opinion. Rabbi 岣yya thought that bar Kappara was in fact relating an accurate statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was relating to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi 岣yya assumed that bar Kappara did not understand that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement was not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion. According to bar Kappara, however, was Rabbi 岣yya then telling a falsehood? How would bar Kappara relate to Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 oath? Did he think that Rabbi 岣yya would swear that he heard words from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that were never said?

讗诇讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽讗 诪讬砖转讘注 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讝拽讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讗砖转讘讜注讬 拽砖讬讗

Rather, this must be explained differently: Rabbi 岣yya and bar Kappara disagree with regard to cases where two prohibitions take effect simultaneously, and this dispute pertains to the status of these prohibition specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It could be suggested that when the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously, Rabbi Shimon would concede that they both take effect. However, this explanation raises a difficulty as well: Granted, according to Rabbi 岣yya it is clear why he was swearing. He did so in order to exclude the understanding of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that was based on his presumed opinion. As it was known that Rabbi Shimon holds that a new prohibition cannot take effect where another prohibition exists; this is the default understanding of his opinion. Therefore, it was incumbent upon Rabbi 岣yya to take an oath in order to emphasize that despite Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 general opinion, in cases where the prohibitions take effect simultaneously, he would concede that both prohibitions can take effect. However, according to bar Kappara, why was it necessary to swear? It would have sufficed for him simply to make his statement, as it concurs with the default understanding of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 专讘讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 拽驻专讗 砖拽讜专讬 拽讗 诪砖拽专

One can raise a difficulty with this explanation from a different angle as well: Granted, according to bar Kappara, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught him, he taught him according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two prohibitions cannot take effect even in cases when they occur simultaneously, and when he taught the ruling to Rabbi 岣yya it was according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Accordingly, Rabbi 岣yya did in fact swear that he heard that one is liable only on one count, but he wrongly understood that this was Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion. However, according to Rabbi 岣yya, who holds that Rabbi Shimon concedes that in cases where the prohibitions take effect simultaneously one is liable for both, was bar Kappara lying? His statement would accord neither with Rabbi Shimon nor with Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 专讘讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 转专转讬 诇驻讟讜专 讗转谞讬讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣yya could have said to you that this is what transpired: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught him, bar Kappara, he taught him two cases involving exemptions, i.e., the cases of a non-priest who served in the Temple on Shabbat and that of the blemished priest who served while ritually impure. Both of these are cases of more inclusive prohibitions, and he was informing bar Kappara that Rabbi Shimon holds them liable on only one count, because Rabbi Shimon holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists only if the prohibitions take effect simultaneously, but not in cases of more inclusive prohibitions.

讜讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪诇讬拽讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛 注专讘讛 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜注讬讬谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 讗诇讗 讘讘转 讗讞转

And he taught him the ruling with regard to a more inclusive prohibition, that in such cases there is an exemption, and this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And bar Kappara then saw the case of a non-priest who ate a bird killed by pinching, and since it was similar to the previous cases, he mixed them together. Then, sometime later, it seemed to him as though he had in truth heard all of these cases together from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but when he examined this last case, he found that it could exist only if the events occurred simultaneously.

讜住讘专 诪讚讛讗 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讗 谞诪讬 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜诪讚讛谞讱 诇驻讟讜专 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诇驻讟讜专

And he concluded that since the case of a non-priest eating a bird killed by pinching can occur only in a scenario where the prohibitions take effect simultaneously, the other cases are instances of simultaneous prohibitions as well. And similarly, since he was taught to exempt one individual from a second prohibition in those cases, these cases were taught to exempt one individual from a second prohibition as well. Therefore, according to Rabbi 岣yya, bar Kappara did not knowingly speak falsely. Rather, he heard certain matters from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and then mistakenly merged with them other matters. As a result, he confused the issue.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖砖讬诪砖 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讜诪砖讜诐 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝专讜转 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬诇讜 诪诇讬拽讛 砖讬讬专讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of bar Kappara from a baraita: In the case of a non-priest who served on Shabbat and the case of a blemished priest who served while ritually impure, there is liability here, due to the prohibition against serving as a non-priest; and due to the prohibition against desecrating Shabbat; and due to the prohibition against serving as a blemished priest; and due to the prohibition against serving after contracting ritual impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: There is liability here only due to the prohibition against serving as a non-priest and due to the prohibition against serving as a blemished priest. The Gemara notes: And yet the case of a non-priest who ate a bird killed by pinching was left out and not mentioned among the cases subject to this dispute.

诇诪讗谉 砖讬讬专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛砖转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讘讗讬住讜专 讘转 讗讞转 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专 讗讘诇 讘讗讬住讜专 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讘专 拽驻专讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks: According to whom was this left out? That is, according to the opinion of which tanna would this question arise? If we say that this was left out according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is difficult. Now that Rabbi Yosei holds, even in cases of a more inclusive prohibition, that one is liable on two counts, as was stated with regard to a non-priest who served on Shabbat, is it necessary to state that in the case where the additional prohibition takes effect simultaneously one would be liable on two counts? Rather, is it not according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that this case was left out, as Rabbi Shimon would concede that in this case one is liable on two counts? Therefore, Rabbi Shimon exempts one from liability for the second prohibition in cases of more inclusive prohibitions, but in cases of simultaneous prohibitions he would deem one liable on two counts. The Gemara summarizes: The refutation of the opinion of bar Kappara is indeed a conclusive refutation, and his statements are rejected.

讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘砖讘转 讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 讘拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a question with regard to one of the laws mentioned above. The baraita mentioned the case of a non-priest who served on Shabbat. The Gemara wonders: In what form of service did he perform in the Temple? If this is referring to a case where a non-priest performed the slaughtering of the sacrificial animal, there would be no prohibition, as the slaughtering by a non-priest is valid. And if it is referring to receiving the blood and carrying the blood to the altar, while this is a case where he would be liable as a non-priest performing the service of a priest, insofar as Shabbat is concerned this is a case only of moving, and it does not entail a violation of any prohibited labor.

讗讬 讘讛拽讟专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪讗转讛

If he served by burning the sacrificial portions on the altar, then this discussion follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei say that the prohibition against kindling on Shabbat was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat merely violates a prohibition? This is as opposed to the other prohibited labors, which incur death penalties when violated willfully and entail the bringing of a sin-offering when violated unintentionally. Why, then, would Rabbi Yosei deem one liable for two sin-offerings?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讘砖讞讬讟转 驻专讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 谞诪讬 砖讝专 讗爪诇讜 拽讗诪专

Rav A岣 bar Yaakov said: The service referred to in this case is the slaughtering of the High Priest鈥檚 bull on Yom Kippur, and this is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the slaughtering of the High Priest鈥檚 bull is disqualified if performed by a non-priest, for this service is designated specifically for the High Priest alone. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to the slaughtering of the High Priest鈥檚 bull, then why specifically state a non-priest? The same would hold true even for a common priest as well. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who is as a non-priest in relation to the High Priest and not to an actual non-priest. The Hebrew word zar literally means foreigner, and this type of service is considered foreign to a common priest as well as a non-priest.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讞讟讗讜转 拽转谞讬 讗讜 诇讗讜讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讜讘专讜 讘讬谉 专砖注讬诐 讙诪讜专讬诐

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: The previous rejection that was based on the idea that the act of burning was not a full-fledged prohibited labor is in fact groundless. Is the tanna teaching how many sin-offerings would be incurred, or is he teaching how many negative mitzvot are being violated? Rather, he merely enumerates the prohibitions violated by a certain action, without detailing their severities, and therefore the desecration of Shabbat involved in the Temple service can be any Shabbat violation. The Gemara asks: What practical difference does it make how many prohibitions are involved? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not to bury him among the completely wicked. If he violated two prohibitions, he is considered wicked on two counts and consequently must be buried accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖拽讬讚砖讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讘砖注转 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讛讞诇讬驻讜 讗转 砖诇 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讗转 砖诇 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 讗讞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 讗讞讬讜转 诪砖讜诐 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讚讜转 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

MISHNA: In the case of two men who betrothed two women, and at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, after the betrothal, the men switched this wife with that wife and that one with this one, then these two men are liable for engaging in forbidden sexual relations with a married woman, since each of them had intercourse with his fellow鈥檚 wife. The act of betrothal is sufficient to prohibit a woman to all other men as a married woman. Therefore, when the women were switched, both men transgressed this violation. And if they were brothers, then they are also liable for forbidden sexual relations with a brother鈥檚 wife. And if these women were sisters, then they are liable for taking a wife and her sister as well. And if they were menstruating women, they would be liable for intercourse with a menstruating woman as well.

讜诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诪讗 诪注讜讘专讜转 讛谉 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 拽讟谞讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讜转 诇讬诇讚 诪讞讝讬专讬诐 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 讻讛谞讜转 谞驻住诇讜 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

And following these forbidden sexual relations, we separate these women from their husbands for three months, lest they were impregnated by that forbidden act of intercourse. Doing so makes it possible to distinguish a child born of these relations, so that he could be rendered a mamzer. And if they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them to their original husbands. And if they were daughters of priests, they are thereby disqualified from eating of teruma. By engaging in illicit sexual acts, they were rendered forbidden to priests and disqualified from eating teruma.

讙诪壮 讛讞诇讬驻讜 诪讬讚讬 讘专砖讬注讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 注砖专讛 讞讟讗讜转 讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 拽专讘谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬 讛讜讞诇驻讜

GEMARA: In the mishna it states: They switched this one with that one. Are we dealing with such wicked individuals that they would intentionally switch their wives? And furthermore, consider that which Rabbi 岣yya taught on this subject: There are sixteen sin-offerings here, four sin-offerings for each of the men and four for each of the women. Yet, if they had acted intentionally would there be an offering? Sacrifices are brought only for unintentional acts. Rav Yehuda said: Teach instead they were switched, which indicates that the switching was not done intentionally; rather, the women were accidentally mixed up.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 拽讟谞讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讜转 诇讬诇讚 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讬 砖专讬讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 驻讬转讜讬 拽讟谞讛 讗讜谞住 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讜谞住 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬

The Gemara comments: This, too, stands to reason from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them. And if this had been done intentionally, would it be permitted to return a woman who had engaged in illicit sexual acts to her husband? The Gemara comments: This is not difficult and does not disprove the notion that the act was intentional. Even if the act was intentional, these women would be permitted to return to their husbands. This is because the seduction of a minor girl is considered rape, and after rape a woman is permitted to return to an Israelite husband.

讗诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诪讗 诪注讜讘专讜转 讛谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪注讜讘专讜转 砖专讬讬谉 讜讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讬 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讜讞诇驻讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

However, this can be derived from a different point that the mishna teaches: We separate these women from their husbands for three months, as perhaps they became pregnant. From here it can be deduced: Were it to become clear after three months that they are not pregnant, they are permitted to return to their husbands. And if they had acted intentionally, would this be permitted? Rather, must one not conclude from here that the mishna is referring to a case where they were switched inadvertently? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the case.

Scroll To Top