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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 2, 2022 | 讗壮 讘讗讬讬专 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 56

Today鈥檚 day is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David鈥檚 father, Dr. Abraham Geffen on his yahrzeit.聽

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt”l.

Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding whether yibum that is performed in a weaker manner (for example, if it was unwitting) is fully effective or only partially (meaning she would not be allowed to eat truma). Is their debate in a case where she fell to yibum from an engagement or from marriage? Two different versions of the debate are brought and according to each version a statement of Shmuel is brought to show either that he is consistent or that he contradicts himself and a tannaitic source is brought to raise a difficulty against Shmuel. According to the first version, there is a resolution to the difficulty, but according to the second, there is no resolution. Since the braita brought as a difficulty against Shmuel discussed a case of a kohen who became deaf between engagement and marriage, another braita builds on that case 鈥 even though the wife cannot eat truma, if they have a child, then she can. What if the child dies? Rabbi Natan and the rabbis disagree about whether or not she can eat truma still. What is the reasoning behind each approach? Raba and Rav Yosef each explain it differently and Abaye raises questions against each of their positions. Rav Sheshet tries to prove from our Mishna as it says 鈥渁nd likewise鈥 those who are disqualified to kohanim, and that is referring to 鈥渨hether unwitting or intentional, forced or by her will鈥 that a woman who was married to a Yisrael and was raped cannot marry a kohen. But in the end, this word 鈥渁nd likewise鈥 is understood to be referring to something else in the Mishna and can鈥檛 be used to prove this. Raba said that if a kohen returns to his wife after she was raped and has relations with her, he receives lashes for having relations with a zona. Why does he not receive lashes for impurity? Or perhaps he does? A different version of Raba鈥檚 statement is brought 鈥 he is liable to impurity and not for a zona, as a woman who is raped is not considered a zona. If a daughter of a kohen is a divorcee and marries a kohen, or any other woman who is forbidden to marry a kohen, she can no longer eat truma. What if she was only betrothed to him? Or was betrothed and then he died or divorced her before they even got married?

诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞砖讬拽讛 讜驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛 讜驻诇讬讙 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇

From this point forward, insertion of anything less than the corona is only considered a kiss, for which he is exempt. And this statement disagrees with that of Shmuel, who maintains that one is liable to receive punishment for external contact of the sexual organs.

讗讞讚 讛诪注专讛 讜讗讞讚 讛讙讜诪专 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 拽谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 拽谞讛 诇讻诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻专砖讛 诇讬专砖 讘谞讻住讬 讗讞讬讜 讜诇驻讜讟专讛 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna that both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse have thereby acquired the yevama. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that he has acquired his yevama? Rav said: He has acquired her for everything. In other words, she is considered his wife in all regards. Therefore, if he is a priest, she may partake of teruma. And Shmuel said he has only acquired her with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, i.e., to inherit his brother鈥檚 property and to exempt her from levirate marriage if he then dies and leaves behind children from another wife.

诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讛讜转 拽讗讻诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讚讛讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讗转 砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚

The Gemara adds: If she was a yevama from marriage, everyone agrees that she may partake of teruma after the initial stage of intercourse, as she was already partaking at the outset, when she was married to the deceased brother. Therefore, even a minimal act of intercourse is enough to allow her to continue to partake of teruma. When they disagree it is with regard to a yevama from betrothal. Rav said: She may partake, as the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse and the other forms of intercourse listed in the mishna, and considers them like intentional intercourse.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讬 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讘注诇 诇讗诇讜诪讬 诪讘注诇 诇讗

And Shmuel said: When the Merciful One includes these forms of intercourse, He does so only to establish the yavam in place of the husband, but to strengthen him more than the husband, no. Since she was merely betrothed to the deceased brother, she was not permitted to partake of teruma, and therefore she may not partake of teruma at this point either.

讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讬讘诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

The Gemara comments: And Shmuel follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In any case where the woman鈥檚 marriage to her original husband entitles her to partake of teruma, intercourse with the yavam in any of the manners described in the mishna also entitles her to partake of teruma, and any case where her relationship with her original husband does not entitle her to partake of teruma, i.e., if she had been betrothed but not married, intercourse with the yavam in the manners described in the mishna also does not entitle her to partake of teruma.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 驻拽讞转 砖谞转讗专住讛 诇讻讛谉 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转 讜讘讝讜 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讬讘诐 诪讻讞 讛讘注诇

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma, as marriage to a deaf-mute does not enable a woman to partake of teruma. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently died and the yevama happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma. And in this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗

Granted, according Rav, this works out well, as intercourse with the deaf-mute yavam, which is comparable to the unwitting intercourse mentioned in the mishna because the deaf-mute is not mentally competent, effects the levirate marriage and allows her to partake of teruma despite the fact that she could not do so during the lifetime of her first husband. However, according to Shmuel, this is difficult, as he maintains that a yavam cannot have more rights than the deceased husband due to intercourse undertaken without intent to perform levirate marriage.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讻谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: Amend the baraita and say as follows: If he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake of teruma. If he married her and afterward became a deaf-mute, she may partake of teruma. If he then died, and she happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma.

讜诪讗讬 讘讝讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讘注诇 讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗讜讻诇转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讘诐 讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻诇讛

And what is the meaning of the phrase: In this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband? It means to say that if the original husband was a deaf-mute from the outset, i.e., before consummating the marriage, she would not have been allowed to partake of teruma, whereas if the yavam was a deaf-mute from the outset she may partake of teruma once they perform levirate marriage, because she had been fully married to the deceased brother.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇

And some say a different version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel: If she was a yevama from betrothal, i.e., her marriage with the deceased brother had never been completed, and she and the brother-in-law engaged in an inferior form of intercourse as described in the mishna, everyone agrees that she may not partake of teruma, as she did not partake of teruma in her husband鈥檚 lifetime.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讚讛讗 讛讜转 讗讻诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讻讬 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讗转 砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚 诇讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻专砖讛 讗讘诇 诇讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诇讗

When they disagree, it is with regard to a yevama from marriage. Rav says: She may partake of teruma as she was permitted to partake of teruma initially, while married to the deceased brother. And Shmuel says she may not partake of teruma, because when the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse and considers it like intentional intercourse, it was only with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, but for every other issue, no.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讘讬讗讛 砖讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛 讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛 讜讻诇 讘讬讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛 讗讬谉 讛讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel himself said: In any case where the woman鈥檚 marriage to her original husband entitles her to partake of teruma, intercourse with the yavam in one of the manners listed in the mishna also entitles her to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: Emend the wording and say as follows: With regard to any act of intercourse through which the husband entitles her to partake of teruma, a yavam also entitles her to partake of teruma; and with regard to any act of intercourse through which the husband does not entitle her to partake of teruma, a yavam also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. Just as betrothal cannot be performed via an unwitting act of intercourse, this act does not entitle a yevama to partake of teruma.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 驻拽讞转 砖谞转讗专住讛 诇讻讛谉 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转 讜讘讝讜 讬驻讛 讻讞 讬讘诐 诪讻讞 讘注诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪转专抓 讻讚转专讬抓 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently died, and the yevama happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma. And in this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband. Granted, according to Rav, he can answer as Shmuel answered initially, i.e., according to the first version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. However, according to Shmuel, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 驻拽讞转 砖谞转讗专住讛 诇讻讛谉 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 谞讜诇讚 诇讛 讘谉 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讛讘谉 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转

The Sages taught: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a mentally competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma. If a son was born to her from this priest, she may partake of teruma on account of her son. If the son died, Rabbi Natan says she may continue to partake of teruma, and the Rabbis say she may not continue to partake of teruma.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪讬转 诇讬讛 转讬讻讜诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 驻拽注 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 驻拽注 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Natan? Rabba said: Since she has already partaken of teruma in a permitted manner, she may continue. Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, in the case of the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, and he died childless, she should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she has already partaken of it in the past. Rather, it must be that since he has passed away, his priestly sanctity has left her, and she is considered a regular Israelite in all regards. Here too, since the son has passed away, his priestly sanctity has left her, and therefore she should not be entitled to partake of teruma. Rabba鈥檚 explanation should consequently be rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽住讘专 专讘讬 谞转谉 谞砖讜讗讬 讞专砖 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬 讞专砖 讗讟讜 拽讚讜砖讬 讞专砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讜诇讚 诇讛 讘谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘谞谉

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Natan holds that the marriage of a deaf-mute who was competent when he betrothed his wife entitles her to partake of teruma, and we do not issue a decree against the wife partaking of teruma through marriage to a deaf-mute due to the case of betrothal to a deaf-mute. Although the betrothal of a deaf-mute does not take effect, his consummation of a marriage does take effect and entitles his wife to partake of teruma. Abaye said to him: If so, why do I need the baraita to specify that a son was born to her? She should be entitled to eat teruma even if she did not have a son. Rav Yosef responded: That case is mentioned due to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that she is entitled to partake of teruma only if she has a child.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 专讘讬 谞转谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讚诪住讬讬诪讬 诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 诪转 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇转 拽砖讬讗

Abaye asks further: And let Rabbi Natan disagree with them in the first clause of the baraita as well. Rav Yosef responds: Rabbi Natan left the Rabbis until they finished their statement, and then disagreed with them with regard to their entire statement. The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita first teach that if the son died she may not partake of teruma, and subsequently state: Rabbi Natan said she may eat. Why is Rabbi Natan鈥檚 opinion mentioned before the Rabbis finished stating their opinion? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult according to Rav Yosef.

讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And so too, one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah in any form is liable to receive punishment. Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet,

讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 诇注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗谞住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讗讜 驻住讜诇讜转

and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. And the tanna of our mishna also taught: And so too, in the case of one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit to marry him even though they are not in the category of arayot, the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘专爪讜谉 讜拽转谞讬 驻住诇讛

What is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? What, is it not that it is no different whether they have intercourse unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different whether they have intercourse due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught that he has rendered her disqualified from marrying a priest.

诇讗 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗讛注专讗讛 讛注专讗讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注专讬讜转 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注专讬讜转 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讬讘诪讛 讗讚专讘讛 讬讘诪讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪注专讬讜转 讚注讬拽专 讛注专讗讛 讘注专讬讜转 讻转讬讘

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to the initial stage of intercourse, as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say it is referring to those with whom relations are prohibited and carry a punishment of karet or death [arayot], is this to say that the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from the halakha with regard to a yevama, as implied by the phrase: And so too? On the contrary, we derive the halakha of a yevama from the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main source that indicates that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse is stated in the context of those with whom relations are prohibited and not in the context of a yevama.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讚注专讬讜转 讗讚专讘讛 注讬拽专 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讘注专讬讜转 讻转讬讘

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical, i.e., anal, sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot]. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: On the contrary, the main source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse 鈥淭he cohabitations of a woman鈥 (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot].

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讚讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical intercourse by those liable for violating an ordinary prohibition not punishable by karet, with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet鈥檚 proof from the mishna is not conclusive.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛

Rava said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged if he later has intercourse with her, due to the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a zona. The Gemara expresses surprise: Due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, yes; due to ritual impurity, no? The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava鈥檚 statement: Say that he is also flogged due to the prohibition with regard to a zona.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 讗砖转 讻讛谉

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection based upon a verse with regard to a sota: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken鈥 (Numbers 5:13) indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. The term 鈥淎nd鈥he鈥 indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is prohibited even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest.

讜诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛

And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, e.g., the prohibition proscribing a priest鈥檚 wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讝讜谞讛 讻砖驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讙讘讬 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗砖转 讻讛谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗

Rabba said in response: All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona. When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken,鈥 as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted. By inference, unlike the wife of an Israelite, the wife of a priest remains as she was. Since the Torah does not limit the category of zona with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a zona even if she was raped.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 诇讗 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讝讜谞讛

And some say a different version of this discussion. Rabba said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for having intercourse with her due to her ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, no? Apparently, in a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讗砖转 讻讛谉 讜诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection from the verse: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken鈥 indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, she is permitted to her husband. The term: 鈥淎nd鈥he,鈥 indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is forbidden even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讗讞专讬 讗砖专 讛讟诪讗讛 讻砖驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讙讘讬 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗砖转 讻讛谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗

Rava said: All were included in the verse 鈥淗er former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:4). When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken,鈥 as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, and she is forbidden.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

MISHNA: A widow to a High Priest, a divorc茅e, or a 岣lutza to a common priest, even if they had only engaged in betrothal and had not yet had intercourse, may not partake of teruma. Since they are forbidden to the men who betrothed them, the betrothal itself disqualifies them from the privileges of priesthood even if they are the daughters of priests. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare them fit to partake of teruma. Since the prohibition is violated through the act of intercourse and not betrothal, the women are disqualified only once they have intercourse.

谞转讗专诪诇讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 驻住讜诇讜转 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讻砖专讜转

In a case where these women were widowed or divorced, if it was from marriage, they are disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of teruma. This is because a woman prohibited from marrying a priest who has intercourse with a priest becomes a 岣lala, and is thereby disqualified from partaking of teruma. However, if they were widowed or divorced from their state of betrothal, they are once again fit to partake of teruma according to all opinions.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 拽讚讜砖讬 专砖讜转 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬 注讘讬专讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: This is an a fortiori inference: Just as optional betrothal, e.g., in the case of an Israelite who betroths the daughter of a priest, does not entitle her to partake of teruma, as her betrothal to a non-priest disqualifies her from partaking of her father鈥檚 teruma, is it not all the more so true in a case of betrothal that constitutes a transgression, as in the cases in the mishna?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 专砖讜转 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 转讗诪专 讘拽讚讜砖讬 注讘讬专讛 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

They said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to an Israelite, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as one betrothed to an Israelite may never partake of teruma, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to betrothal to a priest that constitutes a transgression, where his status does entitle her to partake of teruma in a different case, as marriage to a priest entitles a woman to partake of teruma in a case where it is permitted for them to marry?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻讛谉 砖拽讚砖 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: In the case of a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, which is prohibited by the verse 鈥淗e that is crushed or maimed shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2), we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.

诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讻诇讛

According to Rabbi Meir, who said that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid, i.e., prohibited, by Torah law may not partake of teruma, this one may also not partake of teruma, as it is prohibited by Torah law for her to have intercourse with a man with crushed testicles. According to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid by Torah law may partake of teruma until she actually engages in the prohibited act of intercourse,

  • 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: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue our conversation about the power of Maamar and Get in relation to Yibum and Chalitza....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 56: Kohanim and Marital Complications

When a bat Yisrael marries a kohen, is then entitled to eat terumah, and he is then excluded from being...

Yevamot 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 56

诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞砖讬拽讛 讜驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛 讜驻诇讬讙 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇

From this point forward, insertion of anything less than the corona is only considered a kiss, for which he is exempt. And this statement disagrees with that of Shmuel, who maintains that one is liable to receive punishment for external contact of the sexual organs.

讗讞讚 讛诪注专讛 讜讗讞讚 讛讙讜诪专 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 拽谞讛 专讘 讗诪专 拽谞讛 诇讻诇 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻专砖讛 诇讬专砖 讘谞讻住讬 讗讞讬讜 讜诇驻讜讟专讛 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna that both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse have thereby acquired the yevama. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that he has acquired his yevama? Rav said: He has acquired her for everything. In other words, she is considered his wife in all regards. Therefore, if he is a priest, she may partake of teruma. And Shmuel said he has only acquired her with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, i.e., to inherit his brother鈥檚 property and to exempt her from levirate marriage if he then dies and leaves behind children from another wife.

诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讛讜转 拽讗讻诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讚讛讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讗转 砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚

The Gemara adds: If she was a yevama from marriage, everyone agrees that she may partake of teruma after the initial stage of intercourse, as she was already partaking at the outset, when she was married to the deceased brother. Therefore, even a minimal act of intercourse is enough to allow her to continue to partake of teruma. When they disagree it is with regard to a yevama from betrothal. Rav said: She may partake, as the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse and the other forms of intercourse listed in the mishna, and considers them like intentional intercourse.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讬 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讘注诇 诇讗诇讜诪讬 诪讘注诇 诇讗

And Shmuel said: When the Merciful One includes these forms of intercourse, He does so only to establish the yavam in place of the husband, but to strengthen him more than the husband, no. Since she was merely betrothed to the deceased brother, she was not permitted to partake of teruma, and therefore she may not partake of teruma at this point either.

讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讬讘诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

The Gemara comments: And Shmuel follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In any case where the woman鈥檚 marriage to her original husband entitles her to partake of teruma, intercourse with the yavam in any of the manners described in the mishna also entitles her to partake of teruma, and any case where her relationship with her original husband does not entitle her to partake of teruma, i.e., if she had been betrothed but not married, intercourse with the yavam in the manners described in the mishna also does not entitle her to partake of teruma.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 驻拽讞转 砖谞转讗专住讛 诇讻讛谉 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转 讜讘讝讜 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讬讘诐 诪讻讞 讛讘注诇

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma, as marriage to a deaf-mute does not enable a woman to partake of teruma. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently died and the yevama happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma. And in this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗

Granted, according Rav, this works out well, as intercourse with the deaf-mute yavam, which is comparable to the unwitting intercourse mentioned in the mishna because the deaf-mute is not mentally competent, effects the levirate marriage and allows her to partake of teruma despite the fact that she could not do so during the lifetime of her first husband. However, according to Shmuel, this is difficult, as he maintains that a yavam cannot have more rights than the deceased husband due to intercourse undertaken without intent to perform levirate marriage.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讻谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: Amend the baraita and say as follows: If he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake of teruma. If he married her and afterward became a deaf-mute, she may partake of teruma. If he then died, and she happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma.

讜诪讗讬 讘讝讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讘注诇 讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗讜讻诇转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讘诐 讞专砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻诇讛

And what is the meaning of the phrase: In this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband? It means to say that if the original husband was a deaf-mute from the outset, i.e., before consummating the marriage, she would not have been allowed to partake of teruma, whereas if the yavam was a deaf-mute from the outset she may partake of teruma once they perform levirate marriage, because she had been fully married to the deceased brother.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘讞讬讬 讘注诇

And some say a different version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel: If she was a yevama from betrothal, i.e., her marriage with the deceased brother had never been completed, and she and the brother-in-law engaged in an inferior form of intercourse as described in the mishna, everyone agrees that she may not partake of teruma, as she did not partake of teruma in her husband鈥檚 lifetime.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讚讛讗 讛讜转 讗讻诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讻讬 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讗转 砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚 诇讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻专砖讛 讗讘诇 诇讻诇 诪讬诇讬 诇讗

When they disagree, it is with regard to a yevama from marriage. Rav says: She may partake of teruma as she was permitted to partake of teruma initially, while married to the deceased brother. And Shmuel says she may not partake of teruma, because when the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse and considers it like intentional intercourse, it was only with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, but for every other issue, no.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讘讬讗讛 砖讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛 讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛 讜讻诇 讘讬讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛 讗讬谉 讛讬讘诐 诪讗讻讬诇 讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel himself said: In any case where the woman鈥檚 marriage to her original husband entitles her to partake of teruma, intercourse with the yavam in one of the manners listed in the mishna also entitles her to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: Emend the wording and say as follows: With regard to any act of intercourse through which the husband entitles her to partake of teruma, a yavam also entitles her to partake of teruma; and with regard to any act of intercourse through which the husband does not entitle her to partake of teruma, a yavam also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. Just as betrothal cannot be performed via an unwitting act of intercourse, this act does not entitle a yevama to partake of teruma.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 驻拽讞转 砖谞转讗专住讛 诇讻讛谉 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讜谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讘诐 讞专砖 讗讜讻诇转 讜讘讝讜 讬驻讛 讻讞 讬讘诐 诪讻讞 讘注诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪转专抓 讻讚转专讬抓 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently died, and the yevama happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma. And in this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband. Granted, according to Rav, he can answer as Shmuel answered initially, i.e., according to the first version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. However, according to Shmuel, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 驻拽讞转 砖谞转讗专住讛 诇讻讛谉 驻拽讞 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讻讜谞住讛 注讚 砖谞转讞专砖 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 谞讜诇讚 诇讛 讘谉 讗讜讻诇转 诪转 讛讘谉 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转

The Sages taught: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a mentally competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma. If a son was born to her from this priest, she may partake of teruma on account of her son. If the son died, Rabbi Natan says she may continue to partake of teruma, and the Rabbis say she may not continue to partake of teruma.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪讬转 诇讬讛 转讬讻讜诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 驻拽注 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 驻拽注 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Natan? Rabba said: Since she has already partaken of teruma in a permitted manner, she may continue. Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, in the case of the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, and he died childless, she should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she has already partaken of it in the past. Rather, it must be that since he has passed away, his priestly sanctity has left her, and she is considered a regular Israelite in all regards. Here too, since the son has passed away, his priestly sanctity has left her, and therefore she should not be entitled to partake of teruma. Rabba鈥檚 explanation should consequently be rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽住讘专 专讘讬 谞转谉 谞砖讜讗讬 讞专砖 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 谞砖讜讗讬 讞专砖 讗讟讜 拽讚讜砖讬 讞专砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讜诇讚 诇讛 讘谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘谞谉

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Natan holds that the marriage of a deaf-mute who was competent when he betrothed his wife entitles her to partake of teruma, and we do not issue a decree against the wife partaking of teruma through marriage to a deaf-mute due to the case of betrothal to a deaf-mute. Although the betrothal of a deaf-mute does not take effect, his consummation of a marriage does take effect and entitles his wife to partake of teruma. Abaye said to him: If so, why do I need the baraita to specify that a son was born to her? She should be entitled to eat teruma even if she did not have a son. Rav Yosef responded: That case is mentioned due to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that she is entitled to partake of teruma only if she has a child.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 专讘讬 谞转谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讚诪住讬讬诪讬 诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 诪转 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇转 拽砖讬讗

Abaye asks further: And let Rabbi Natan disagree with them in the first clause of the baraita as well. Rav Yosef responds: Rabbi Natan left the Rabbis until they finished their statement, and then disagreed with them with regard to their entire statement. The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita first teach that if the son died she may not partake of teruma, and subsequently state: Rabbi Natan said she may eat. Why is Rabbi Natan鈥檚 opinion mentioned before the Rabbis finished stating their opinion? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult according to Rav Yosef.

讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And so too, one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah in any form is liable to receive punishment. Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet,

讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 诇注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗谞住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讗讜 驻住讜诇讜转

and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. And the tanna of our mishna also taught: And so too, in the case of one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [arayot] by the Torah or with those who are unfit to marry him even though they are not in the category of arayot, the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘专爪讜谉 讜拽转谞讬 驻住诇讛

What is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? What, is it not that it is no different whether they have intercourse unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different whether they have intercourse due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught that he has rendered her disqualified from marrying a priest.

诇讗 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗讛注专讗讛 讛注专讗讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注专讬讜转 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注专讬讜转 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讬讘诪讛 讗讚专讘讛 讬讘诪讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪注专讬讜转 讚注讬拽专 讛注专讗讛 讘注专讬讜转 讻转讬讘

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to the initial stage of intercourse, as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say it is referring to those with whom relations are prohibited and carry a punishment of karet or death [arayot], is this to say that the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from the halakha with regard to a yevama, as implied by the phrase: And so too? On the contrary, we derive the halakha of a yevama from the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main source that indicates that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse is stated in the context of those with whom relations are prohibited and not in the context of a yevama.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讚注专讬讜转 讗讚专讘讛 注讬拽专 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讘注专讬讜转 讻转讬讘

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical, i.e., anal, sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot]. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: On the contrary, the main source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse 鈥淭he cohabitations of a woman鈥 (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited [arayot].

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讚讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical intercourse by those liable for violating an ordinary prohibition not punishable by karet, with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet鈥檚 proof from the mishna is not conclusive.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛

Rava said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged if he later has intercourse with her, due to the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a zona. The Gemara expresses surprise: Due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, yes; due to ritual impurity, no? The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava鈥檚 statement: Say that he is also flogged due to the prohibition with regard to a zona.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 讗砖转 讻讛谉

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection based upon a verse with regard to a sota: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken鈥 (Numbers 5:13) indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. The term 鈥淎nd鈥he鈥 indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is prohibited even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest.

讜诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛

And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, e.g., the prohibition proscribing a priest鈥檚 wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讝讜谞讛 讻砖驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讙讘讬 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗砖转 讻讛谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗

Rabba said in response: All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona. When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken,鈥 as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted. By inference, unlike the wife of an Israelite, the wife of a priest remains as she was. Since the Torah does not limit the category of zona with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a zona even if she was raped.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 诇讗 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讝讜谞讛

And some say a different version of this discussion. Rabba said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for having intercourse with her due to her ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to the prohibition proscribing a zona, no? Apparently, in a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讗砖转 讻讛谉 讜诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection from the verse: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken鈥 indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, she is permitted to her husband. The term: 鈥淎nd鈥he,鈥 indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is forbidden even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讗讞专讬 讗砖专 讛讟诪讗讛 讻砖驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讙讘讬 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 谞转驻砖讛 讗住讜专讛 讛讗 谞转驻砖讛 诪讜转专转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗砖转 讻讛谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗

Rava said: All were included in the verse 鈥淗er former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:4). When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: 鈥淎nd neither was she taken,鈥 as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, and she is forbidden.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

MISHNA: A widow to a High Priest, a divorc茅e, or a 岣lutza to a common priest, even if they had only engaged in betrothal and had not yet had intercourse, may not partake of teruma. Since they are forbidden to the men who betrothed them, the betrothal itself disqualifies them from the privileges of priesthood even if they are the daughters of priests. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare them fit to partake of teruma. Since the prohibition is violated through the act of intercourse and not betrothal, the women are disqualified only once they have intercourse.

谞转讗专诪诇讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 驻住讜诇讜转 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讻砖专讜转

In a case where these women were widowed or divorced, if it was from marriage, they are disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of teruma. This is because a woman prohibited from marrying a priest who has intercourse with a priest becomes a 岣lala, and is thereby disqualified from partaking of teruma. However, if they were widowed or divorced from their state of betrothal, they are once again fit to partake of teruma according to all opinions.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 拽讚讜砖讬 专砖讜转 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬 注讘讬专讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: This is an a fortiori inference: Just as optional betrothal, e.g., in the case of an Israelite who betroths the daughter of a priest, does not entitle her to partake of teruma, as her betrothal to a non-priest disqualifies her from partaking of her father鈥檚 teruma, is it not all the more so true in a case of betrothal that constitutes a transgression, as in the cases in the mishna?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬 专砖讜转 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 转讗诪专 讘拽讚讜砖讬 注讘讬专讛 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

They said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to an Israelite, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as one betrothed to an Israelite may never partake of teruma, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to betrothal to a priest that constitutes a transgression, where his status does entitle her to partake of teruma in a different case, as marriage to a priest entitles a woman to partake of teruma in a case where it is permitted for them to marry?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻讛谉 砖拽讚砖 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: In the case of a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, which is prohibited by the verse 鈥淗e that is crushed or maimed shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2), we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.

诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讻诇讛

According to Rabbi Meir, who said that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid, i.e., prohibited, by Torah law may not partake of teruma, this one may also not partake of teruma, as it is prohibited by Torah law for her to have intercourse with a man with crushed testicles. According to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid by Torah law may partake of teruma until she actually engages in the prohibited act of intercourse,

Scroll To Top