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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 3, 2022 | 讘壮 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 57

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by the Cohen, Raye & Maybaum families in loving memory of their mother Elisabeth Maybaum, Elisheva bat Yehuda, on her 3rd yahrzeit. 鈥淵ou inspired us, you supported us, you made us laugh. We miss your wise counsel and insights. We miss you.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Avi Yonitzman in loving memory of Albert Kobney ben Adel and health to Serina Kobney bat Rachel.

Is the debate in the Mishnah regarding a man who betroths a bat kohen the same debate as a patzua daka who is a kohen who marries a bat Yisrael? The Gemara tries to distinguish between the cases, but Rava and Abaye prove (each in a different way) that they are similar. Why did each not interpret like the other opinion? Rabbi Yochanan asked Rabbi Oshaya a question he could not answer – a patzua daka who was married to the daughter or converts – could she eat truma? There is a dispute between three tannaim regarding the daughter of a convert – is she disqualified to marry a kohen and is she considered 鈥渨ithin the community鈥 and can鈥檛 marry a patzua daka? According to which opinion did Rabbi Yochanan ask his question? What is the answer to the question? Rav and Shmuel disagree in a case where there is a chuppah without a betrothal of a woman forbidden to a kohen with a kohen, will she be disqualified from eating truma?

 

讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讻诇讛 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗

this one may also partake of teruma until that time. The Gemara refutes this argument: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion there only with regard to a priest whose status can entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, but here, in the case of a priest with crushed testicles, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who was born Jewish, no, they did not state their opinion.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘讘转 讙专讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛

And if you say that here too, his status can at least entitle his wife to partake of teruma if he marries the daughter of converts, wasn鈥檛 it already raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yo岣nan before Rabbi Oshaya whether the daughter of converts who married a priest with crushed testicles may partake of teruma, and he was unable to resolve it for him? Therefore, there is a difference between a priest with crushed testicles and other priests who betroth women who are disqualified by their intercourse.

讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘诇讗 讬讚注讛

It was stated that Abaye said: Women betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles may eat teruma since his status entitles his wife to partake of teruma in a case where he has not known her. If a priest was properly married and then his testicles became crushed, as long as he has not known his wife, i.e., engaged in intercourse with her, after that point in time, she may continue partaking of teruma as his wife.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讘讚讬讜 讜砖驻讞讜转讬讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐

Rava said she may continue to partake of teruma for a different reason: She may eat teruma since the status of this priest entitles his Canaanite slaves and maidservants to partake of teruma. Because he has the power to enable others to partake of teruma, the case of a woman betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles is comparable to the cases in the mishna, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon would permit the woman to partake of teruma.

讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 拽谞讬谉 讚讗讬砖讜转 诪拽谞讬谉 讚讗讬砖讜转 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 拽谞讬谉 讚讗讬砖讜转 诪拽谞讬谉 讚注讘讚讬诐

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Abaye did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rava because he claims that we derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of marriage, and we do not derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of slaves.

讜专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讜讗讘讬讬 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪讬转 转讬讻讜诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讜专讘讗 讛转诐 驻拽注 拽谞讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 驻拽注 拽谞讬谞讬讛

And Rava did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as he maintains that it is different there, as she had already partaken of teruma before her husband鈥檚 testicles were crushed and therefore she may continue to partake of it. And Abaye would respond that we do not say that the case is different because she had already partaken of teruma, as, if you do not say so, the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who died childless should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she had already partaken of teruma while her husband was alive. And Rava replies that there is no comparison between the two cases: There, his acquisition lapses upon his death; here, his acquisition does not lapse, as she is still his wife.

讙讜驻讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讙专讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 诇住讜祝 讗转讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 [讗讞专讬转讗] 讜驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讟讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚拽讘注讬 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 驻转专讬

搂 The Gemara earlier mentioned a question that Rabbi Yo岣nan posed to Rabbi Oshaya, and it now turns its attention to that matter itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts, what is the halakha concerning whether his status entitles her to partake of teruma? Rabbi Oshaya was silent and said nothing to him. Eventually another great man came and raised a different dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya, and he resolved his question. And who was this great man? Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Oshaya: Is Rabbi Yo岣nan not a great man? Why didn鈥檛 you address his dilemma? Rabbi Oshaya said to him: I did not respond because he raised a dilemma before me that has no resolution.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讗讬 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘转 讙专 讝讻专 讻讘转 讞诇诇 讝讻专

The Gemara explains: According to whom did he raise his dilemma? If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then, whether the priest with crushed testicles retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity and may marry women forbidden to priests, she may not partake of teruma. The reasoning is as follows: If he retains his priestly sanctity she may not partake of teruma, as the Master said: The status of the daughter of a male convert is like that of the daughter of a male 岣lal. They are both prohibited from marrying a priest, and therefore even if they marry a priest, it is prohibited for them to eat teruma.

讗讬 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇

Even if he does not retain his priestly sanctity she may not eat, as we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the congregation of converts is called the congregation of the Lord. Therefore, when the Torah renders it prohibited for a man with crushed testicles to marry into the congregation of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 23:2), it renders it prohibited for him to marry converts.

讜讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讙专 砖谞砖讗 讙讬讜专转 讘转讜 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇

And if he raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then, whether he retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity, she may partake of teruma. If he retains his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: Even if a convert married a convert, his daughter is fit for marrying into the priesthood. If he does not retain his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: The congregation of converts is not called the congregation of the Lord, and therefore even those forbidden from entering the congregation may marry converts. Consequently, it is certainly permitted for the priest with crushed testicles to marry the daughter of converts.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讘转 讙专讬诐 诇讗 转谞砖讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注讚 砖转讛讗 讗诪讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 1:5) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: A woman who is the daughter of converts may not marry into the priesthood unless her mother was Jewish from birth.

讜讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻砖专讜转 诪讬转讜住驻讗 讘讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽讚讜砖讛 诪讬转讜住驻讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛

And his dilemma was as follows: Is the reason she may marry a priest if her mother was Jewish from birth that fitness to marry a priest has been added to her, but she is not considered a member of the congregation of the Lord and may therefore marry a man with crushed testicles? If so, since she may marry a priest, she may partake of teruma once she does so. Or perhaps sanctity has been added to her and she is considered a member of the congregation of the Lord. Consequently, she may not marry a man with crushed testicles, and if she does, she may not partake of teruma even if he is a priest.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪讚专讜诪讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讙专讬诐 砖诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讜讙讜壮 讬讗讻诇 讘讜

The Gemara suggests an answer to this dilemma. Come and hear: When Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nnana came from the south, he came and brought this baraita in hand: From where is it derived that a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts entitles her to partake of teruma? As it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11). In this context, a wife is also considered his monetary acquisition, and therefore she may partake of teruma.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讜讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻砖专讜转 讗讬转讜住驻讗 讘讛 讜讗讻诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara analyzes this source: According to whom is this baraita stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that whether this priest retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may not partake of teruma? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, why do I need a special verse to teach this halakha? Didn鈥檛 he say that whether he retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may partake of teruma? Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? And you can learn from this baraita that fitness was added to her, and therefore she may partake of teruma. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专

搂 The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to an issue related to the previous discussion. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following question. Rav said:

讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转

There is significance to a priest entering a wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. If a priest鈥檚 daughter who is unfit to marry a priest enters the wedding canopy with a priest, she becomes disqualified from partaking of teruma from her father鈥檚 household. This is the case even if the priest did not betroth her and they did not engage in sexual intercourse. And Shmuel said: There is no significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. Only sexual intercourse disqualifies her from the privileges of priesthood.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讘讗 讘转讬谞讜拽转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讞讜驻讛

Shmuel said: And Abba, i.e., Rav, whose first name was Abba, concedes to me, with regard to a girl less than three years and one day old, that she is not disqualified by merely entering the wedding canopy. Since there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with her, there is no legal significance to entering the wedding canopy with her.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 拽谞讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

Rava said: We, too, learn in the following baraita that there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with a girl less than three years old: A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse; and if she was a yevama and her yavam had intercourse with her, he has acquired her; and a man who has intercourse with her while she is married to someone else is liable on her account because of the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman; and if she experiences a menstrual discharge she renders ritually impure a man who has intercourse with her, so that he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one.

谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇讛

If she is married to a priest she may partake of teruma. If one of those who render women unfit for marrying a priest had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from being able to partake of teruma.

讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚诪驻住诇讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诪驻住诇讛 讘讞讜驻讛 讛讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚诇讗 诪驻住诇讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诇讗 诪驻住诇讛 谞诪讬 讘讞讜驻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rava infers from this baraita that it is a girl three years and one day old who is disqualified via intercourse, and consequently she is also disqualified via the wedding canopy. However, a girl who is less than three years and one day old, who is not disqualified via intercourse, is also not disqualified via the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转 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

Rami bar 岣ma said: With regard to the question of whether there is legal significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, we have arrived at the dispute cited in the mishna between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.

  • 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 57: Married at 3

Disqualifications for marriage - with a focus on a "patzua daka," a man with crushed testicles, and the ramifications of...

Yevamot 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 57

讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讻诇讛 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗

this one may also partake of teruma until that time. The Gemara refutes this argument: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion there only with regard to a priest whose status can entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, but here, in the case of a priest with crushed testicles, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who was born Jewish, no, they did not state their opinion.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘讘转 讙专讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛

And if you say that here too, his status can at least entitle his wife to partake of teruma if he marries the daughter of converts, wasn鈥檛 it already raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yo岣nan before Rabbi Oshaya whether the daughter of converts who married a priest with crushed testicles may partake of teruma, and he was unable to resolve it for him? Therefore, there is a difference between a priest with crushed testicles and other priests who betroth women who are disqualified by their intercourse.

讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘诇讗 讬讚注讛

It was stated that Abaye said: Women betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles may eat teruma since his status entitles his wife to partake of teruma in a case where he has not known her. If a priest was properly married and then his testicles became crushed, as long as he has not known his wife, i.e., engaged in intercourse with her, after that point in time, she may continue partaking of teruma as his wife.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讘讚讬讜 讜砖驻讞讜转讬讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐

Rava said she may continue to partake of teruma for a different reason: She may eat teruma since the status of this priest entitles his Canaanite slaves and maidservants to partake of teruma. Because he has the power to enable others to partake of teruma, the case of a woman betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles is comparable to the cases in the mishna, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon would permit the woman to partake of teruma.

讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 拽谞讬谉 讚讗讬砖讜转 诪拽谞讬谉 讚讗讬砖讜转 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 拽谞讬谉 讚讗讬砖讜转 诪拽谞讬谉 讚注讘讚讬诐

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Abaye did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rava because he claims that we derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of marriage, and we do not derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of slaves.

讜专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讜讗讘讬讬 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪讬转 转讬讻讜诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 讜专讘讗 讛转诐 驻拽注 拽谞讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 驻拽注 拽谞讬谞讬讛

And Rava did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as he maintains that it is different there, as she had already partaken of teruma before her husband鈥檚 testicles were crushed and therefore she may continue to partake of it. And Abaye would respond that we do not say that the case is different because she had already partaken of teruma, as, if you do not say so, the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who died childless should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she had already partaken of teruma while her husband was alive. And Rava replies that there is no comparison between the two cases: There, his acquisition lapses upon his death; here, his acquisition does not lapse, as she is still his wife.

讙讜驻讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讙专讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 诇住讜祝 讗转讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 [讗讞专讬转讗] 讜驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讟讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗讜 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚拽讘注讬 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 驻转专讬

搂 The Gemara earlier mentioned a question that Rabbi Yo岣nan posed to Rabbi Oshaya, and it now turns its attention to that matter itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts, what is the halakha concerning whether his status entitles her to partake of teruma? Rabbi Oshaya was silent and said nothing to him. Eventually another great man came and raised a different dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya, and he resolved his question. And who was this great man? Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Oshaya: Is Rabbi Yo岣nan not a great man? Why didn鈥檛 you address his dilemma? Rabbi Oshaya said to him: I did not respond because he raised a dilemma before me that has no resolution.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讗讬 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘转 讙专 讝讻专 讻讘转 讞诇诇 讝讻专

The Gemara explains: According to whom did he raise his dilemma? If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then, whether the priest with crushed testicles retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity and may marry women forbidden to priests, she may not partake of teruma. The reasoning is as follows: If he retains his priestly sanctity she may not partake of teruma, as the Master said: The status of the daughter of a male convert is like that of the daughter of a male 岣lal. They are both prohibited from marrying a priest, and therefore even if they marry a priest, it is prohibited for them to eat teruma.

讗讬 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇

Even if he does not retain his priestly sanctity she may not eat, as we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the congregation of converts is called the congregation of the Lord. Therefore, when the Torah renders it prohibited for a man with crushed testicles to marry into the congregation of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 23:2), it renders it prohibited for him to marry converts.

讜讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讙专 砖谞砖讗 讙讬讜专转 讘转讜 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 拽讛诇 讙专讬诐 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 拽讛诇

And if he raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then, whether he retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity, she may partake of teruma. If he retains his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: Even if a convert married a convert, his daughter is fit for marrying into the priesthood. If he does not retain his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: The congregation of converts is not called the congregation of the Lord, and therefore even those forbidden from entering the congregation may marry converts. Consequently, it is certainly permitted for the priest with crushed testicles to marry the daughter of converts.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讘转 讙专讬诐 诇讗 转谞砖讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注讚 砖转讛讗 讗诪讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 1:5) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: A woman who is the daughter of converts may not marry into the priesthood unless her mother was Jewish from birth.

讜讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻砖专讜转 诪讬转讜住驻讗 讘讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽讚讜砖讛 诪讬转讜住驻讗 讘讛 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛

And his dilemma was as follows: Is the reason she may marry a priest if her mother was Jewish from birth that fitness to marry a priest has been added to her, but she is not considered a member of the congregation of the Lord and may therefore marry a man with crushed testicles? If so, since she may marry a priest, she may partake of teruma once she does so. Or perhaps sanctity has been added to her and she is considered a member of the congregation of the Lord. Consequently, she may not marry a man with crushed testicles, and if she does, she may not partake of teruma even if he is a priest.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪讚专讜诪讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讙专讬诐 砖诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讜讙讜壮 讬讗讻诇 讘讜

The Gemara suggests an answer to this dilemma. Come and hear: When Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nnana came from the south, he came and brought this baraita in hand: From where is it derived that a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts entitles her to partake of teruma? As it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11). In this context, a wife is also considered his monetary acquisition, and therefore she may partake of teruma.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讜讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讜 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻砖专讜转 讗讬转讜住驻讗 讘讛 讜讗讻诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara analyzes this source: According to whom is this baraita stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that whether this priest retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may not partake of teruma? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, why do I need a special verse to teach this halakha? Didn鈥檛 he say that whether he retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may partake of teruma? Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? And you can learn from this baraita that fitness was added to her, and therefore she may partake of teruma. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专

搂 The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to an issue related to the previous discussion. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following question. Rav said:

讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转

There is significance to a priest entering a wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. If a priest鈥檚 daughter who is unfit to marry a priest enters the wedding canopy with a priest, she becomes disqualified from partaking of teruma from her father鈥檚 household. This is the case even if the priest did not betroth her and they did not engage in sexual intercourse. And Shmuel said: There is no significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. Only sexual intercourse disqualifies her from the privileges of priesthood.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讘讗 讘转讬谞讜拽转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讬讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讞讜驻讛

Shmuel said: And Abba, i.e., Rav, whose first name was Abba, concedes to me, with regard to a girl less than three years and one day old, that she is not disqualified by merely entering the wedding canopy. Since there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with her, there is no legal significance to entering the wedding canopy with her.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 拽谞讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

Rava said: We, too, learn in the following baraita that there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with a girl less than three years old: A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse; and if she was a yevama and her yavam had intercourse with her, he has acquired her; and a man who has intercourse with her while she is married to someone else is liable on her account because of the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman; and if she experiences a menstrual discharge she renders ritually impure a man who has intercourse with her, so that he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one.

谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇讛

If she is married to a priest she may partake of teruma. If one of those who render women unfit for marrying a priest had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from being able to partake of teruma.

讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚诪驻住诇讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诪驻住诇讛 讘讞讜驻讛 讛讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚诇讗 诪驻住诇讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诇讗 诪驻住诇讛 谞诪讬 讘讞讜驻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rava infers from this baraita that it is a girl three years and one day old who is disqualified via intercourse, and consequently she is also disqualified via the wedding canopy. However, a girl who is less than three years and one day old, who is not disqualified via intercourse, is also not disqualified via the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转 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

Rami bar 岣ma said: With regard to the question of whether there is legal significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, we have arrived at the dispute cited in the mishna between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.

Scroll To Top