Yevamot 58
לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר קִדּוּשִׁין פָּסְלִי — חוּפָּה נָמֵי פָּסְלָה. לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמְרִי קִדּוּשִׁין לָא פָּסְלִי — חוּפָּה נָמֵי לָא פָּסְלָה.
According to Rabbi Meir, who says that betrothal to a priest disqualifies a woman who is unfit to marry him from partaking of teruma even if she is the daughter of a priest, entering the wedding canopy with a priest also disqualifies her. Conversely, according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that betrothal does not disqualify her, entering the wedding canopy also does not disqualify her.
וּמִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם אֶלָּא בְּקִדּוּשִׁין, דְּקָנֵי לַהּ, אֲבָל חוּפָּה דְּלָא קָנֵי לַהּ — לָא.
The Gemara refutes this claim: And from where do we know that these tanna’im would apply their opinions with regard to betrothal to entering the wedding canopy? Perhaps Rabbi Meir only stated his opinion there, with regard to betrothal, which acquires her. However, in the case of a wedding canopy, which does not acquire her, no, she is not disqualified.
אִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם אֶלָּא בְּקִדּוּשִׁין, דְּלָא קְרִיבִי לְבִיאָה, אֲבָל חוּפָּה דִּקְרִיבָא לְבִיאָה — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָסְלָה.
Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion only there, with regard to betrothal, as it is not close to an act of sexual intercourse. However, with regard to entering the wedding canopy, which is close to an act of sexual intercourse, as it is the place where the bride and groom are secluded together and symbolizes the woman’s entrance into her husband’s home, it is possible that it also disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.
אֶלָּא אִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: נִישְּׂאוּ זוֹ וָזוֹ, כְּשֵׁרוֹת וּפְסוּלוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלוּ — אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה.
Rather, if it can be said that this issue was already discussed by earlier Sages, it was in the dispute between these other tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If they married one another, i.e., either a woman who is fit or a woman who is unfit married a priest, or they entered the wedding canopy and did not yet have intercourse with him, they are entitled to eat of his food and to partake of teruma.
נִכְנְסוּ, מִכְּלָל דְּ״נִישְּׂאוּ״ — נִישְּׂאוּ מַמָּשׁ?!
The Gemara interrupts its presentation of the baraita to examine its wording. The fact that the baraita mentions a case where they entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse proves by inference that the earlier case, where they married, is referring to actual marriage. However, this is difficult because if they were actually married and had engaged in intercourse, the woman who was unfit to marry a priest is certainly disqualified from partaking of teruma due to the prohibited act of intercourse.
אֶלָּא לָאו: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלוּ. וְקָתָנֵי: אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה.
Rather, is it not that the baraita is referring to a single case: Where they were married, and they entered the canopy, and had not had intercourse? And it is taught in the baraita that they are entitled to partake of his food and to partake of teruma. This indicates that entrance into the wedding canopy does not disqualify a woman who is unfit to marry a priest from eating teruma, although the act of intercourse does.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁבִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ — חוּפָּתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ — אֵין חוּפָּתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ.
The baraita continues: Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Any woman whose act of intercourse entitles her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also entitles her to partake of teruma; and any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. Consequently, it appears that the tanna’im cited in this baraita disagree over the very question of whether the entry of a priest and a woman unfit to marry him into the wedding canopy has legal significance.
מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר קִדּוּשִׁין לָא אָכְלָה?
The Gemara refutes this claim: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that in the case of the betrothal of a woman unfit for a priest she may not partake of teruma?
הַאי ״כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ אֵין חוּפָּתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ״, ״כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ אֵין כַּסְפָּהּ מַאֲכִילָתָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! דִּלְמָא, אַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא חוּפָּה, אָמַר אִיהוּ נָמֵי חוּפָּה.
The Gemara expresses surprise: According to this suggestion, this expression in the baraita is difficult: Any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her wedding canopy also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. It should have said: Any woman whose act of intercourse does not entitle her to partake of teruma, her betrothal money also does not entitle her to partake of teruma, as it was the betrothal that disqualified her. The Gemara counters this argument: Perhaps it can be suggested that since the first tanna said his ruling with regard to a wedding canopy, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, also said his ruling with regard to a wedding canopy, even though he holds that she was already disqualified from the time of her betrothal.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: הָא מִילְּתָא אֲמַר לַן רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ לְעַיְינִין מִמַּתְנִיתִין: יֵשׁ חוּפָּה לִפְסוּלוֹת. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: אָמֵן שֶׁלֹּא שָׂטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה, שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּכְנוּסָה.
§ Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet, and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion. Rav Sheshet’s statement was as follows: There is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. And the tanna of the mishna also taught this halakha with regard to a sota (Sota 18a–b): When a sota is brought to the Temple to drink the bitter waters, she affirms the oath imposed on her by a priest that she has not committed adultery. The mishna explains that when she says amen, it is as though she herself states that: I did not go astray while betrothed, or married, or as a widow waiting for her yavam, or as a fully married woman.
הַאי אֲרוּסָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקַנִּי לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה וְקָא מַשְׁקֵה לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה — אֲרוּסָה בַּת מִשְׁתְּיָא הִיא? וְהָא תְּנַן: אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם — לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתוּבָה!
The Gemara inquires: This case of a betrothed woman, what are the circumstances? If we say that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he also causes her to drink the waters when she is betrothed, is a betrothed woman fit to drink the waters of a sota? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): A betrothed woman and a widow waiting for her yavam do not drink, as the halakha of the sota waters applies only to married women; and they do not collect their marriage contract if they secluded themselves after being warned, as they have acted in a licentious fashion?
אֶלָּא דְּקַנִּי לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה וְאִיסְתְּתַר, וְקָמַשְׁקֵה לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, מִי בָּדְקִי לַהּ מַיָּא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין הָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן — אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
Rather, the case in the first mishna cited above is that he was jealous of her and warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with that man, and her husband causes her to drink when she is already married. However, in that case do the waters examine her? Isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity” (Numbers 5:31), that when the man is clear of iniquity the waters examine his wife, but if the man is not clear of iniquity the waters do not examine his wife? By secluding herself with the other man when she was betrothed, the woman rendered herself forbidden to her husband. If he then married her, he cannot be described as clear of iniquity, and therefore the sota waters are ineffective.
אֶלָּא, דְּקַנִּי לָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, וְאִיסְתְּתַר, וְנִכְנְסָה לְחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה — וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ חוּפָּה לִפְסוּלוֹת.
Rather, it must be that he was jealous of her when she was betrothed, and she secluded herself with the other man anyway, and she had entered the wedding canopy but did not yet have intercourse with her husband when he brought her to the priest. Consequently, she is made to drink the sota waters as a married woman, and her husband has not committed a transgression, as he has not had intercourse with her. Learn from this that there is significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, as demonstrated by the fact that the sota waters will examine her in these circumstances.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא דְּהָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא מִדָּרוֹמָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: ״מִבַּלְעֲדֵי אִישֵׁךְ״, מִי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁכִיבַת בַּעַל לַבּוֹעֵל, וְלֹא שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁכִיבַת בּוֹעֵל לַבַּעַל.
Rava said: Do you hold that this baraita is sufficiently accurate to rely upon? But when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he came with this baraita in hand: The verse states with regard to the oath of the sota: “And some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20), which indicates that it applies only when the cohabitation of the husband preceded that of the adulterer, but not when the cohabitation of the adulterer preceded that of the husband. Consequently, in the case under discussion, drinking the sota waters would not be effective.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֲרוּסָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ.
Rami bar Ḥama said: You find it in a case such as where her betrothed had intercourse with her licentiously when she was a betrothed woman in her father’s house. Since the act of intercourse was committed licentiously rather than for the purpose of consummating the marriage, the woman is still considered betrothed. Subsequently, her betrothed warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she disobeyed. Then, they entered the wedding canopy together, despite the fact that they are forbidden to one another. Once they entered the wedding canopy, the woman can be made to drink the bitter waters. This proves that there is significance to entering the wedding canopy with a woman that is unfit for one to marry.
דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם — שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ יָבָם בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ,
The Gemara asks: If so, in the corresponding case with regard to a widow waiting for her yavam, in which the yavam had licentious intercourse with her in her father-in-law’s house,
שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם קָרֵית לַהּ? אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעַלְּיָא הִיא, דְּהָא אָמַר רַב: קָנָה לַכֹּל! כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא לִדְבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה.
do you call her a widow waiting for her yavam? Once they have engaged in intercourse, she is his proper wife, as Rav said that one who has intercourse with his yevama, even without intending to thereby perform levirate marriage, has acquired her for all matters. The Gemara responds: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that he has acquired her only with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, but not with regard to other matters, and therefore she is not considered his wife with regard to the halakhot of sota.
מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַב. הָא אָמַר רַב: קָנָה לַכֹּל. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר.
The Gemara responds: The only reason this proof was presented is to support the opinion of Rav, who is the one who holds that there is legal significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with a woman who is unfit to marry him. Didn’t Rav say he has acquired her for all matters? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? For example, a case where the yavam performed levirate betrothal with her and afterward had intercourse with her for the sake of promiscuity. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal acquires a yevama in a full-fledged manner and removes the levirate bond. Therefore, when they have intercourse, they do not become fully married.
אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ אֲרוּסָה? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, נְשׂוּאָה וּכְנוּסָה לָאו חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא?! אֶלָּא: נְשׂוּאָה דִּידֵיהּ, וּכְנוּסָה דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: אֲרוּסָה דִּידֵיהּ, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם דְּחַבְרֵיהּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the case of the yevama who was betrothed is the same as the case of a betrothed woman. What is the difference between the two cases? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, are the examples in the mishna of a married woman and a fully married woman not a single matter? Rather, the mishna must be referring to two very similar cases, with the following difference: A married woman means his own wife and a fully married woman is referring to that of his fellow, i.e., his brother’s wife who became his wife through levirate marriage. Here too, the case of a betrothed woman is referring to his own wife and the case of a widow waiting for her yavam is that of his fellow, i.e., his yevama, who is now betrothed to him.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מְקַנִּין לָהּ לָאֲרוּסָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אֲבָל מְקַנִּין אוֹתָהּ לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה.
Rav Pappa said: Rava’s question can be resolved in a manner unrelated to the question about a priest entering the wedding canopy with a woman unfit for him. The baraita he cited is in accordance with this tanna, who does not require the man to be clear of iniquity, as it is taught in a baraita: One cannot be jealous over a betrothed woman and warn her not to seclude herself with a particular man in order to cause her to drink the sota waters when she is betrothed, but one can be jealous over her to cause her to drink the sota waters when she is married, even if she secluded herself with the man when she was still betrothed.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: עַל יְדֵי גִלְגּוּל.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The question never arises at all, as the oath is formulated by means of extension. The woman cannot be forced to drink the sota waters for events that took place while she was betrothed. However, if she is obligated to drink due to events that took place when she was married, the oath may be extended to include any possible acts of infidelity when she was betrothed.
שְׁלַח רַב חֲנִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָעוֹשֶׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ [וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח], אֲפִילּוּ הוּא כֹּהֵן וְהִיא כֹּהֶנֶת — פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.
§ Rav Ḥanina sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama and he has a brother, even if he is a priest and she is the daughter of a priest, he has disqualified her from partaking of teruma. By Torah law, the other brother may still have intercourse with her and thereby perform levirate marriage, but by rabbinic law only the brother who betrothed her may perform levirate marriage. Due to the fact that she is considered to be waiting for levirate marriage even vis-à-vis the brother who is rabbinically prohibited from marrying her, she is classified as a woman who is waiting for an invalid act of intercourse. Consequently, she may not partake of teruma until the consummation of the levirate marriage.
לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה לָא אָכְלָה מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּרַבָּנַן מִי אָמַר? וְאֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. הַשְׁתָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָכְלָה — דְּרַבָּנַן מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara asks: According to whom did Rabbi Yoḥanan make this statement? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, say that Rabbi Meir said that a woman who is reserved for an invalid act of intercourse may not eat teruma when the act of intercourse is prohibited by Torah law. However, if the act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic law, did Rabbi Meir actually say that the woman is disqualified from eating teruma? Rather, if we say it is in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, now that they hold that even a woman who is reserved for intercourse prohibited by Torah law may partake of teruma, is it necessary to state that she may partake of teruma if she is reserved for intercourse prohibited by rabbinic law?
אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָכְלָה, יֵשׁ לוֹ אָח חָלָל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ גֵּט. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת.
Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said an accurate version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: If a yavam who performed levirate betrothal with his yevama has a brother, all agree that the yevama may partake of teruma. If he has a brother who is a ḥalal, e.g., his mother was a divorcée and therefore unfit to marry his father, who was a priest, all agree that the yevama may not partake of teruma, as she is considered reserved for an invalid act of intercourse. They disagreed only in a case when he gave her a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said she may partake of teruma, as she is considered to have returned to her father’s house, while Reish Lakish said that she may not partake of teruma.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אוֹכֶלֶת — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל דְּרַבָּנַן — אָכְלָה.
The Gemara analyzes the two opinions: Rabbi Yoḥanan said she may eat teruma because even according to Rabbi Meir, who said in the mishna that she may not partake of teruma, this applies only when she is waiting for intercourse that is invalid by Torah law, but if the intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic law, she may partake of teruma. In this case, since they have not yet performed ḥalitza, the levirate bond still applies by Torah law, but they are prohibited by rabbinic law from consummating the levirate marriage.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמְרִי אוֹכֶלֶת, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאֵין לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר — לָא.
And Reish Lakish said: She may not partake of teruma because even according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say in the mishna that she may partake of teruma, this applies only to a case of betrothal, as a priest can entitle a woman to partake of teruma in another case via betrothal. But here, where he gave her a bill of divorce, since he cannot entitle a woman to partake of teruma in any other case by giving her a bill of divorce, no.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחוֹזֶרֶת — חוֹזֶרֶת פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ, וּקְרוֹבָה לְבֵי נָשָׁא, אֲבָל הָא אֲגִידָא בֵּיהּ.
And lest you say here too, in the case of a bill of divorce, he can entitle her to partake of teruma when she returns to her father’s house, this case is different for the following reason: A woman who returns to her father’s house has been severed from her husband and she is close to her father’s house [bei nasha], and therefore she may once again partake of teruma on her father’s account. However, this yevama who has received a bill of divorce is still bound to her yavam until they perform ḥalitza, and she is therefore disqualified from eating teruma.
נִתְאַרְמְלוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ וְכוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה וּבָגְרָה תַּחְתָּיו,
§ It was taught in the mishna that in the case of women who married priests despite the fact that they were unfit to do so, if they were widowed or divorced from that marriage, they are disqualified from eating teruma, but if they were widowed or divorced while they were only betrothed, they are fit to partake of teruma. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Shmuel: In the case of a High Priest who betrothed a minor and she matured under him, i.e., while betrothed to him,
