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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 4, 2022 | 讙壮 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 58

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated in memory of the fallen soldiers that were killed protecting the State of Israel and in memory of those that were killed in terrorist attacks and died by Kiddush Hashem.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Goldie Gilad in loving memory of Paul Weitson, son of her dear friends Rima and Harry. Paul fell on the 9th of Shevat 5735.

Is the debate regarding the power of a forbidden chuppah to disqualify a woman from eating truma (between Rav and Shmuel) the same as the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar/Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna regarding kiddushin? It seems it is not! Could it be the same as the debate between the rabbis and R. Yochanan ben Broka that can be found in a braita? In the end, these two options are rejected. Rav Sheshet ruled like Rav that a chuppah can disqualify her. Rav Amram tried to prove this from a Mishnah in Sotah 18a where the Sotah swears that she did not stray from her husband also when she was betrothed. How can there be a Sotah from a betrothal? After bringing some options that are rejected, they explain the Mishna in a case of chuppah without relations. That proves chuppah can disqualify. 聽Rava rejects the Mishnah because he says it is impossible to have a situation when she was suspected of being with another man before she even had relations with her husband. The Gemara brings three options on how to understand the Mishnah. There is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in the case that yabam gave the yevama a get 鈥 does that disqualify her from eating truma?

诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 驻住诇讬 讞讜驻讛 谞诪讬 驻住诇讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗 驻住诇讬 讞讜驻讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻住诇讛

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.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讞讜驻讛 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讛 诇讗

The Gemara refutes this claim: And from where do we know that these tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 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 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚诇讗 拽专讬讘讬 诇讘讬讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讜驻讛 讚拽专讬讘讗 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻住诇讛

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鈥檚 entrance into her husband鈥檚 home, it is possible that it also disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讝讜 讜讝讜 讻砖专讜转 讜驻住讜诇讜转 讗讜 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

Rather, if it can be said that this issue was already discussed by earlier Sages, it was in the dispute between these other tanna鈥檌m, 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.

谞讻谞住讜 诪讻诇诇 讚谞讬砖讗讜 谞讬砖讗讜 诪诪砖

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讜 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讞讜驻转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讗讬谉 讞讜驻转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛

The baraita continues: Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m 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.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara refutes this claim: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讗讬谉 讞讜驻转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讗讬谉 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讜驻讛 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讜驻讛

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 诇注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 砖讟讬转讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛

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鈥檚 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鈥揵): 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.

讛讗讬 讗专讜住讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜拽讗 诪砖拽讛 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗专讜住讛 讘转 诪砖转讬讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛

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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讬住转转专讛 讜拽诪砖拽讛 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛 诪讬 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 诪讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜谞拽讛 讛讗讬砖 诪注讜谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讬谉 讛讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讬住转转专讛 讜谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讚讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 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 诪讘诇注讚讬 讗讬砖讱 诪讬 砖拽讚诪讛 砖讻讬讘转 讘注诇 诇讘讜注诇 讜诇讗 砖拽讚诪讛 砖讻讬讘转 讘讜注诇 诇讘注诇

Rava said: Do you hold that this baraita is sufficiently accurate to rely upon? But when Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina came from the South, he came with this baraita in hand: The verse states with regard to the oath of the sota: 鈥淎nd some man has lain with you besides your husband鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗专讜住讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rami bar 岣ma 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鈥檚 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.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛

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鈥檚 house,

砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 拽专讬转 诇讛 讗砖转讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讬讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽谞讛 诇讻诇 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 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

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.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽谞讛 诇讻诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 谞砖讜讗讛 讜讻谞讜住讛 诇讗讜 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讻谞讜住讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗专讜住讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讚讞讘专讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讗专讜住讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讘诇 诪拽谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛

Rav Pappa said: Rava鈥檚 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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

砖诇讞 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 [讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞] 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讜讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

Rav 岣nina sent in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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-脿-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.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬 讗诪专 讜讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖转讗 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 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: According to whom did Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讻诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讞诇诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said an accurate version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 岣lal, e.g., his mother was a divorc茅e 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 Yo岣nan said she may partake of teruma, as she is considered to have returned to her father鈥檚 house, while Reish Lakish said that she may not partake of teruma.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讚专讘谞谉 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara analyzes the two opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣litza, the levirate bond still applies by Torah law, but they are prohibited by rabbinic law from consummating the levirate marriage.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讜讻诇转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜拽专讜讘讛 诇讘讬 谞砖讗 讗讘诇 讛讗 讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬讛

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鈥檚 house, this case is different for the following reason: A woman who returns to her father鈥檚 house has been severed from her husband and she is close to her father鈥檚 house [bei nasha], and therefore she may once again partake of teruma on her father鈥檚 account. However, this yevama who has received a bill of divorce is still bound to her yavam until they perform 岣litza, and she is therefore disqualified from eating teruma.

谞转讗专诪诇讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讚砖 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讘讙专讛 转讞转讬讜

搂 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 岣yya 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,

  • 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: 58-64 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn about who a High Priest and regular Priest can marry. What are the...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Unsoiled from Sin – Gefet 34

https://youtu.be/LuDfPQ0AJ7A   Today we will see a Tosfot on daf 58a, however, in order to understand it, we will begin...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 58: The Woman’s Right to Eat Terumah

Issues of relationships (betrothal, for example) that are inappropriate with a kohen, but now she's in one - and even...

Yevamot 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 58

诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 驻住诇讬 讞讜驻讛 谞诪讬 驻住诇讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗 驻住诇讬 讞讜驻讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻住诇讛

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.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讞讜驻讛 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讛 诇讗

The Gemara refutes this claim: And from where do we know that these tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 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 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚诇讗 拽专讬讘讬 诇讘讬讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讜驻讛 讚拽专讬讘讗 诇讘讬讗讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻住诇讛

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鈥檚 entrance into her husband鈥檚 home, it is possible that it also disqualifies her from partaking of teruma.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讝讜 讜讝讜 讻砖专讜转 讜驻住讜诇讜转 讗讜 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

Rather, if it can be said that this issue was already discussed by earlier Sages, it was in the dispute between these other tanna鈥檌m, 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.

谞讻谞住讜 诪讻诇诇 讚谞讬砖讗讜 谞讬砖讗讜 诪诪砖

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讜 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讞讜驻转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讗讬谉 讞讜驻转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛

The baraita continues: Conversely, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m 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.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara refutes this claim: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讗讬谉 讞讜驻转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 讗讬谉 讻住驻讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讜驻讛 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讜驻讛

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 诇注讬讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 砖讟讬转讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛

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鈥檚 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鈥揵): 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.

讛讗讬 讗专讜住讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜拽讗 诪砖拽讛 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗专讜住讛 讘转 诪砖转讬讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛

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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讬住转转专讛 讜拽诪砖拽讛 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛 诪讬 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 诪讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜谞拽讛 讛讗讬砖 诪注讜谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讬谉 讛讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讬住转转专讛 讜谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讞讜驻讛 诇驻住讜诇讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讚讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 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 诪讘诇注讚讬 讗讬砖讱 诪讬 砖拽讚诪讛 砖讻讬讘转 讘注诇 诇讘讜注诇 讜诇讗 砖拽讚诪讛 砖讻讬讘转 讘讜注诇 诇讘注诇

Rava said: Do you hold that this baraita is sufficiently accurate to rely upon? But when Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina came from the South, he came with this baraita in hand: The verse states with regard to the oath of the sota: 鈥淎nd some man has lain with you besides your husband鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗专讜住讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rami bar 岣ma 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鈥檚 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.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛

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鈥檚 house,

砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 拽专讬转 诇讛 讗砖转讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讬讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽谞讛 诇讻诇 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 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

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.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽谞讛 诇讻诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 谞砖讜讗讛 讜讻谞讜住讛 诇讗讜 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讻谞讜住讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗专讜住讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讚讞讘专讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讗专讜住讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讘诇 诪拽谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛

Rav Pappa said: Rava鈥檚 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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

砖诇讞 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 [讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞] 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讜讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

Rav 岣nina sent in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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-脿-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.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬 讗诪专 讜讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖转讗 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 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: According to whom did Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讻诇讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讞诇诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转

Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said an accurate version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 岣lal, e.g., his mother was a divorc茅e 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 Yo岣nan said she may partake of teruma, as she is considered to have returned to her father鈥檚 house, while Reish Lakish said that she may not partake of teruma.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讜讻诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讚专讘谞谉 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara analyzes the two opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣litza, the levirate bond still applies by Torah law, but they are prohibited by rabbinic law from consummating the levirate marriage.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讜讻诇转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 驻住拽讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜拽专讜讘讛 诇讘讬 谞砖讗 讗讘诇 讛讗 讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬讛

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鈥檚 house, this case is different for the following reason: A woman who returns to her father鈥檚 house has been severed from her husband and she is close to her father鈥檚 house [bei nasha], and therefore she may once again partake of teruma on her father鈥檚 account. However, this yevama who has received a bill of divorce is still bound to her yavam until they perform 岣litza, and she is therefore disqualified from eating teruma.

谞转讗专诪诇讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讚砖 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讘讙专讛 转讞转讬讜

搂 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 岣yya 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,

Scroll To Top