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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 2, 2014 | 讬壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 59

Study Guide Yevamot 59


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讛讜 讘转专 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉

what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Do we follow the time of marriage, at which point she was unfit for him according to most tanna鈥檌m, who hold that a High Priest may not marry a grown woman, as she is no longer called 鈥渁 wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13)? Or do we follow the time of betrothal, at which point she was of suitable age?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 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

Shmuel said to him: You learned it in the mishna: If they were widowed or divorced from marriage, they are disqualified from partaking of teruma, but if they were widowed or divorced from betrothal, they are fit to partake of teruma. This indicates that disqualifications from the privileges of priesthood are determined based upon marriage rather than betrothal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜讜讬讛 讞诇诇讛 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讚讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讚诪砖讜讜讬讛 讞诇诇讛 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讜讛讜讗 讗砖讛 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讬拽讞 诪讗讬 拽讬讞讛 讚拽讚讜砖讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 讗讜 拽讬讞讛 讚谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讘注讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: With regard to causing her to become a 岣lala I did not raise a dilemma, as it is clear that it is intercourse that causes her to become a 岣lala. When I raised a dilemma, it was with regard to the verse pertaining to a High Priest: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13). What does 鈥渢ake鈥 mean in this verse? Do we require that only the taking of betrothal must occur when she is in her virginity, i.e., when she is a minor or a young woman, or perhaps we require even the taking of marriage to be performed when she is a minor or young woman?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬转讜讛 讗讬专住 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜谞转诪谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬讻谞讜住 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讬拽讞 讗砖讛

Shmuel said to him: This, too, you learned in a mishna (61a): If he betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her, despite the fact that a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow. This indicates that her permissibility to him is determined according to the time of the betrothal rather than the time of marriage. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall take for a wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14). The superfluous expression 鈥渇or a wife鈥 indicates that he is permitted to marry the widow in this case.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗砖讛 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐

The Gemara objects: Here, too, with regard to a woman who matured after betrothal, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity,鈥 and this should indicate that he may marry the grown woman in this case. The Gemara answers that the term 鈥渨ife鈥 allows for the inclusion of one case but not two. Consequently, since a High Priest may marry a widow he had betrothed before he was appointed High Priest, it cannot also be derived that he may marry a grown woman that he had betrothed before she matured.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include the case of a widow and exclude that of a grown woman? The Gemara answers: In this case, of the grown woman, her body has changed, and therefore she is forbidden to him even though she was betrothed before she matured. In that case, of the widow, her body has not changed. It is the priest鈥檚 personal status that has changed, and therefore she remains permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讜诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讛讘讜讙专转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讜讙专转 [讜诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 诪讜讻转 注抓]

MISHNA: A High Priest may not marry a widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. And he may not marry a grown woman. He may marry only a minor or a young woman. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest. And he may not marry a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬诇祝 讗诇诪谞讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诪转诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: 鈥淎 widow鈥e shall not take鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), which prohibits him from marrying any widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. The Gemara is surprised by this statement: This is obvious, as the verse is referring to a widow without further specification. The Gemara answers: It is necessary; lest you say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the words 鈥渨idow鈥 and 鈥渨idow,鈥 based upon the usage of that term in a verse with regard to Tamar, Judah鈥檚 daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:11), as follows: Just as there, Tamar was a widow from marriage, so too here the verse is referring only to a widow from marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙专讜砖讛 诪讛 讙专讜砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗祝 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara asks: And say that it is indeed so, that the suggested verbal analogy is correct. The Gemara answers: It is similar to the case of a divorc茅e: Just as a divorc茅e is forbidden to a priest whether she was divorced from marriage or from betrothal, so too a widow is forbidden to a High Priest whether she is a widow from marriage or from betrothal.

讜诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讛讘讜讙专转 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讜讗 讗砖讛 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讬拽讞 驻专讟 诇讘讜讙专转 砖讻诇讜 诇讛 讘转讜诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讜讙专转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And a High Priest may not marry a grown woman. The Sages taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13) excludes a grown woman, whose hymen has worn away, i.e., it is no longer as complete as that of a minor or a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讘转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐 诪砖诪注 讘转讜诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻诇 讛讘转讜诇讬诐 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讘讻讚专讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诇讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Meir holds that were the verse referring simply to a virgin it would have indicated that even a woman with partial signs of virginity, i.e., a grown woman, is permitted. Since the verse states 鈥渉er virginity,鈥 it means that she is fit to marry a High Priest only if all of the signs of her virginity are intact, which excludes a grown woman. The full expression 鈥渋n her virginity鈥 indicates that if she has experienced sexual intercourse in a typical manner, which takes place in the area of her virginity, i.e., her hymen, yes, she is disqualified from marrying a High Priest; but if she has experienced sexual intercourse in an atypical manner i.e., anal intercourse, no, she is not disqualified.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇讬诪讛 诪砖诪注 讘转讜诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 讘转讜诇讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讻讚专讻讛 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

And Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that were the verse referring simply to a virgin, it would have indicated that only a complete virgin is fit to marry a High Priest, but not a grown woman. When it states 鈥渉er virginity,鈥 it indicates that even a woman with partial signs of virginity, i.e., a grown woman, is fit to marry the High Priest. The full expression 鈥渋n her virginity鈥 indicates that she is not fit to marry to marry a High Priest unless all of her virginity is intact, i.e., she has not engaged in intercourse of any kind, whether typical sexual intercourse or atypical sexual intercourse.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讘注诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 驻专讟 诇讗诇诪谞讛 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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If she had atypical sexual intercourse, she is disqualified from the High Priesthood, i.e., from marrying the High Priest. Rava raised an objection based upon a baraita: The verse states with regard to rape: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19), and the Sages explained that this is referring only to a woman suitable for him, excluding a widow for a High Priest and a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza for a common priest. In these cases, the rapist is not permitted to marry his victim.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 讘讻讚专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讗诇诪谞讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讘注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讘注讜诇讛 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this halakha? If we say that the High Priest raped her by engaging in typical intercourse, why does the baraita specifically state that she is forbidden to him because she is a widow? Let him derive this halakha from the fact that she is now a non-virgin. Rather, is it not that he had atypical intercourse with her, and due to the fact that she is a widow, yes, that is the reason she is forbidden, but due to the fact that she is a non-virgin, no, that is not the reason she is forbidden? This indicates that a woman who had intercourse in an atypical manner is not considered a non-virgin and is not disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara refutes this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a woman who engaged in atypical intercourse is permitted to a High Priest, and when Rav said his statement, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that such a woman is disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讘注讜诇讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讝讜谞讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻谞讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛驻谞讜讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诐 讗讬砖讜转 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: If Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, why did he specifically state that she is forbidden to him because she is a non-virgin? Let him derive it from the fact that she is a zona, as Rabbi Elazar said: Even in the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a zona.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讘注诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘注讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 诇讬讻讗

Rav Yosef said: When Rav said that a woman who had anal intercourse is disqualified from marrying a High Priest, he was referring to a woman who had intercourse with an animal, as there she is disqualified because she is a non-virgin, but she is not disqualified because of the prohibition of a zona.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘注讜诇讛 讛讜讬讗 讝讜谞讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讜讗讬 讝讜谞讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讘注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讬讗 讗诪讜讻转 注抓 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 诪讜讻转 注抓 注诇 讬讚讬 爪专讜专

Abaye said to him: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty with this answer: If she is considered a non-virgin, she is also a zona, and if she is not a zona she is also not a non-virgin. And lest you say that it is analogous to a case of a woman who lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., anally, whose hymen was therefore not damaged and she is not forbidden as a zona, yet she is no longer considered a virgin, that is not correct: If so, if such a woman is considered a non-virgin and forbidden to a High Priest, you would have no woman who is fit for the High Priesthood, who has not lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., by a pebble used to clean herself in the lavatory.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪诪讗谞转

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said that Rav was referring to one who refused her husband after having only atypical intercourse with him. Although the act of intercourse was not licentious, as she was married at the time, she is nevertheless disqualified from marrying into the priesthood because she is not a virgin.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 谞讘注诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讘注诇讛 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讬砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

Rabbi Shimi bar 岣yya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is like one whose hymen was torn accidentally. Consequently, she is not a zona and is fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a man, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘专讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘讛讬转诇讜 砖讛讬转讛 诪讻讘讚转 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜专讘注讛 讻诇讘 讻讜驻专讬 诪讗讞专讬讛 讜讛讻砖讬专讛 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving a certain girl [riva] in the village of Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village [kufri] dog used for hunting sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood, as she was not considered a zona. Shmuel said: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her even to a High Priest, as she was still considered a virgin. The Gemara is puzzled by this comment: Was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rather, Shmuel meant that she is fit for a High Priest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专拽讬谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讘讬讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜诪讞讬专 讻诇讘

Rava of Pirkin said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter derived that the Sages stated that there is no harlotry with regard to an animal? Rav Ashi responded that it is as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). This verse prohibits one from sacrificing an animal as an offering if that animal was ever used to pay a harlot for her services, or if it was ever used as payment in the purchase of a dog.

讜转谞谉 讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 诪讜转专讬谉 (诪砖讜诐) 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛

And we learned in a mishna (Temura 30a): The hire of a dog, i.e., a kosher animal that a man or woman gave as payment to the owner of a dog in order to have sexual intercourse with it, and similarly the price of a prostitute, a kosher animal used to purchase a prostitute as a maidservant, are permitted to be sacrificed as offerings. This is because it is stated that both of them, the specific items listed in the verse, are abominations. Consequently, only two items are prohibited, i.e., the payment given to a prostitute for her services, and the payment used in the purchase of a dog, and not four, as the reverse cases are excluded from this halakha.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗谞讜住转 注爪诪讜 讜诪驻讜转转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬 讗谞讜住转 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 讞诇诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专

The Sages taught: A High Priest may not marry a woman that he himself raped and a woman that he himself seduced, as he is commanded to marry a virgin. And if he married her, he is married. With regard to a woman who was raped by another man and a woman seduced by another man, he may not marry her. And if he married her, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says that the child born from this union is a 岣lal, and the Rabbis say the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讘讙讟 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讜诪专

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. It states that if he married the woman that he himself raped or seduced, he is married. Rav Huna said that Rav said: And he must divorce her with a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But consider that which the baraita teaches: If he married her, he is married. Since it is obvious that the marriage is technically valid, it must be saying that they are permitted to remain married. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: No, it means to say

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 59: The Restrictive Marital Status of the High Priest

A new mishnah - this time, on the marriage restrictions on the kohen gadol, the high priest. He is not...

Yevamot 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 59

诪讛讜 讘转专 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉

what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Do we follow the time of marriage, at which point she was unfit for him according to most tanna鈥檌m, who hold that a High Priest may not marry a grown woman, as she is no longer called 鈥渁 wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13)? Or do we follow the time of betrothal, at which point she was of suitable age?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 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

Shmuel said to him: You learned it in the mishna: If they were widowed or divorced from marriage, they are disqualified from partaking of teruma, but if they were widowed or divorced from betrothal, they are fit to partake of teruma. This indicates that disqualifications from the privileges of priesthood are determined based upon marriage rather than betrothal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜讜讬讛 讞诇诇讛 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讚讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讚诪砖讜讜讬讛 讞诇诇讛 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讜讛讜讗 讗砖讛 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讬拽讞 诪讗讬 拽讬讞讛 讚拽讚讜砖讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 讗讜 拽讬讞讛 讚谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讘注讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: With regard to causing her to become a 岣lala I did not raise a dilemma, as it is clear that it is intercourse that causes her to become a 岣lala. When I raised a dilemma, it was with regard to the verse pertaining to a High Priest: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13). What does 鈥渢ake鈥 mean in this verse? Do we require that only the taking of betrothal must occur when she is in her virginity, i.e., when she is a minor or a young woman, or perhaps we require even the taking of marriage to be performed when she is a minor or young woman?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬转讜讛 讗讬专住 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜谞转诪谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬讻谞讜住 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讬拽讞 讗砖讛

Shmuel said to him: This, too, you learned in a mishna (61a): If he betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her, despite the fact that a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow. This indicates that her permissibility to him is determined according to the time of the betrothal rather than the time of marriage. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall take for a wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14). The superfluous expression 鈥渇or a wife鈥 indicates that he is permitted to marry the widow in this case.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗砖讛 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐

The Gemara objects: Here, too, with regard to a woman who matured after betrothal, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity,鈥 and this should indicate that he may marry the grown woman in this case. The Gemara answers that the term 鈥渨ife鈥 allows for the inclusion of one case but not two. Consequently, since a High Priest may marry a widow he had betrothed before he was appointed High Priest, it cannot also be derived that he may marry a grown woman that he had betrothed before she matured.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include the case of a widow and exclude that of a grown woman? The Gemara answers: In this case, of the grown woman, her body has changed, and therefore she is forbidden to him even though she was betrothed before she matured. In that case, of the widow, her body has not changed. It is the priest鈥檚 personal status that has changed, and therefore she remains permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讜诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讛讘讜讙专转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讜讙专转 [讜诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 诪讜讻转 注抓]

MISHNA: A High Priest may not marry a widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. And he may not marry a grown woman. He may marry only a minor or a young woman. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest. And he may not marry a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬诇祝 讗诇诪谞讛 讗诇诪谞讛 诪转诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: 鈥淎 widow鈥e shall not take鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), which prohibits him from marrying any widow, whether she is a widow from betrothal or a widow from marriage. The Gemara is surprised by this statement: This is obvious, as the verse is referring to a widow without further specification. The Gemara answers: It is necessary; lest you say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the words 鈥渨idow鈥 and 鈥渨idow,鈥 based upon the usage of that term in a verse with regard to Tamar, Judah鈥檚 daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:11), as follows: Just as there, Tamar was a widow from marriage, so too here the verse is referring only to a widow from marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that this is not the case.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙专讜砖讛 诪讛 讙专讜砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗祝 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

The Gemara asks: And say that it is indeed so, that the suggested verbal analogy is correct. The Gemara answers: It is similar to the case of a divorc茅e: Just as a divorc茅e is forbidden to a priest whether she was divorced from marriage or from betrothal, so too a widow is forbidden to a High Priest whether she is a widow from marriage or from betrothal.

讜诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讛讘讜讙专转 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讜讗 讗砖讛 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讬拽讞 驻专讟 诇讘讜讙专转 砖讻诇讜 诇讛 讘转讜诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讜讙专转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And a High Priest may not marry a grown woman. The Sages taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take a wife in her virginity鈥 (Leviticus 21:13) excludes a grown woman, whose hymen has worn away, i.e., it is no longer as complete as that of a minor or a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讘转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐 诪砖诪注 讘转讜诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻诇 讛讘转讜诇讬诐 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 讘讻讚专讻讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诇讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Meir holds that were the verse referring simply to a virgin it would have indicated that even a woman with partial signs of virginity, i.e., a grown woman, is permitted. Since the verse states 鈥渉er virginity,鈥 it means that she is fit to marry a High Priest only if all of the signs of her virginity are intact, which excludes a grown woman. The full expression 鈥渋n her virginity鈥 indicates that if she has experienced sexual intercourse in a typical manner, which takes place in the area of her virginity, i.e., her hymen, yes, she is disqualified from marrying a High Priest; but if she has experienced sexual intercourse in an atypical manner i.e., anal intercourse, no, she is not disqualified.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇讬诪讛 诪砖诪注 讘转讜诇讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讘讘转讜诇讬讛 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 讘转讜诇讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讻讚专讻讛 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

And Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that were the verse referring simply to a virgin, it would have indicated that only a complete virgin is fit to marry a High Priest, but not a grown woman. When it states 鈥渉er virginity,鈥 it indicates that even a woman with partial signs of virginity, i.e., a grown woman, is fit to marry the High Priest. The full expression 鈥渋n her virginity鈥 indicates that she is not fit to marry to marry a High Priest unless all of her virginity is intact, i.e., she has not engaged in intercourse of any kind, whether typical sexual intercourse or atypical sexual intercourse.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讘注诇讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 驻专讟 诇讗诇诪谞讛 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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If she had atypical sexual intercourse, she is disqualified from the High Priesthood, i.e., from marrying the High Priest. Rava raised an objection based upon a baraita: The verse states with regard to rape: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19), and the Sages explained that this is referring only to a woman suitable for him, excluding a widow for a High Priest and a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza for a common priest. In these cases, the rapist is not permitted to marry his victim.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 讘讻讚专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讗诇诪谞讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讘注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讘注讜诇讛 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this halakha? If we say that the High Priest raped her by engaging in typical intercourse, why does the baraita specifically state that she is forbidden to him because she is a widow? Let him derive this halakha from the fact that she is now a non-virgin. Rather, is it not that he had atypical intercourse with her, and due to the fact that she is a widow, yes, that is the reason she is forbidden, but due to the fact that she is a non-virgin, no, that is not the reason she is forbidden? This indicates that a woman who had intercourse in an atypical manner is not considered a non-virgin and is not disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara refutes this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a woman who engaged in atypical intercourse is permitted to a High Priest, and when Rav said his statement, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that such a woman is disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讘注讜诇讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讝讜谞讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻谞讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛驻谞讜讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诐 讗讬砖讜转 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: If Rav鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, why did he specifically state that she is forbidden to him because she is a non-virgin? Let him derive it from the fact that she is a zona, as Rabbi Elazar said: Even in the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a zona.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讘注诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘注讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讜谞讛 诇讬讻讗

Rav Yosef said: When Rav said that a woman who had anal intercourse is disqualified from marrying a High Priest, he was referring to a woman who had intercourse with an animal, as there she is disqualified because she is a non-virgin, but she is not disqualified because of the prohibition of a zona.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘注讜诇讛 讛讜讬讗 讝讜谞讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讜讗讬 讝讜谞讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讘注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讬讗 讗诪讜讻转 注抓 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗砖讛 砖讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 砖诇讗 谞注砖讬转 诪讜讻转 注抓 注诇 讬讚讬 爪专讜专

Abaye said to him: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty with this answer: If she is considered a non-virgin, she is also a zona, and if she is not a zona she is also not a non-virgin. And lest you say that it is analogous to a case of a woman who lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., anally, whose hymen was therefore not damaged and she is not forbidden as a zona, yet she is no longer considered a virgin, that is not correct: If so, if such a woman is considered a non-virgin and forbidden to a High Priest, you would have no woman who is fit for the High Priesthood, who has not lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., by a pebble used to clean herself in the lavatory.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪诪讗谞转

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said that Rav was referring to one who refused her husband after having only atypical intercourse with him. Although the act of intercourse was not licentious, as she was married at the time, she is nevertheless disqualified from marrying into the priesthood because she is not a virgin.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 谞讘注诇讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讘注诇讛 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讬砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

Rabbi Shimi bar 岣yya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is like one whose hymen was torn accidentally. Consequently, she is not a zona and is fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a man, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘专讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘讛讬转诇讜 砖讛讬转讛 诪讻讘讚转 讗转 讛讘讬转 讜专讘注讛 讻诇讘 讻讜驻专讬 诪讗讞专讬讛 讜讛讻砖讬专讛 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving a certain girl [riva] in the village of Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village [kufri] dog used for hunting sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood, as she was not considered a zona. Shmuel said: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her even to a High Priest, as she was still considered a virgin. The Gemara is puzzled by this comment: Was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rather, Shmuel meant that she is fit for a High Priest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专拽讬谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讘讬讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜诪讞讬专 讻诇讘

Rava of Pirkin said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter derived that the Sages stated that there is no harlotry with regard to an animal? Rav Ashi responded that it is as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). This verse prohibits one from sacrificing an animal as an offering if that animal was ever used to pay a harlot for her services, or if it was ever used as payment in the purchase of a dog.

讜转谞谉 讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 诪讜转专讬谉 (诪砖讜诐) 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛

And we learned in a mishna (Temura 30a): The hire of a dog, i.e., a kosher animal that a man or woman gave as payment to the owner of a dog in order to have sexual intercourse with it, and similarly the price of a prostitute, a kosher animal used to purchase a prostitute as a maidservant, are permitted to be sacrificed as offerings. This is because it is stated that both of them, the specific items listed in the verse, are abominations. Consequently, only two items are prohibited, i.e., the payment given to a prostitute for her services, and the payment used in the purchase of a dog, and not four, as the reverse cases are excluded from this halakha.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗谞讜住转 注爪诪讜 讜诪驻讜转转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬 讗谞讜住转 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪驻讜转转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讚 讞诇诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专

The Sages taught: A High Priest may not marry a woman that he himself raped and a woman that he himself seduced, as he is commanded to marry a virgin. And if he married her, he is married. With regard to a woman who was raped by another man and a woman seduced by another man, he may not marry her. And if he married her, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says that the child born from this union is a 岣lal, and the Rabbis say the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讘讙讟 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讜诪专

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. It states that if he married the woman that he himself raped or seduced, he is married. Rav Huna said that Rav said: And he must divorce her with a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But consider that which the baraita teaches: If he married her, he is married. Since it is obvious that the marriage is technically valid, it must be saying that they are permitted to remain married. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: No, it means to say

Scroll To Top