Yevamot 60
שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס בִּמְפוּתָּה.
that he does not pay the fine of a seduced woman. One who seduced a woman and does not wish to marry her must pay a fine (see Exodus 22:14–15). Since in this case he did marry her, he is not liable to pay the fine even though he is required to divorce her.
אֲזַל רַב גְּבִיהָה מִבֵּי כָתִיל, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בּוֹגֶרֶת וּמוּכַּת עֵץ — לֹא יִשָּׂא, וְאִם נָשָׂא — נָשׂוּי.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Geviha went from Bei Ketil he stated this halakha before Rav Ashi, who said to him: Isn’t it Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan who both say: A High Priest may not marry a grown woman and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally, but if he married one of them he is married?
אַלְמָא: סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת בּוֹגֶרֶת תַּחְתָּיו, סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת מוּכַּת עֵץ תַּחְתָּיו. הָכָא נָמֵי: סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת בְּעוּלָה תַּחְתָּיו. קַשְׁיָא.
Apparently, the reason for this halakha is that since she will eventually be a grown woman under him, i.e., while married to him, and she will eventually be a woman whose hymen was torn under him, as she will not remain a virgin, they are permitted to remain married after the fact. Here too, in the case of a High Priest who married a woman he raped or seduced, since she will eventually be a non-virgin under him, the baraita should be understood as stating that they may remain married. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult for Rav Huna.
אֲנוּסַת חֲבֵירוֹ וּמְפוּתַּת חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא יִשָּׂא. וְאִם נָשָׂא — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד חָלָל, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
§ The baraita cited above taught: With regard to a woman who was raped by another man and a woman seduced by another man, the High Priest may not marry her. And if he married her, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that the child born from this union is a ḥalal, and the Rabbis say the lineage of the offspring is unflawed. Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. And, so too, Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.
Some say a different version of this statement. Rav Huna said that Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman has thereby caused her to become a zona. Consequently, since the other man had intercourse with this woman outside of the context of marriage, she is a zona.
וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ? וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן: מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב קַב וְנָקִי. וְאִילּוּ בְּהָא אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks: Does he really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? Don’t we maintain that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov measures a kav but is clean, i.e., not many of his rulings have been recorded, but those that have been recorded are considered authoritative, and the halakha is always in accordance with his opinion? However, with regard to this ruling of Rabbi Elazar, Rav Amram said that Rav said that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּיֵשׁ חָלָל מֵחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: יֵשׁ חָלָל מֵחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין חָלָל מֵחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה.
Rav Ashi said: This is not the reason for the dispute. Rather, they disagree with regard to whether there is a ḥalal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for transgressing a positive mitzva. The marriage of a High Priest to a non-virgin is a violation of the mitzva that a High Priest marry a virgin, but it is not expressed in the Torah as a prohibition against a High Priest marrying a non-virgin. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that there is a ḥalal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for violating a positive mitzva, and the Rabbis hold that there is no ḥalal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for violating a positive mitzva.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — דִּכְתִיב: ״אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״, אַכּוּלְּהוּ.
What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? As it is written: “A widow, or one divorced, or a ḥalala, or a zona, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14), and it states subsequently: “And he shall not profane his seed among his people” (Leviticus 21:15). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains that this profanation is referring to all of them, i.e., he profanes his seed by marrying any woman unfit for him, including a non-virgin.
וְרַבָּנַן: ״אֵלֶּה״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: ״אֵלֶּה״ לְמַעוֹטֵי נִדָּה.
And what do the Sages hold? The word “these” concluded discussion of that matter. Consequently, only the prohibitions listed before the phrase “these shall he not take” result in the offspring being a ḥalal. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said: The word “these” comes to exclude a menstruating woman. If a priest has relations with a menstruating woman, the offspring is not a ḥalal, as this is not a prohibition specific to priests.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: מֵ״אֵלֶּה״ אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה חָלָל, וְאִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה חָלָל מִנִּדָּה. כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, נִכְתְּבֵיהּ לְ״אֵלֶּה״ לְבַסּוֹף? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: From the prohibitions preceding the phrase “these shall he not take” you cause your offspring to be a ḥalal, but you do not cause your offspring to be a ḥalal by having a child with a menstruating woman. In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, let the verse write the word these at the end, after stating that a High Priest must marry a virgin, in order to make it clear that if he marries a non-virgin their child is a ḥalal. The Gemara responds: Indeed, this is difficult.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֲחוֹתוֹ אֲרוּסָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. אֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. וּמוּכַּת עֵץ — אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to a priest’s betrothed sister, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He must become impure for her upon her death. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: He may not become impure for her. With regard to his sister who has been raped or seduced, all agree that he may not become impure for her upon her death. With regard to his sister whose hymen was torn accidentally, he may not become impure for her; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon would say the following principle: If his sister was fit for a High Priest, he must become impure for her, but if she was not fit for a High Priest, he may not become impure for her.
וּבוֹגֶרֶת — מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, דִּבְרֵי כׇּל אָדָם.
And if his sister was a grown woman, he must become impure for her according to everyone. Even those who hold that a High Priest may not marry a grown woman because her hymen is no longer whole agree that with regard to a priest becoming impure, she is considered a virgin and he must therefore become impure for her upon her death.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — דְּדָרְשִׁי הָכִי: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה״ — פְּרָט לַאֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה.
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? They expound the verse as follows: “And for his virgin sister, who is near to him, who has had no man, for her must he defile himself” (Leviticus 21:3). “And for his virgin sister” excludes one who has been raped or seduced, as they are not virgins.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף מוּכַּת עֵץ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ״. מִי שֶׁהֲוָיָיתָהּ עַל יְדֵי אִישׁ, יָצְאָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין הֲוָיָיתָהּ עַל יְדֵי אִישׁ. ״הַקְּרוֹבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת הָאֲרוּסָה. ״אֵלָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת.
One might have thought that I should exclude even a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally via a foreign object. The verse therefore states: “Who has had no man,” to include only one whose becoming a non-virgin was caused by a man, i.e., through intercourse. This case of a woman whose becoming a non-virgin was not caused by a man but rather by an object is thereby excluded from the category of a non-virgin, and her brother does become impure for her. “Who is near”; this is to include a betrothed sister. “To him”; this is to include a grown woman.
הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלָה מַשְׁמַע! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״בְּתוּלָה״ ״בְּתוּלָה״ מֵהָתָם: מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי נַעֲרָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include a grown woman? Didn’t Rabbi Meir say that the word “virgin” indicates even a woman who is partly a virgin, i.e., a grown woman, whose hymen is partially intact? Consequently, when the verse states that the priest becomes impure for his virgin sister, a grown woman is included. The Gemara answers: The derivation from the verse is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that we should derive a verbal analogy from the word “virgin” in this context and the word “virgin” from there, the context of a High Priest: In the analogy, just as there the virgin referred to is a young woman and not a grown woman, so too here she must be a young woman. The verse therefore teaches us that a priest becomes impure for his sister even if she is a grown woman.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ — דָּרְשִׁי הָכִי: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה״ — פְּרָט לַאֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה וּמוּכַּת עֵץ, ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה״ — פְּרָט לַאֲרוּסָה, ״הַקְּרוֹבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֲרוּסָה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה, ״אֵלָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת. ״הַקְּרוֹבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֲרוּסָה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה,
And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? They expound as follows: “And for his virgin sister” excludes a woman who was raped or seduced and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally, who is also not considered a virgin. “Who has had no man” excludes a betrothed sister, although she is not yet fully married. “Who is near”; this is to include a betrothed woman who was then divorced, as she is once again near to her brother. “To him”; this is to include a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Can the term “who is near” come to include a betrothed woman who was divorced?
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״קְרוֹבָה״.
Didn’t Rabbi Shimon say: If she was fit for a High Priest, her brother must become impure for her, and if she was not fit for a High Priest, her brother may not become impure for her? A divorced woman is not fit for a High Priest even if she had been only betrothed before her divorce. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the Merciful One includes her by the term: Who is near, which includes any sister who is close to him, even if she is unfit for a High Priest.
אִי הָכִי, מוּכַּת עֵץ נָמֵי! [רַבִּי] ״קְרוֹבָה״ — אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם. וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הָא — אִתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, הָא — לָא אִתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה.
The Gemara asks: If so, a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally should also be included. The Gemara responds that the term: Who is near, which is written in the singular, includes only one additional case and not two. The Gemara asks: And what did you see to render forbidden a woman whose hymen was accidentally torn and permit a divorcée who had previously been only betrothed, and not the opposite? The Gemara answers: In this case of the woman whose hymen was torn, an action has been performed on her body, whereas in that case of the divorcée, no action has been performed on her body.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מִדְּשַׁבְקֵיהּ לְבַר זוּגֵיהּ, מִכְּלָל דִּבְמוּכַּת עֵץ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, מְנָא לֵיהּ — מִ״לֹּא הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ״.
The baraita cites Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon as holding that a priest may not become impure for his sister who was betrothed and then divorced, and it cites only Rabbi Shimon as holding that he may not become impure for his sister who was a grown woman. Based on this, the Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei left his partner, Rabbi Shimon, it may be inferred that with regard to a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a priest does become impure. From where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara explains that he derives it from the phrase: “Who has had no man,” as a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally has not been with a man.
וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ! חַד מִ״לֹּא הָיְתָה״, וְחַד מִ״לְּאִישׁ״.
The Gemara asks: Haven’t you already derived the halakha of a betrothed woman from that phrase? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei learns one halakha from the phrase “has had no,” which indicates that she has not even been betrothed, and he derives one halakha from the term “man,” which indicates that only a woman who was with a man is no longer considered a virgin with regard to this halakha, but not one whose hymen was torn accidentally.
״אֵלָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת. וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — בְּתוּלָה שְׁלֵימָה מַשְׁמַע! טַעְמָא דִּידֵיהּ נָמֵי הָתָם מֵהָכָא, דְּדָרֵישׁ הָכִי מִדְּ״אֵלָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת, מִכְלָל דִּ״בְתוּלָה״ — בְּתוּלָה שְׁלֵימָה מַשְׁמַע.
It was stated previously that according to Rabbi Shimon, the term “to him,” comes to include a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Shimon say with regard to a High Priest that the term virgin indicates a complete virgin, which does not include a grown woman? The Gemara answers: His reason there is also derived from here, as he expounds as follows: From the fact that the expression “to him” is needed to include a grown woman, it may be inferred that the term virgin by itself indicates a complete virgin.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: גִּיּוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — כְּשֵׁירָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם״, וַהֲרֵי פִּנְחָס עִמָּהֶם.
§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, also related to the discussion of defining who is considered a virgin. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A female convert who converted when she was less than three years and one day old is permitted to marry into the priesthood, as it is stated: “But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18). This verse indicates that these women were fit for all of the warriors, and since Pinehas the priest was with them (see Numbers 31:6), it is clear that young converts are permitted to priests.
וְרַבָּנַן? לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת. אִי הָכִי, בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד נָמֵי?
The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, interpret this verse? The Gemara responds: They understand the phrase “keep alive for yourselves” to mean that they could keep them as slaves and as maidservants, but they could not necessarily marry them. The Gemara asks: If so, if the source for Rabbi Shimon’s ruling is this verse, a girl who converted at the age of three years and one day old should also be permitted to a priest, as long as she has never had intercourse, as stated by the verse.
כִּדְרַב הוּנָא. דְּרַב הוּנָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״כׇּל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ״, הָא אֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת — קַיֵּימוּ, מִכְּלָל דְּהַטַּף, בֵּין יָדְעוּ בֵּין לֹא יָדְעוּ — קַיֵּימוּ. וּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הַחֲיוּ לָכֶם״, הָא יָדְעִי — הֲרוֹגוּ!
The Gemara replies: His reasoning is as stated by Rav Huna, as Rav Huna raised a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “Kill every woman that has known man by lying with him” (Numbers 31:17), which indicates that a woman who has not known a man in this way you may keep alive. This proves by inference that the female children, who are not classified as women, you may keep alive regardless of whether they knew a man or they did not know a man. And it is written in a different verse: “But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18), which indicates that if they have known men, you must kill them. This is an apparent contradiction.
הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר בִּרְאוּיָה לִיבָּעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rav Huna explains: You must say that the verse is speaking of a woman who is fit for intercourse. The verse does not mean to distinguish between women who have actually engaged in sexual intercourse and those who have not. Rather, it distinguishes between a girl over the age of three, with whom an act of intercourse is recognized as such, and a girl below the age of three.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״וְכׇל אִשָּׁה יוֹדַעַת אִישׁ״ — בִּרְאוּיָה לִיבָּעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּרְאוּיָה לִיבָּעֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נִבְעֲלָה מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: בִּרְאוּיָה לִיבָּעֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
This is also taught in a baraita: “Every woman that has known man”; the verse is speaking of a woman who is fit for intercourse. The baraita proceeds to discuss this halakha: Do you say it is referring to one who is fit for intercourse, or perhaps it is referring only to one who has actually had intercourse? When the verse states: “But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,” which indicates that grown women must be killed even if they have not had intercourse with a man, you must say that the verse is speaking of a woman who is fit for intercourse.
מְנָא יָדְעִי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: הֶעֱבִירוּם לִפְנֵי הַצִּיץ. כׇּל שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לִיבָּעֵל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין פָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִיבָּעֵל. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: סִימָן לַעֲבֵירָה — הִדְרוֹקָן.
The Gemara asks a practical question with regard to the events described by the Torah: From where did they know whether a particular girl was already three years old and fit for intercourse? Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: They passed them before the frontplate of the High Priest. Any girl whose face miraculously turned sallow, it was known that she was fit for intercourse, and any girl whose face did not turn sallow, it was thereby known that she was not fit for intercourse. Similarly, Rav Naḥman said: A sign of transgression in the area of sexual morality is the disease hidrokan, which causes one’s face to turn sallow.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּמְצְאוּ מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי יָבֵשׁ גִּלְעָד אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר״, מְנָא יָדְעִי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הוֹשִׁיבוּם עַל פִּי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן, בְּעוּלָה — רֵיחָהּ נוֹדֵף, בְּתוּלָה — אֵין רֵיחָהּ נוֹדֵף.
Similarly, you can say with regard to the verse: “And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins that had not known man by lying with him” (Judges 21:12). From where did they know that they were virgins? Rav Kahana said: They sat them on the opening of a barrel of wine. If she was a non-virgin, her breath would smell like wine; if she was a virgin, her breath did not smell like wine.
וּנְעַבְּרִינְהוּ לִפְנֵי צִיץ? אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: ״לְרָצוֹן לָהֶם״ כְּתִיב, לְרָצוֹן וְלֹא לְפוּרְעָנוּת. אִי הָכִי בְּמִדְיָן נָמֵי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: ״לָהֶם״ כְּתִיב, לָהֶם — לְרָצוֹן וְלֹא לְפוּרְעָנוּת, וּלְגוֹיִם — אֲפִילּוּ לְפוּרְעָנוּת.
The Gemara suggests: They should have passed them before the frontplate, as described previously with regard to the daughters of Midian. Rav Kahana, son of Rav Natan, said: The verse states with regard to the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead…that they may be accepted before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that the frontplate is worn for acceptance but not for calamity. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the frontplate should also not have been used with regard to the women of Midian. Rav Ashi said: The word “they” is written in the verse, indicating that for them, the Jewish people, the frontplate is for acceptance but not for calamity; but for gentiles it can be used even for calamity.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ, אוֹ מִכְּלָלָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ?
Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi: Did you hear Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say this explicitly or did you learn it by inference?
מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עִיר אַחַת הָיְתָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעָר, וְשִׁגֵּר רַבִּי אֶת רַבִּי רוֹמָנוּס וּבְדָקָהּ, וּמָצָא בָּהּ בַּת גִּיּוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְהִכְשִׁירָהּ רַבִּי לַכְּהוּנָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי.
The Gemara asks: What inference was Rabbi Zeira hinting at? The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: There was a certain city in Eretz Yisrael where they contested the lineage of a particular family. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent Rabbi Romanus, and he examined the family’s lineage and found that it included the daughter of a convert who had converted when she was less than three years and one day old, and she had married a priest. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: I heard explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled in this manner.
וְאִי מִכְּלָלָא מַאי? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם: הוֹאִיל וְאִנְּסִיב — אִנְּסִיב. דְּהָא רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בּוֹגֶרֶת וּמוּכַּת עֵץ לֹא יִשָּׂא, וְאִם נָשָׂא — נָשׂוּי.
The Gemara asks: And if Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion had been derived by inference, what of it? The Gemara answers: Perhaps it was different there, because since she had already married a priest, she could remain married after the fact, but it would not be permitted for her to marry a priest ab initio, as it is Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan who both say: A High Priest may not marry a grown woman and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally, but if he married one of them he is married and not required to divorce her.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם: סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת בּוֹגֶרֶת תַּחְתָּיו, סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת בְּעוּלָה תַּחְתָּיו. הָכָא, סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת זוֹנָה תַּחְתָּיו?!
The Gemara refutes this claim: How can these cases be compared? Granted, there, in the case of a grown woman, it is reasonable for her to be permitted after the fact, as a young woman will eventually be a grown woman under him, i.e., while married to him, and she will eventually be a non-virgin under him. However, here, in the case of a convert, will she eventually be a zona under him? If she is forbidden to a priest ab initio it is because she has the status of a zona, in which case she should be prohibited after the fact as well. Consequently, it can be proven from the incident cited previously that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
רַב סָפְרָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ מִכְּלָלָא וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ, וּמְשַׁנֵּי (לֵיהּ) הָכִי.
The Gemara comments: Rav Safra taught this halakha after deriving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s ruling by inference, although he had never heard this ruling explicitly. And the question mentioned above was difficult for him, and he resolved it in this same manner.
הָהוּא כָּהֲנָא דְּאִנְּסִיב גִּיּוֹרֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַפֵּיק, וְאִי לָא — מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי מֵאוּנָּךְ.
The Gemara relates another incident related to this halakha: A certain priest married a convert, who had converted when she was less than three years and one day old. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is this? Why are you violating the halakha? He said to him: It is permitted for me to marry her, as Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. He said to him: Go remove her, i.e., divorce her. And if not, I will remove Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi from your ear [me’unekh] for you. In other words, I will take the necessary action to ensure that you obey and divorce her, so that you can no longer follow Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi’s opinion.
תַּנְיָא, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר:
§ It is taught in a baraita: And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would say:
