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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 6, 2022 | 讛壮 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 60

This month’s learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit. 鈥淪he came to the US at a young age. She raised four children and was one of the most curious people who really cared about others and prioritized family.鈥

This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.聽

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Belinda Kreike in loving memory of her father, Jeffrey Rhodes, Yehuda Yiddel Ben Chaim Yerachmiel on his 53rd yahrzeit. 鈥淗e died in 1969 as a young husband of Madalaine and father of Belinda. He never saw the legacy he left of his daughters and grandchildren Jonah, Noah and Dalia Kreike.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated in memory of those murdered yesterday in a terrorist attack in Elad, Israel – Oren ben Yiftach, Yonatan Havakuk, and Boaz Gol – and for a refuah shleima for those injured.聽

What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov regarding the status of a child born from a kohen gadol who marries a woman who was raped or seduced by someone else? Two suggestions are brought and one is rejected. After discussing the different opinions defining a “betula” who a kohen gadol is permitted to marry, the Gemara brings a debate regarding the definition of a betula in the context of a kohen who can become impure to his sister when she dies, only if she is a betula. Is it the same or different as for who the kohen gadol can marry? What are the different opinions and from where are their opinions derived? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai permits a kohen to marry a woman who converted under the age of three years and a day. On what basis? Do we hold like him or not?

砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 讘诪驻讜转讛

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鈥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.

讗讝诇 专讘 讙讘讬讛讛 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讜讙专转 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬

The Gemara relates that when Rav Geviha went from Bei Ketil he stated this halakha before Rav Ashi, who said to him: Isn鈥檛 it Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诇诪讗 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讙专转 转讞转讬讜 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 诪讜讻转 注抓 转讞转讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘注讜诇讛 转讞转讬讜 拽砖讬讗

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.

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 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

搂 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. Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And, so too, Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

Some say a different version of this statement. Rav Huna said that Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? 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.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Does he really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? Don鈥檛 we maintain that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讬砖 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讬砖 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛

Rav Ashi said: This is not the reason for the dispute. Rather, they disagree with regard to whether there is a 岣lal 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鈥檃kov holds that there is a 岣lal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for violating a positive mitzva, and the Rabbis hold that there is no 岣lal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for violating a positive mitzva.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇诇讛 讝讜谞讛 讗转 讗诇讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讻讬 讗诐 讘转讜诇讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讘注诪讬讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? As it is written: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced, or a 岣lala, or a zona, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), and it states subsequently: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讛 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗诇讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讚讛

And what do the Sages hold? The word 鈥渢hese鈥 concluded discussion of that matter. Consequently, only the prohibitions listed before the phrase 鈥渢hese shall he not take鈥 result in the offspring being a 岣lal. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said: The word 鈥渢hese鈥 comes to exclude a menstruating woman. If a priest has relations with a menstruating woman, the offspring is not a 岣lal, as this is not a prohibition specific to priests.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讗诇讛 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讞诇诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讞诇诇 诪谞讚讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 谞讻转讘讬讛 诇讗诇讛 诇讘住讜祝 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: From the prohibitions preceding the phrase 鈥渢hese shall he not take鈥 you cause your offspring to be a 岣lal, but you do not cause your offspring to be a 岣lal 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鈥檃kov. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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 岣lal. The Gemara responds: Indeed, this is difficult.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讜转讜 讗专讜住讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛

The Sages taught: With regard to a priest鈥檚 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.

讜讘讜讙专转 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讚专砖讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讘转讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? They expound the verse as follows: 鈥淎nd for his virgin sister, who is near to him, who has had no man, for her must he defile himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:3). 鈥淎nd for his virgin sister鈥 excludes one who has been raped or seduced, as they are not virgins.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 诪讜讻转 注抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖 诪讬 砖讛讜讬讬转讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讬砖 讬爪讗讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讛讜讬讬转讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讬砖 讛拽专讜讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讛讗专讜住讛 讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讛讘讜讙专转

One might have thought that I should exclude even a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally via a foreign object. The verse therefore states: 鈥淲ho has had no man,鈥 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. 鈥淲ho is near鈥; this is to include a betrothed sister. 鈥淭o him鈥; this is to include a grown woman.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讛 诪砖诪注 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪讛转诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞注专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 谞注专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include a grown woman? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that the word 鈥渧irgin鈥 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 鈥渧irgin鈥 in this context and the word 鈥渧irgin鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专砖讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讘转讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 讗砖专 诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讟 诇讗专讜住讛 讛拽专讜讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讗专讜住讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘讜讙专转 讛拽专讜讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讗专讜住讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛

And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? They expound as follows: 鈥淎nd for his virgin sister鈥 excludes a woman who was raped or seduced and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally, who is also not considered a virgin. 鈥淲ho has had no man鈥 excludes a betrothed sister, although she is not yet fully married. 鈥淲ho is near鈥; this is to include a betrothed woman who was then divorced, as she is once again near to her brother. 鈥淭o him鈥; this is to include a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Can the term 鈥渨ho is near鈥 come to include a betrothed woman who was divorced?

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 拽专讜讘讛

Didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讻转 注抓 谞诪讬 [专讘讬] 拽专讜讘讛 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗 讗转注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗转注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛

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 divorc茅e who had previously been only betrothed, and not the opposite? The Gemara answers: In this case of the women whose hymen was torn, an action has been performed on her body, whereas in that case of the divorc茅e, no action has been performed on her body.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚砖讘拽讬讛 诇讘专 讝讜讙讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘诪讜讻转 注抓 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖

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: 鈥淲ho has had no man,鈥 as a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally has not been with a man.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讞讚 诪诇讗 讛讬转讛 讜讞讚 诪诇讗讬砖

The Gemara asks: Haven鈥檛 you already derived the halakha of a betrothed woman from that phrase? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei learns one halakha from the phrase 鈥渉as had no,鈥 which indicates that she has not even been betrothed, and he derives one halakha from the term 鈥渕an,鈥 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.

讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讛讘讜讙专转 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇讬诪讛 诪砖诪注 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诪讛讻讗 讚讚专讬砖 讛讻讬 诪讚讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讛讘讜讙专转 诪讻诇诇 讚讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇讬诪讛 诪砖诪注

It was stated previously that according to Rabbi Shimon, the term 鈥渢o him,鈥 comes to include a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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 鈥渢o him鈥 is needed to include a grown woman, it may be inferred that the term virgin by itself indicates a complete virgin.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻砖讬专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讛讟祝 讘谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛讞讬讜 诇讻诐 讜讛专讬 驻谞讞住 注诪讛诐

搂 The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, also related to the discussion of defining who is considered a virgin. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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: 鈥淏ut all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讜诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, interpret this verse? The Gemara responds: They understand the phrase 鈥渒eep alive for yourselves鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖讛 讬讚注转 讗讬砖 诇诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛专讙讜 讛讗 讗讬谞讛 讬讜讚注转 拽讬讬诪讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讟祝 讘讬谉 讬讚注讜 讘讬谉 诇讗 讬讚注讜 拽讬讬诪讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讛讟祝 讘谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛讞讬讜 诇讻诐 讛讗 讬讚注讬 讛专讜讙讜

The Gemara replies: His reasoning is as stated by Rav Huna, as Rav Huna raised a contradiction: It is written in one verse: 鈥淜ill every woman that has known man by lying with him鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves鈥 (Numbers 31:18), which indicates that if they have known men, you must kill them. This is an apparent contradiction.

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜讻诇 讗砖讛 讬讜讚注转 讗讬砖 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛讟祝 讘谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

This is also taught in a baraita: 鈥淓very woman that has known man鈥; 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: 鈥淏ut all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,鈥 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.

诪谞讗 讬讚注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讘讬讝谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞住讬讚讗 讛注讘讬专讜诐 诇驻谞讬 讛爪讬抓 讻诇 砖驻谞讬讛 诪讜专讬拽讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 驻谞讬讛 诪讜专讬拽讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬诪谉 诇注讘讬专讛 讛讚专讜拽谉

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 岣sida 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 Na岣an said: A sign of transgression in the area of sexual morality is the disease hidrokan, which causes one鈥檚 face to turn sallow.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讜讬诪爪讗讜 诪讬讜砖讘讬 讬讘砖 讙诇注讚 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 讗讬砖 诇诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜砖讬讘讜诐 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讘注讜诇讛 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝 讘转讜诇讛 讗讬谉 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝

Similarly, you can say with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins that had not known man by lying with him鈥 (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.

讜谞注讘专讬谞讛讜 诇驻谞讬 爪讬抓 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专爪讜谉 诇讛诐 讻转讬讘 诇专爪讜谉 讜诇讗 诇驻讜专注谞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讛诐 讻转讬讘 诇讛诐 诇专爪讜谉 讜诇讗 诇驻讜专注谞讜转 讜诇讙讜讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讜专注谞讜转

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead鈥that they may be accepted before the Lord鈥 (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 鈥渢hey鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi: Did you hear Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say this explicitly or did you learn it by inference?

诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讛 注专注专 讜砖讙专 专讘讬 讗转 专讘讬 专讜诪谞讜住 讜讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘转 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讛讻砖讬专讛 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: I heard explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled in this manner.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗谞住讬讘 讗谞住讬讘 讚讛讗 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讜讙专转 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬

The Gemara asks: And if Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讙专转 转讞转讬讜 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘注讜诇讛 转讞转讬讜 讛讻讗 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讝讜谞讛 转讞转讬讜

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.

专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪讻诇诇讗 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬

The Gemara comments: Rav Safra taught this halakha after deriving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 讻讛谞讗 讚讗谞住讬讘 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗驻讬拽 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽谞讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪讗讜谞讱

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i. He said to him: Go remove her, i.e., divorce her. And if not, I will remove Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi from your ear [me鈥檜nekh] 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鈥檃kov bar Idi鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专

It is taught in a baraita: And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i would say:

  • 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 60: A Lot of Questions and a Spiritual Truth Test

A kohen whose sister dies... Recognizing that kohanim don't become impure in mourning anyone other than the 7 relatives, but...

Yevamot 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 60

砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 讘诪驻讜转讛

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鈥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.

讗讝诇 专讘 讙讘讬讛讛 诪讘讬 讻转讬诇 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讜讙专转 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬

The Gemara relates that when Rav Geviha went from Bei Ketil he stated this halakha before Rav Ashi, who said to him: Isn鈥檛 it Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诇诪讗 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讙专转 转讞转讬讜 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 诪讜讻转 注抓 转讞转讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘注讜诇讛 转讞转讬讜 拽砖讬讗

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.

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 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

搂 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. Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And, so too, Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

Some say a different version of this statement. Rav Huna said that Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? 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.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Does he really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? Don鈥檛 we maintain that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讬砖 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讬砖 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛

Rav Ashi said: This is not the reason for the dispute. Rather, they disagree with regard to whether there is a 岣lal 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鈥檃kov holds that there is a 岣lal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for violating a positive mitzva, and the Rabbis hold that there is no 岣lal from a relationship for which the man and woman are liable for violating a positive mitzva.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇诇讛 讝讜谞讛 讗转 讗诇讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讻讬 讗诐 讘转讜诇讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讘注诪讬讜 讗讻讜诇讛讜

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? As it is written: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced, or a 岣lala, or a zona, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), and it states subsequently: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讛 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗诇讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讚讛

And what do the Sages hold? The word 鈥渢hese鈥 concluded discussion of that matter. Consequently, only the prohibitions listed before the phrase 鈥渢hese shall he not take鈥 result in the offspring being a 岣lal. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said: The word 鈥渢hese鈥 comes to exclude a menstruating woman. If a priest has relations with a menstruating woman, the offspring is not a 岣lal, as this is not a prohibition specific to priests.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讗诇讛 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讞诇诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讞诇诇 诪谞讚讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 谞讻转讘讬讛 诇讗诇讛 诇讘住讜祝 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: From the prohibitions preceding the phrase 鈥渢hese shall he not take鈥 you cause your offspring to be a 岣lal, but you do not cause your offspring to be a 岣lal 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鈥檃kov. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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 岣lal. The Gemara responds: Indeed, this is difficult.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讜转讜 讗专讜住讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛

The Sages taught: With regard to a priest鈥檚 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.

讜讘讜讙专转 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讚专砖讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讘转讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? They expound the verse as follows: 鈥淎nd for his virgin sister, who is near to him, who has had no man, for her must he defile himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:3). 鈥淎nd for his virgin sister鈥 excludes one who has been raped or seduced, as they are not virgins.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 诪讜讻转 注抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖 诪讬 砖讛讜讬讬转讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讬砖 讬爪讗讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讛讜讬讬转讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讬砖 讛拽专讜讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讛讗专讜住讛 讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讛讘讜讙专转

One might have thought that I should exclude even a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally via a foreign object. The verse therefore states: 鈥淲ho has had no man,鈥 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. 鈥淲ho is near鈥; this is to include a betrothed sister. 鈥淭o him鈥; this is to include a grown woman.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘转讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讘转讜诇讛 诪砖诪注 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪讛转诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞注专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 谞注专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to include a grown woman? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that the word 鈥渧irgin鈥 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 鈥渧irgin鈥 in this context and the word 鈥渧irgin鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专砖讬 讛讻讬 讜诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讘转讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 讗砖专 诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讟 诇讗专讜住讛 讛拽专讜讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讗专讜住讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘讜讙专转 讛拽专讜讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讗专讜住讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛

And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? They expound as follows: 鈥淎nd for his virgin sister鈥 excludes a woman who was raped or seduced and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally, who is also not considered a virgin. 鈥淲ho has had no man鈥 excludes a betrothed sister, although she is not yet fully married. 鈥淲ho is near鈥; this is to include a betrothed woman who was then divorced, as she is once again near to her brother. 鈥淭o him鈥; this is to include a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Can the term 鈥渨ho is near鈥 come to include a betrothed woman who was divorced?

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 拽专讜讘讛

Didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讻转 注抓 谞诪讬 [专讘讬] 拽专讜讘讛 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗 讗转注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛 讛讗 诇讗 讗转注讘讬讚 讘讛 诪注砖讛

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 divorc茅e who had previously been only betrothed, and not the opposite? The Gemara answers: In this case of the women whose hymen was torn, an action has been performed on her body, whereas in that case of the divorc茅e, no action has been performed on her body.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚砖讘拽讬讛 诇讘专 讝讜讙讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘诪讜讻转 注抓 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖

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: 鈥淲ho has had no man,鈥 as a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally has not been with a man.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讞讚 诪诇讗 讛讬转讛 讜讞讚 诪诇讗讬砖

The Gemara asks: Haven鈥檛 you already derived the halakha of a betrothed woman from that phrase? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei learns one halakha from the phrase 鈥渉as had no,鈥 which indicates that she has not even been betrothed, and he derives one halakha from the term 鈥渕an,鈥 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.

讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讛讘讜讙专转 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇讬诪讛 诪砖诪注 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诪讛讻讗 讚讚专讬砖 讛讻讬 诪讚讗诇讬讜 诇专讘讜转 讛讘讜讙专转 诪讻诇诇 讚讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讛 砖诇讬诪讛 诪砖诪注

It was stated previously that according to Rabbi Shimon, the term 鈥渢o him,鈥 comes to include a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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 鈥渢o him鈥 is needed to include a grown woman, it may be inferred that the term virgin by itself indicates a complete virgin.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻砖讬专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讛讟祝 讘谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛讞讬讜 诇讻诐 讜讛专讬 驻谞讞住 注诪讛诐

搂 The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, also related to the discussion of defining who is considered a virgin. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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: 鈥淏ut all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讜诇砖驻讞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, interpret this verse? The Gemara responds: They understand the phrase 鈥渒eep alive for yourselves鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖讛 讬讚注转 讗讬砖 诇诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛专讙讜 讛讗 讗讬谞讛 讬讜讚注转 拽讬讬诪讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讟祝 讘讬谉 讬讚注讜 讘讬谉 诇讗 讬讚注讜 拽讬讬诪讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讛讟祝 讘谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛讞讬讜 诇讻诐 讛讗 讬讚注讬 讛专讜讙讜

The Gemara replies: His reasoning is as stated by Rav Huna, as Rav Huna raised a contradiction: It is written in one verse: 鈥淜ill every woman that has known man by lying with him鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves鈥 (Numbers 31:18), which indicates that if they have known men, you must kill them. This is an apparent contradiction.

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜讻诇 讗砖讛 讬讜讚注转 讗讬砖 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛讟祝 讘谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

This is also taught in a baraita: 鈥淓very woman that has known man鈥; 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: 鈥淏ut all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,鈥 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.

诪谞讗 讬讚注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讘讬讝谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞住讬讚讗 讛注讘讬专讜诐 诇驻谞讬 讛爪讬抓 讻诇 砖驻谞讬讛 诪讜专讬拽讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 驻谞讬讛 诪讜专讬拽讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬讘注诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬诪谉 诇注讘讬专讛 讛讚专讜拽谉

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 岣sida 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 Na岣an said: A sign of transgression in the area of sexual morality is the disease hidrokan, which causes one鈥檚 face to turn sallow.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讜讬诪爪讗讜 诪讬讜砖讘讬 讬讘砖 讙诇注讚 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注讜 讗讬砖 诇诪砖讻讘 讝讻专 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜砖讬讘讜诐 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讘注讜诇讛 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝 讘转讜诇讛 讗讬谉 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝

Similarly, you can say with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins that had not known man by lying with him鈥 (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.

讜谞注讘专讬谞讛讜 诇驻谞讬 爪讬抓 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专爪讜谉 诇讛诐 讻转讬讘 诇专爪讜谉 讜诇讗 诇驻讜专注谞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讚讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讛诐 讻转讬讘 诇讛诐 诇专爪讜谉 讜诇讗 诇驻讜专注谞讜转 讜诇讙讜讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻讜专注谞讜转

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead鈥that they may be accepted before the Lord鈥 (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 鈥渢hey鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi: Did you hear Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say this explicitly or did you learn it by inference?

诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讛 注专注专 讜砖讙专 专讘讬 讗转 专讘讬 专讜诪谞讜住 讜讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘转 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讛讻砖讬专讛 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: I heard explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled in this manner.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗谞住讬讘 讗谞住讬讘 讚讛讗 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讜讙专转 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 诇讗 讬砖讗 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 谞砖讜讬

The Gemara asks: And if Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讙专转 转讞转讬讜 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘注讜诇讛 转讞转讬讜 讛讻讗 住讜驻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讝讜谞讛 转讞转讬讜

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.

专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪讻诇诇讗 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬

The Gemara comments: Rav Safra taught this halakha after deriving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 讻讛谞讗 讚讗谞住讬讘 讙讬讜专转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗驻讬拽 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽谞讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪讗讜谞讱

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i. He said to him: Go remove her, i.e., divorce her. And if not, I will remove Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi from your ear [me鈥檜nekh] 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鈥檃kov bar Idi鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专

It is taught in a baraita: And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i would say:

Scroll To Top