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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 4, 2014 | 讬状讘 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

  • 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 61

拽讘专讬 讙讜讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转谉 爪讗谞讬 爪讗谉 诪专注讬转讬 讗讚诐 讗转诐 讗转诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐

The graves of gentiles do not render items impure though a tent, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [adam]鈥 (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called men [adam] but gentiles are not called men [adam]. Since the Torah introduces the halakha of ritual impurity of a tent with the words: 鈥淲hen a man [adam] dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14), this halakha applies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜谞驻砖 讗讚诐 砖砖讛 注砖专 讗诇祝 诪砖讜诐 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: 鈥淎nd the persons [nefesh adam] were sixteen thousand鈥 (Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as adam. The Gemara answers: They are given this title due to the need to distinguish the people taken captive from the animals that were taken as spoils of war.

讗砖专 讬砖 讘讛 讛专讘讛 诪砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 专讘讜讗 讗讚诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注 讘讬谉 讬诪讬谞讜 诇砖诪讗诇讜 (讜讘讛诪讛 专讘讛) 诪砖讜诐 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: 鈥淲herein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [adam] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle鈥 (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title due to the need to distinguish them from the animals mentioned in the verse.

讻诇 讛讜专讙 谞驻砖 讜讻诇 谞讜讙注 讘讞诇诇 转转讞讟讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬拽讟讬诇 讞讚 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞驻拽讚 诪诪谞讜 讗讬砖 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诇讗 谞驻拽讚 诪诪谞讜 讗讬砖 诇注讘讬专讛

The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: 鈥淲hoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves鈥 (Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps a Jew was killed, and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. And the Rabbis reply that the verse attests: 鈥淣ot one man of us is missing鈥 (Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i responds: The intent of that verse is that not one man of us is missing due to transgression, i.e., none of them sinned.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 谞讛讬 讚诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗 诪讗讟诪讜讬讬 讘讗讛诇 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 诪诪讙注 讜诪砖讗 诪讬 诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗

Ravina said that the explanation above is unnecessary: Granted, the verse excluded gentiles from rendering items impure through a tent, as it is written: 鈥淲hen a man [adam] dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14); but did the verse exclude them from rendering items impure via touching and carrying? Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讜诪注砖讛 讘讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 砖拽讚砖 讗转 诪专转讗 讘转 讘讬转讜住 讜诪谞讛讜 讛诪诇讱 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻谞住讛 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住

MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 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 砖讬讻谞讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽讞 讗砖讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 谞诪讬 讗砖讛 讜诇讗 讬讘诪讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry her? The verse states: 鈥淪hall he take for a wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: If so, a widow waiting for her yavam should also be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渨ife鈥 indicates that this does not include a yevama, who was not initially his wife but his brother鈥檚.

诪注砖讛 讘讬讛讜砖注 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛讜 讗讬谉 谞转诪谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽讟讬专 拽讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诪专转讗 讘转 讘讬转讜住 诇讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 注讚 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 讘讻讛谞讬 专讘专讘讬

The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se鈥檃 [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讗讞讬讜 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐

MISHNA: A High Priest whose brother died without children performs 岣litza and he does not perform levirate marriage, as he may not marry a widow.

讙诪壮 拽讗 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna teaches this halakha categorically, indicating that it is no different if she is his brother鈥檚 widow from betrothal, and it is no different if she is his widow from marriage. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, she is forbidden to him if she was widowed from marriage, as, if he were to marry her, it would be a violation of both the positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and the prohibition for him to marry a widow. And a positive mitzva, i.e., levirate marriage, does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. However, if she was a widow from betrothal and is therefore still a virgin, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow.

讙讝讬专讛 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讟讜 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting their first act of intercourse due to their second act of intercourse. After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讛讬讗 讝讜谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讙讬讜专转 讜诪砖讜讞专专转 讜砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讗驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讚讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛

GEMARA: The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason for the halakha that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is because he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Is it only priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna said to him: This halakha does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the tanna mentions priests because he wants to teach it in a way that would parallel the latter clause of the mishna, which states that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife

讜讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讛讬讗 讝讜谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 讚讗讝讜谞讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讚讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讛谉

and he has children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. It is priests who were commanded not to marry a zona, but Israelites were not commanded this. It is due to that reason that he taught the first clause of the mishna about a priest, even though that halakha applies equally to Israelites.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讻诇讜 讜诇讗 讬砖讘注讜 讛讝谞讜 讜诇讗 讬驻专爪讜 讻诇 讘讬讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 驻讬专爪讛 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Rav Huna said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall eat, and not have enough, they shall commit harlotry, and shall not increase鈥 (Hosea 4:10). He expounds the verse as follows: Any intercourse that does not have the possibility to increase the population because the woman is incapable of having children, is nothing other than licentious sexual intercourse.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬谞讱 谞驻拽 注讬讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A priest may not marry a minor. Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: Go and investigate this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling. He went and investigated it, and arrived at the following conclusion: Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讝讜谞讛 讛讜讬讗

Rabba explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one must be concerned for the minority. Rabbi Meir does not allow one to assume that an unknown case is similar to the majority of cases. Consequently, one must take into account the possibility that a minor will turn out to be sexually underdeveloped, although this will not be true of most individuals. And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a sexually underdeveloped woman is a zona and therefore forbidden to a priest.

讜讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讬砖 讻转讬讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara challenges Rabba鈥檚 explanation: And does Rabbi Eliezer hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A boy minor and a girl minor may not perform 岣litza or levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You spoke well when you said that they may not perform 岣litza, as the term 鈥渕an鈥 is written in the passage of 岣litza (Deuteronomy 25:7鈥10), which limits the halakha to an adult male, and we compare a woman to a man and therefore limit 岣litza to an adult woman. However, what is the reason that they may not perform levirate marriage?

[讗诪专 诇讛诐] 拽讟谉 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘注专讜讛 讜转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜诇爪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Rabbi Meir said to them: A boy minor may not perform levirate marriage lest he be found to be a eunuch, i.e., one who is incapable of fathering children for his late brother. Similarly, a girl minor may not perform levirate marriage lest she be found to be sexually underdeveloped when she grows up. In either case, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply, and they turn out to have encountered a forbidden relative. And it was taught in a different baraita: A girl minor enters into levirate marriage but does not perform 岣litza; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. This proves that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with Rabbi Meir and is not concerned that a girl may turn out to be sexually underdeveloped.

讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讜谞讛 讝讜谞讛 讻砖诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讝讜谞讛 讝讜 诪讜驻拽专转 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara continues to challenge Rabba鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling. And does Rabbi Eliezer hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Wasn鈥檛 it is taught in a baraita: The zona forbidden to a priest is as the name zona implies, i.e., a married woman who committed adultery; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: A zona is a woman, even an unmarried woman, who is available to all, i.e., she has intercourse with whoever is interested. Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash says: Even if her husband went to make her drink the bitter waters after she disregarded his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, and he had intercourse with her on the way, he has thereby caused her to become a zona because she was forbidden to him at the time, despite the fact that she is his wife.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜谞讛 讝讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讙讬讜专转 讜诪砖讜讞专专转 讜砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 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

Rabbi Yehuda says: A zona is a sexually underdeveloped woman. And the Rabbis say: The term zona applies only to a female convert, a freed maidservant, and one who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Elazar says: 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. This baraita proves that Rabbi Eliezer does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讗 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讬诪转 拽谞讬 诇讛 诇讻讬 讙讚诇讛 讘注讜诇讛 讛讬讗

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that a priest may not marry a minor must be explained differently: Here we are dealing with a High Priest, and the problem is as follows: When can he acquire her as his wife? Only when she is grown up. However, if they had started living together as husband and wife when she was a minor, then when she is grown up and the marriage can legally take effect, she is already a non-virgin, and a High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻诇讬 诇讘 讗讬 讚拽讚砖讛 讗讘讜讛 诪讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讜讗讬 讚拽讚砖讛 谞驻砖讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

Rava said: This explanation is without reason. If her father betrothed her to her husband, her husband acquired her from that time, as betrothal that a father carries out on his daughter鈥檚 behalf when she is a minor is effective by Torah law. And if the minor betrothed herself, is this Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion and not that of the Rabbis? The Rabbis would certainly agree that a High Priest may not marry a minor under these circumstances.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转转驻转讛 注诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 驻转讜讬讬 拽讟谞讛 讗讜谞住 讛讜讗 讜讗讜谞住 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬

Rather, Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling includes a common priest, and the reason he cannot marry a minor is that we are concerned lest she be seduced by another man, due to her tender age and na茂vet茅, while married to him. The Gemara asks: If so, the same concern should apply to an Israelite also. The Gemara answers: The seduction of a minor is considered rape, and a rape victim remains permitted to her husband in a case where she is married to an Israelite, but not if she is married to a priest.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讬讻讜诇 拽讟谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 讗讬 讗砖讛 讬讻讜诇 讘讜讙专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘转讜诇讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬爪转讛 诪讻诇诇 拽讟谞讜转 讜诇讻诇诇 讘讙专讜转 诇讗 讘讗转讛

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling applies specifically to a High Priest, and it is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states: 鈥淎 virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife [isha]鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), one might have thought a High Priest may marry a minor; the verse therefore states that he must marry a woman [isha], i.e., an adult. If he must marry a woman, one might have thought it means a grown woman. The verse therefore states that he must marry a virgin, which excludes a grown woman, who is considered only a partial virgin because her hymen is not fully intact. How so? He must marry a woman who has left the class of minority but who has not yet reached the class of grown womanhood, i.e., he must marry a maiden.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 讗诇讗 谞注专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛谞注专讛 讟讜讘转 诪专讗讛 诪讗讚 讘转讜诇讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The High Priest must marry a virgin, and the term virgin refers only to a maiden. And a verse similarly states: 鈥淎nd the maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, and no man had known her鈥 (Genesis 24:16).

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 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 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The baraita cited above mentioned that Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has caused her to become a zona. Rav Amram said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬讘讟诇 讗讚诐 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讘专讗诐

MISHNA: A man may not neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply unless he already has children. Beit Shammai say: One fulfills this mitzva with two males, and Beit Hillel say: A male and a female, as it is stated: 鈥淢ale and female He created them鈥 (Genesis 5:2).

讙诪壮 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讘讟讬诇 诪讗砖讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讻诪讛 讘谞讬诐 讗住讜专 诇注诪讜讚 讘诇讗 讗砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讟讜讘 讛讬讜转 讛讗讚诐 诇讘讚讜

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna鈥檚 wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Na岣an said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is not good that the man should be alone鈥 (Genesis 2:18).

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讟讬诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜讘讟讬诇 谞诪讬 诪讗砖讛 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 讘转 讘谞讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讘谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讻讜专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讬诐

And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪诪砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 诪砖讛 讙专砖讜诐 讜讗诇讬注讝专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讘专讬讬转讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬诇驻讬 诪讘专讬讬转讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专

搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai say that one fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply when he has two males. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: We learn this from Moses as it is written: 鈥淭he sons of Moses, Gershom and Eliezer鈥 (I聽Chronicles 23:15). Since Moses did not have any other children, two sons must be sufficient to fulfill the mitzva. And the reason of Beit Hillel is that we learn from the creation of the world, as mankind was created male and female. The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, let them learn from the creation of the world as well. The Gemara answers that Beit Shammai could say to you: We do not derive a case where it is possible

  • 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 61: The Saving Graces of the Priestly Marriage Practicalities

4 mishnayot! Practical details about kohanim and whom they can marry. For example, a kohen who is betrothed a widow,...
high priest street art

Paradoxical Priest

"MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And...

Yevamot 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 61

拽讘专讬 讙讜讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转谉 爪讗谞讬 爪讗谉 诪专注讬转讬 讗讚诐 讗转诐 讗转诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐

The graves of gentiles do not render items impure though a tent, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [adam]鈥 (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called men [adam] but gentiles are not called men [adam]. Since the Torah introduces the halakha of ritual impurity of a tent with the words: 鈥淲hen a man [adam] dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14), this halakha applies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜谞驻砖 讗讚诐 砖砖讛 注砖专 讗诇祝 诪砖讜诐 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: 鈥淎nd the persons [nefesh adam] were sixteen thousand鈥 (Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as adam. The Gemara answers: They are given this title due to the need to distinguish the people taken captive from the animals that were taken as spoils of war.

讗砖专 讬砖 讘讛 讛专讘讛 诪砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 专讘讜讗 讗讚诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讚注 讘讬谉 讬诪讬谞讜 诇砖诪讗诇讜 (讜讘讛诪讛 专讘讛) 诪砖讜诐 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: 鈥淲herein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [adam] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle鈥 (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title due to the need to distinguish them from the animals mentioned in the verse.

讻诇 讛讜专讙 谞驻砖 讜讻诇 谞讜讙注 讘讞诇诇 转转讞讟讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬拽讟讬诇 讞讚 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞驻拽讚 诪诪谞讜 讗讬砖 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诇讗 谞驻拽讚 诪诪谞讜 讗讬砖 诇注讘讬专讛

The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: 鈥淲hoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves鈥 (Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps a Jew was killed, and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. And the Rabbis reply that the verse attests: 鈥淣ot one man of us is missing鈥 (Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i responds: The intent of that verse is that not one man of us is missing due to transgression, i.e., none of them sinned.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 谞讛讬 讚诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗 诪讗讟诪讜讬讬 讘讗讛诇 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讘讗讛诇 诪诪讙注 讜诪砖讗 诪讬 诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗

Ravina said that the explanation above is unnecessary: Granted, the verse excluded gentiles from rendering items impure through a tent, as it is written: 鈥淲hen a man [adam] dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14); but did the verse exclude them from rendering items impure via touching and carrying? Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i.

诪转谞讬壮 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 讜诪注砖讛 讘讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 砖拽讚砖 讗转 诪专转讗 讘转 讘讬转讜住 讜诪谞讛讜 讛诪诇讱 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻谞住讛 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住

MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 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 砖讬讻谞讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽讞 讗砖讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 谞诪讬 讗砖讛 讜诇讗 讬讘诪讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry her? The verse states: 鈥淪hall he take for a wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: If so, a widow waiting for her yavam should also be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渨ife鈥 indicates that this does not include a yevama, who was not initially his wife but his brother鈥檚.

诪注砖讛 讘讬讛讜砖注 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛讜 讗讬谉 谞转诪谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽讟讬专 拽讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 转专拽讘讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诪专转讗 讘转 讘讬转讜住 诇讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 注讚 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讙诪诇讗 讘讻讛谞讬 专讘专讘讬

The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se鈥檃 [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讗讞讬讜 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐

MISHNA: A High Priest whose brother died without children performs 岣litza and he does not perform levirate marriage, as he may not marry a widow.

讙诪壮 拽讗 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna teaches this halakha categorically, indicating that it is no different if she is his brother鈥檚 widow from betrothal, and it is no different if she is his widow from marriage. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Granted, she is forbidden to him if she was widowed from marriage, as, if he were to marry her, it would be a violation of both the positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and the prohibition for him to marry a widow. And a positive mitzva, i.e., levirate marriage, does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva together. However, if she was a widow from betrothal and is therefore still a virgin, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow.

讙讝讬专讛 讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讟讜 讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting their first act of intercourse due to their second act of intercourse. After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讛讬讗 讝讜谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讙讬讜专转 讜诪砖讜讞专专转 讜砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

MISHNA: A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讗驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讚讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛

GEMARA: The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason for the halakha that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is because he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Is it only priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna said to him: This halakha does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the tanna mentions priests because he wants to teach it in a way that would parallel the latter clause of the mishna, which states that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife

讜讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讛讬讗 讝讜谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 讚讗讝讜谞讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讚讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讛谉

and he has children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. It is priests who were commanded not to marry a zona, but Israelites were not commanded this. It is due to that reason that he taught the first clause of the mishna about a priest, even though that halakha applies equally to Israelites.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讻诇讜 讜诇讗 讬砖讘注讜 讛讝谞讜 讜诇讗 讬驻专爪讜 讻诇 讘讬讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 驻讬专爪讛 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Rav Huna said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall eat, and not have enough, they shall commit harlotry, and shall not increase鈥 (Hosea 4:10). He expounds the verse as follows: Any intercourse that does not have the possibility to increase the population because the woman is incapable of having children, is nothing other than licentious sexual intercourse.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 诇讗 讬砖讗 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬谞讱 谞驻拽 注讬讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A priest may not marry a minor. Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: Go and investigate this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling. He went and investigated it, and arrived at the following conclusion: Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讝讜谞讛 讛讜讬讗

Rabba explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one must be concerned for the minority. Rabbi Meir does not allow one to assume that an unknown case is similar to the majority of cases. Consequently, one must take into account the possibility that a minor will turn out to be sexually underdeveloped, although this will not be true of most individuals. And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a sexually underdeveloped woman is a zona and therefore forbidden to a priest.

讜讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讬砖 讻转讬讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara challenges Rabba鈥檚 explanation: And does Rabbi Eliezer hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A boy minor and a girl minor may not perform 岣litza or levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You spoke well when you said that they may not perform 岣litza, as the term 鈥渕an鈥 is written in the passage of 岣litza (Deuteronomy 25:7鈥10), which limits the halakha to an adult male, and we compare a woman to a man and therefore limit 岣litza to an adult woman. However, what is the reason that they may not perform levirate marriage?

[讗诪专 诇讛诐] 拽讟谉 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘注专讜讛 讜转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜诇爪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Rabbi Meir said to them: A boy minor may not perform levirate marriage lest he be found to be a eunuch, i.e., one who is incapable of fathering children for his late brother. Similarly, a girl minor may not perform levirate marriage lest she be found to be sexually underdeveloped when she grows up. In either case, the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply, and they turn out to have encountered a forbidden relative. And it was taught in a different baraita: A girl minor enters into levirate marriage but does not perform 岣litza; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. This proves that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with Rabbi Meir and is not concerned that a girl may turn out to be sexually underdeveloped.

讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讜谞讛 讝讜谞讛 讻砖诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讝讜谞讛 讝讜 诪讜驻拽专转 专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara continues to challenge Rabba鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling. And does Rabbi Eliezer hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Wasn鈥檛 it is taught in a baraita: The zona forbidden to a priest is as the name zona implies, i.e., a married woman who committed adultery; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: A zona is a woman, even an unmarried woman, who is available to all, i.e., she has intercourse with whoever is interested. Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash says: Even if her husband went to make her drink the bitter waters after she disregarded his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, and he had intercourse with her on the way, he has thereby caused her to become a zona because she was forbidden to him at the time, despite the fact that she is his wife.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讜谞讛 讝讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讙讬讜专转 讜诪砖讜讞专专转 讜砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 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

Rabbi Yehuda says: A zona is a sexually underdeveloped woman. And the Rabbis say: The term zona applies only to a female convert, a freed maidservant, and one who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Elazar says: 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. This baraita proves that Rabbi Eliezer does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讻讗 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讗讬诪转 拽谞讬 诇讛 诇讻讬 讙讚诇讛 讘注讜诇讛 讛讬讗

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that a priest may not marry a minor must be explained differently: Here we are dealing with a High Priest, and the problem is as follows: When can he acquire her as his wife? Only when she is grown up. However, if they had started living together as husband and wife when she was a minor, then when she is grown up and the marriage can legally take effect, she is already a non-virgin, and a High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻诇讬 诇讘 讗讬 讚拽讚砖讛 讗讘讜讛 诪讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讜讗讬 讚拽讚砖讛 谞驻砖讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

Rava said: This explanation is without reason. If her father betrothed her to her husband, her husband acquired her from that time, as betrothal that a father carries out on his daughter鈥檚 behalf when she is a minor is effective by Torah law. And if the minor betrothed herself, is this Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion and not that of the Rabbis? The Rabbis would certainly agree that a High Priest may not marry a minor under these circumstances.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转转驻转讛 注诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 驻转讜讬讬 拽讟谞讛 讗讜谞住 讛讜讗 讜讗讜谞住 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬

Rather, Rava said: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling includes a common priest, and the reason he cannot marry a minor is that we are concerned lest she be seduced by another man, due to her tender age and na茂vet茅, while married to him. The Gemara asks: If so, the same concern should apply to an Israelite also. The Gemara answers: The seduction of a minor is considered rape, and a rape victim remains permitted to her husband in a case where she is married to an Israelite, but not if she is married to a priest.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讬讻讜诇 拽讟谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 讗讬 讗砖讛 讬讻讜诇 讘讜讙专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘转讜诇讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬爪转讛 诪讻诇诇 拽讟谞讜转 讜诇讻诇诇 讘讙专讜转 诇讗 讘讗转讛

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling applies specifically to a High Priest, and it is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states: 鈥淎 virgin of his own people shall he take for a wife [isha]鈥 (Leviticus 21:14), one might have thought a High Priest may marry a minor; the verse therefore states that he must marry a woman [isha], i.e., an adult. If he must marry a woman, one might have thought it means a grown woman. The verse therefore states that he must marry a virgin, which excludes a grown woman, who is considered only a partial virgin because her hymen is not fully intact. How so? He must marry a woman who has left the class of minority but who has not yet reached the class of grown womanhood, i.e., he must marry a maiden.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘转讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 讗诇讗 谞注专讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛谞注专讛 讟讜讘转 诪专讗讛 诪讗讚 讘转讜诇讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The High Priest must marry a virgin, and the term virgin refers only to a maiden. And a verse similarly states: 鈥淎nd the maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, and no man had known her鈥 (Genesis 24:16).

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 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 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The baraita cited above mentioned that Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has caused her to become a zona. Rav Amram said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬讘讟诇 讗讚诐 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讘专讗诐

MISHNA: A man may not neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply unless he already has children. Beit Shammai say: One fulfills this mitzva with two males, and Beit Hillel say: A male and a female, as it is stated: 鈥淢ale and female He created them鈥 (Genesis 5:2).

讙诪壮 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讘讟讬诇 诪讗砖讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讻诪讛 讘谞讬诐 讗住讜专 诇注诪讜讚 讘诇讗 讗砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讟讜讘 讛讬讜转 讛讗讚诐 诇讘讚讜

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna鈥檚 wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Na岣an said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is not good that the man should be alone鈥 (Genesis 2:18).

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讟讬诇 诪驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜讘讟讬诇 谞诪讬 诪讗砖讛 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 讘转 讘谞讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讘谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讻讜专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讬诐

And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪诪砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 诪砖讛 讙专砖讜诐 讜讗诇讬注讝专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讘专讬讬转讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬诇驻讬 诪讘专讬讬转讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专

搂 The mishna states that Beit Shammai say that one fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply when he has two males. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: We learn this from Moses as it is written: 鈥淭he sons of Moses, Gershom and Eliezer鈥 (I聽Chronicles 23:15). Since Moses did not have any other children, two sons must be sufficient to fulfill the mitzva. And the reason of Beit Hillel is that we learn from the creation of the world, as mankind was created male and female. The Gemara asks: And Beit Shammai, let them learn from the creation of the world as well. The Gemara answers that Beit Shammai could say to you: We do not derive a case where it is possible

Scroll To Top