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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 11, 2014 | 讬状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 68

Study Guide Yevamot 68


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

讚讛讗 拽谞讬讛 讘讛讜讬讛 讜讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讜诇讗

as he acquired her by means of betrothal. And if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma due to the reason given by Ulla: Although by Torah law a priest鈥檚 betrothed partakes of teruma, the Sages rendered it prohibited for her to do so, lest she allow other members of her family to eat it.

讜讛讞专砖 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讚讛讗 拽谞讬讛 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 拽谞讬谉 讛讜讗

It is also taught in the mishna that a deaf-mute disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara elaborates: If she is the daughter of a priest married to a deaf-mute Israelite, he disqualifies her, as he acquired her through marriage sanctioned by an ordinance of the Sages. Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is invalid by Torah law, the Sages instituted an ordinance validating this type of marriage. And if she is an Israelite woman married to a deaf-mute priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淭he purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and this deaf-mute is not capable of acquisition by Torah law, as he is not legally competent.

讜讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转谉 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讘谉 转砖注 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪讬驻住诇 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 诪讬驻住诇 驻住讬诇 讗讬 诇讗讻讜诇讬 讙讚讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇

搂 It is also taught in the mishna that a nine-year-old boy disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to partake. It enters our mind that the mishna is referring to a widow waiting for her yavam, who is nine years and one day old. The Gemara therefore inquires: With regard to what is this taught? If it is with regard to disqualifying her from partaking of teruma, a younger yavam also disqualifies her, as a levirate bond was created and she cannot return to her father鈥檚 house. And if it was with regard to enabling her to partake of teruma, an older yavam does not enable her to partake either, as discussed above.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讬讘诐 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讘讬讗转讜 讘讬讗讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讜讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a nine-year-and-one-day-old yavam who already engaged in intercourse with his yevama, as she was thereby acquired by him by Torah law. It might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law she was acquired by him, as the legal status of his act of intercourse is that of intercourse, perhaps he enables her to partake of teruma. The mishna therefore teaches us that the Sages rendered the legal status of the intercourse of a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy like that of levirate betrothal by means of money or a document performed by an adult man, which is not sufficient for her to partake of teruma. Since levirate betrothal is effective only by rabbinic law, the yevama is not considered the acquisition of his money by Torah law and may not partake of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 住驻拽 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住驻拽 砖讗讬谞讜 讛砖转讗 讜讚讗讬 讘谉 转砖注 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 住驻拽 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava said to him: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he does not enable her to partake. Now that, according to your explanation, one who is definitely nine years old does not enable her to partake of teruma, is it necessary to teach the same concerning a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not he reached that age?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讛谞讱 驻住讜诇讬诐 拽转谞讬 讚驻住诇讬 讘讘讬讗转谉 讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 讻讜转讬 谞转讬谉 讞诇诇 讜诪诪讝专 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 驻住诇讜讛

Rather, Rava said that the mishna is teaching this halakha with regard to a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is one of those unfit males listed in a baraita, who disqualify a woman from marrying a priest by their intercourse, as they are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, as it is taught in a baraita: A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan [kuti], a Gibeonite, a 岣lal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, i.e., the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest, and, in the case of the daughter of a priest, from partaking of teruma.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讘讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘驻住讜诇讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 专讬砖讗 驻住讜诇讬 拽讛诇 住讬驻讗 驻住讜诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the fact that the latter clause, the next mishna (69a), teaches that if men who are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage engage in extramarital intercourse with women, they disqualify them from marrying into the priesthood: It may be inferred that in the first clause, the mishna above, we are dealing not with unfit individuals but with men fit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage. The Gemara answers: That inference is incorrect. The first clause of the mishna is dealing with those unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage, while the latter clause is dealing with those who are merely unfit for the priesthood. That is why the mishna is referring to them separately. Accordingly, Rava鈥檚 explanation that the mishna is referring to an unfit nine-year-old boy is viable.

讙讜驻讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 讻讜转讬 谞转讬谉 讞诇诇 讜诪诪讝专 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 驻住诇谉

搂 The Gemara addresses the matter itself and cites the complete baraita. A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan, a Gibeonite, a 岣lal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, or a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜

Rabbi Yosei says: Of the individuals mentioned above, anyone whose offspring is unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. However, anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify a woman through intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow, even if you are a priest. Anyone whose daughter may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage does not disqualify a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow if you are a priest.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 驻住诇讛

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a common man [ish zar], she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:12). It may be derived that since she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as the literal meaning of the expression ish zar is a man who is excluded.

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讚诪讬谞住讘讗 诇讝专 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: That verse is necessary to teach the halakha that the Merciful One says: The daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest, even one that she is permitted to marry, may not partake of teruma. Therefore, it cannot be the source for the halakha that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest.

讛讛讬讗 诪讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻谞注讜专讬讛 诪诇讞诐 讗讘讬讛 转讗讻诇 谞驻拽讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 转讗讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara answers: That prohibition is derived from the verse 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). From the fact that the Merciful One says: 鈥淎nd is returned to her father鈥檚 house鈥he may eat,鈥 it may be inferred that initially, while married to a non-priest, she was not permitted to eat. Therefore, the prohibition against a woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man partaking of teruma may be derived from the former verse, as it is not necessary for this halakha.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗讬 诇诇讗讜 [诇讗讜] 诪讜讻诇 讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara rejects this answer: If the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest partaking of teruma had been derived only from that latter verse, I would have said that it is a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, as it is stated in positive form, and according to the principle that a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is a positive mitzva, she would not be liable to receive a court-imposed punishment. The Merciful One therefore writes that former verse, to establish an explicit prohibition. The Gemara counters: The prohibition against the wife of a non-priest partaking of teruma is derived from a different verse: 鈥淣o common man may eat of the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:10).

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 转专讬 讜讻诇 讝专 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara rejects this assertion: That verse is necessary to teach its own basic halakha, that a non-priest is prohibited from partaking of teruma. The Gemara responds: Two prohibitions with regard to a 鈥渃ommon man鈥 are written, one in the verse previously cited and the other in Leviticus 22:13: 鈥淏ut there shall no common man eat of it.鈥 One of them prohibits a non-priest from partaking of teruma, while the other is referring to the daughter of a priest married to a non-priest.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讻诇 讝专 讝专讜转 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪谉 讝专 讜讻诇 讝专 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: One of these verses is still necessary to teach another halakha that is taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said that the phrase 鈥渘o common man鈥 indicates that I, God, said to you that commonness, i.e., non-priesthood, renders one unfit to partake of teruma, but acute mourning, i.e., mourning on the day when one鈥檚 close relative died, does not render one unfit to eat teruma. The Gemara answers: This teaching of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, is derived from a superfluous word in the verse, as it could have stated: A common man may not eat of the holy thing, and it actually states: 鈥淣o common man.鈥

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讛讬讗 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: The verse 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a common man鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), from which Rav derived the halakha being discussed, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest, is still necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: When a priest鈥檚 daughter returns to her father鈥檚 house after the death of her Israelite husband, she resumes partaking of teruma, but she does not resume partaking of the breast and the right hind leg of sacrificial offerings. And Rav 岣sda said that Ravina, son of Rav Sheila, said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a common man, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:12). This implies that even after her husband鈥檚 death, she may not partake of the portion separated from consecrated offerings. Therefore, the verse cannot be the source for the above halakha.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讛讬讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讗讬 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If so, if this is the only halakha derived from this verse, let the verse merely write: She may not eat of the sacred. What is the significance of the seemingly superfluous expression 鈥渢hat which is set apart from the sacred鈥? Conclude from this that the prohibition is referring to two deeds: The daughter of a priest who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man may not partake of teruma, and if she weds a non-priest she may not partake of the priestly portion of offerings, the breast and right hind leg.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诪谞诇谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘转 讜讘转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘转 讜讘转

The Gemara asks: We found a source for a priestess; from where do we derive the same halakha with regard to a Levite or an Israelite woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man, i.e., that they do not partake of teruma even if they marry a priest? The Gemara answers that it is as Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). It could have begun: If a priest鈥檚 daughter. The word 鈥渂ut,鈥 the prefix vav, is seemingly superfluous, and therefore it may indicate the expansion of the prohibition to include additional women. Here too, it may be derived from the distinction between the phrase: If a priest鈥檚 daughter, and the phrase: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 which utilizes the prefix vav, that Levite and Israelite women are subject to the prohibition as well.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讚专讬砖 讜讜讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讬讛 讜讘转 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this exposition possible? It is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as he derives halakhot from the prefix vav, which means 鈥渁nd鈥 or 鈥渂ut.鈥 The Gemara responds: Even if you say it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who do not derive halakhot from the prefix vav, the entire phrase: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 is superfluous in the verse, as the previous verse already mentioned the priest鈥檚 daughter. Therefore, the inclusion of Levite and Israelite women in the prohibition may be derived from the entire expression.

讗砖讻讞谉 诇转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪谞诇谉 讗讟讜 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诇讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪专讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 诇转专讜诪讛 讘谞讜转 诪讬讻诇 转专讜诪讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the woman鈥檚 disqualification from partaking of teruma; from where do we derive that she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? The Gemara counters: Is that to say that we did not include a Levite and an Israelite woman in the verse 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, etc.鈥 (Leviticus 22:13), with regard to their marriage to a member of the priesthood? The derivation that a Levite and an Israelite woman are included in this verse was clearly with regard to their marriage to a priest; as if the inclusion was with regard to teruma, are these women fit to partake of teruma at all, regardless of their having engaged in intercourse with an unfit man? Clearly, their inclusion pertains to their marriage to a priest and their partaking of teruma as his wife.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚拽讗讻诇讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讛

The Gemara rejects this assertion: Why not? Why can鈥檛 the inclusion be referring to the partaking of teruma exclusively? You find that possibility when she partakes of teruma due to her son. If an Israelite woman has a son from a priest, she may partake of teruma. Therefore, it is necessary to include a Levite or Israelite woman in the prohibition against partaking of teruma if she engaged in intercourse with an unfit man.

讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讻讛谞转 讚讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚谞驻砖讛 讗讻诇讛 驻住讬诇 诇讛 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds: The halakha that this woman does not partake of teruma due to her son is deduced through an a fortiori inference: If a priestess, who partakes of teruma by virtue of her own sanctity, is disqualified from partaking of teruma by an unfit man who engaged in intercourse with her, then with regard to a Levite or Israelite woman, who partakes of teruma only due to her son, is it not all the more so that it should be prohibited for her to partake of teruma after this act?

讜讛讬讗 讛谞讜转谞转 讻讛谞转 讚拽讚讬砖 讙讜驻讛 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讙专讜砖讛 讜诪讛 讙专讜砖讛 砖诪讜转专转 讘转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讝讜 砖讗住讜专讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara rejects that response: But that provides support for the contrary reasoning. It is logical that a priestess, who is herself sacred, is disqualified by intercourse with an unfit man. However, with regard to this woman, who is not sacred herself, and who eats teruma only due to her son, intercourse with an unfit man should not disqualify her. Rather, the prohibition against these women marrying into the priesthood is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a divorc茅e: If a divorc茅e who is the daughter of a priest, who is permitted to partake of teruma, is nevertheless prohibited from marrying into the priesthood, as is written in the Torah (Leviticus 21:7), then with regard to this woman, for whom it is prohibited to partake of teruma, is it not right that she should be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?

讜讻讬 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讙诇讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to that inference: But do we warn, i.e., do we deduce a prohibition through logical derivation? The Gemara answers: This is not a new prohibition; rather, it is merely a revelation of the above prohibition鈥檚 scope. In other words, the prohibition against marrying a priest is subsumed under the prohibition against partaking of teruma.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讱 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讛讜讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讛讜讬讛

Now that the source has been established, the Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that this halakha pertaining to a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man unfit for her applies only to those liable to receive karet for their act of intercourse, but not to intercourse with a man who is unfit to marry into the assembly of Israel. The Gemara answers that the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淚f a priest鈥檚 daughter be married鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that this halakha is referring to those who can have a valid marriage, while those liable to receive karet for their act of intercourse are not fit for marriage.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 诇讗 诇讬驻住诇讜 讛谞讱 驻住诇讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜注诇 讻讛谞转 讜诇讜讬讛 砖驻住诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman should not have disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as they cannot marry her. The Gemara answers: These disqualify her, as derived by Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, or with a priestess, or a Levite woman, that they have disqualified her? As it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13).

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 65-71 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue the discussion on the mitzvah of 鈥淧ru u鈥檙vu鈥, procreation, and learn who is obligated. This week we...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 68: An Extra “Vav”

About that 9-year-and-one-day-old boy, in the case when he has questionable status - his child cannot marry into the kehunah...

Yevamot 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 68

讚讛讗 拽谞讬讛 讘讛讜讬讛 讜讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚注讜诇讗

as he acquired her by means of betrothal. And if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma due to the reason given by Ulla: Although by Torah law a priest鈥檚 betrothed partakes of teruma, the Sages rendered it prohibited for her to do so, lest she allow other members of her family to eat it.

讜讛讞专砖 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讚讛讗 拽谞讬讛 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 拽谞讬谉 讛讜讗

It is also taught in the mishna that a deaf-mute disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara elaborates: If she is the daughter of a priest married to a deaf-mute Israelite, he disqualifies her, as he acquired her through marriage sanctioned by an ordinance of the Sages. Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is invalid by Torah law, the Sages instituted an ordinance validating this type of marriage. And if she is an Israelite woman married to a deaf-mute priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淭he purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and this deaf-mute is not capable of acquisition by Torah law, as he is not legally competent.

讜讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转谉 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讘谉 转砖注 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪讬驻住诇 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 诪讬驻住诇 驻住讬诇 讗讬 诇讗讻讜诇讬 讙讚讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇

搂 It is also taught in the mishna that a nine-year-old boy disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to partake. It enters our mind that the mishna is referring to a widow waiting for her yavam, who is nine years and one day old. The Gemara therefore inquires: With regard to what is this taught? If it is with regard to disqualifying her from partaking of teruma, a younger yavam also disqualifies her, as a levirate bond was created and she cannot return to her father鈥檚 house. And if it was with regard to enabling her to partake of teruma, an older yavam does not enable her to partake either, as discussed above.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讬讘诐 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讘讬讗转讜 讘讬讗讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讜讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a nine-year-and-one-day-old yavam who already engaged in intercourse with his yevama, as she was thereby acquired by him by Torah law. It might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law she was acquired by him, as the legal status of his act of intercourse is that of intercourse, perhaps he enables her to partake of teruma. The mishna therefore teaches us that the Sages rendered the legal status of the intercourse of a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy like that of levirate betrothal by means of money or a document performed by an adult man, which is not sufficient for her to partake of teruma. Since levirate betrothal is effective only by rabbinic law, the yevama is not considered the acquisition of his money by Torah law and may not partake of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 住驻拽 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住驻拽 砖讗讬谞讜 讛砖转讗 讜讚讗讬 讘谉 转砖注 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 住驻拽 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava said to him: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he does not enable her to partake. Now that, according to your explanation, one who is definitely nine years old does not enable her to partake of teruma, is it necessary to teach the same concerning a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not he reached that age?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讛谞讱 驻住讜诇讬诐 拽转谞讬 讚驻住诇讬 讘讘讬讗转谉 讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 讻讜转讬 谞转讬谉 讞诇诇 讜诪诪讝专 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 驻住诇讜讛

Rather, Rava said that the mishna is teaching this halakha with regard to a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is one of those unfit males listed in a baraita, who disqualify a woman from marrying a priest by their intercourse, as they are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, as it is taught in a baraita: A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan [kuti], a Gibeonite, a 岣lal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, i.e., the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest, and, in the case of the daughter of a priest, from partaking of teruma.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讘讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘驻住讜诇讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 专讬砖讗 驻住讜诇讬 拽讛诇 住讬驻讗 驻住讜诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the fact that the latter clause, the next mishna (69a), teaches that if men who are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage engage in extramarital intercourse with women, they disqualify them from marrying into the priesthood: It may be inferred that in the first clause, the mishna above, we are dealing not with unfit individuals but with men fit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage. The Gemara answers: That inference is incorrect. The first clause of the mishna is dealing with those unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage, while the latter clause is dealing with those who are merely unfit for the priesthood. That is why the mishna is referring to them separately. Accordingly, Rava鈥檚 explanation that the mishna is referring to an unfit nine-year-old boy is viable.

讙讜驻讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 讻讜转讬 谞转讬谉 讞诇诇 讜诪诪讝专 砖讘讗讜 注诇 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 驻住诇谉

搂 The Gemara addresses the matter itself and cites the complete baraita. A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan, a Gibeonite, a 岣lal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, or a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜砖讗 讗诇诪谞转讜

Rabbi Yosei says: Of the individuals mentioned above, anyone whose offspring is unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. However, anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify a woman through intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow, even if you are a priest. Anyone whose daughter may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage does not disqualify a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow if you are a priest.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 驻住诇讛

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a common man [ish zar], she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:12). It may be derived that since she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as the literal meaning of the expression ish zar is a man who is excluded.

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讚诪讬谞住讘讗 诇讝专 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: That verse is necessary to teach the halakha that the Merciful One says: The daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest, even one that she is permitted to marry, may not partake of teruma. Therefore, it cannot be the source for the halakha that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest.

讛讛讬讗 诪讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻谞注讜专讬讛 诪诇讞诐 讗讘讬讛 转讗讻诇 谞驻拽讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 转讗讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛

The Gemara answers: That prohibition is derived from the verse 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). From the fact that the Merciful One says: 鈥淎nd is returned to her father鈥檚 house鈥he may eat,鈥 it may be inferred that initially, while married to a non-priest, she was not permitted to eat. Therefore, the prohibition against a woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man partaking of teruma may be derived from the former verse, as it is not necessary for this halakha.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗讬 诇诇讗讜 [诇讗讜] 诪讜讻诇 讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara rejects this answer: If the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest partaking of teruma had been derived only from that latter verse, I would have said that it is a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, as it is stated in positive form, and according to the principle that a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is a positive mitzva, she would not be liable to receive a court-imposed punishment. The Merciful One therefore writes that former verse, to establish an explicit prohibition. The Gemara counters: The prohibition against the wife of a non-priest partaking of teruma is derived from a different verse: 鈥淣o common man may eat of the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:10).

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 转专讬 讜讻诇 讝专 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara rejects this assertion: That verse is necessary to teach its own basic halakha, that a non-priest is prohibited from partaking of teruma. The Gemara responds: Two prohibitions with regard to a 鈥渃ommon man鈥 are written, one in the verse previously cited and the other in Leviticus 22:13: 鈥淏ut there shall no common man eat of it.鈥 One of them prohibits a non-priest from partaking of teruma, while the other is referring to the daughter of a priest married to a non-priest.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讻诇 讝专 讝专讜转 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪谉 讝专 讜讻诇 讝专 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: One of these verses is still necessary to teach another halakha that is taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said that the phrase 鈥渘o common man鈥 indicates that I, God, said to you that commonness, i.e., non-priesthood, renders one unfit to partake of teruma, but acute mourning, i.e., mourning on the day when one鈥檚 close relative died, does not render one unfit to eat teruma. The Gemara answers: This teaching of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, is derived from a superfluous word in the verse, as it could have stated: A common man may not eat of the holy thing, and it actually states: 鈥淣o common man.鈥

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讛讬讗 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: The verse 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a common man鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), from which Rav derived the halakha being discussed, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest, is still necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: When a priest鈥檚 daughter returns to her father鈥檚 house after the death of her Israelite husband, she resumes partaking of teruma, but she does not resume partaking of the breast and the right hind leg of sacrificial offerings. And Rav 岣sda said that Ravina, son of Rav Sheila, said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a common man, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:12). This implies that even after her husband鈥檚 death, she may not partake of the portion separated from consecrated offerings. Therefore, the verse cannot be the source for the above halakha.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讛讬讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讗讬 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If so, if this is the only halakha derived from this verse, let the verse merely write: She may not eat of the sacred. What is the significance of the seemingly superfluous expression 鈥渢hat which is set apart from the sacred鈥? Conclude from this that the prohibition is referring to two deeds: The daughter of a priest who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man may not partake of teruma, and if she weds a non-priest she may not partake of the priestly portion of offerings, the breast and right hind leg.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诪谞诇谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘转 讜讘转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘转 讜讘转

The Gemara asks: We found a source for a priestess; from where do we derive the same halakha with regard to a Levite or an Israelite woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man, i.e., that they do not partake of teruma even if they marry a priest? The Gemara answers that it is as Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). It could have begun: If a priest鈥檚 daughter. The word 鈥渂ut,鈥 the prefix vav, is seemingly superfluous, and therefore it may indicate the expansion of the prohibition to include additional women. Here too, it may be derived from the distinction between the phrase: If a priest鈥檚 daughter, and the phrase: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 which utilizes the prefix vav, that Levite and Israelite women are subject to the prohibition as well.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讚专讬砖 讜讜讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讬讛 讜讘转 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this exposition possible? It is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as he derives halakhot from the prefix vav, which means 鈥渁nd鈥 or 鈥渂ut.鈥 The Gemara responds: Even if you say it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who do not derive halakhot from the prefix vav, the entire phrase: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 is superfluous in the verse, as the previous verse already mentioned the priest鈥檚 daughter. Therefore, the inclusion of Levite and Israelite women in the prohibition may be derived from the entire expression.

讗砖讻讞谉 诇转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪谞诇谉 讗讟讜 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诇讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 诪专讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 诇转专讜诪讛 讘谞讜转 诪讬讻诇 转专讜诪讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the woman鈥檚 disqualification from partaking of teruma; from where do we derive that she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? The Gemara counters: Is that to say that we did not include a Levite and an Israelite woman in the verse 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, etc.鈥 (Leviticus 22:13), with regard to their marriage to a member of the priesthood? The derivation that a Levite and an Israelite woman are included in this verse was clearly with regard to their marriage to a priest; as if the inclusion was with regard to teruma, are these women fit to partake of teruma at all, regardless of their having engaged in intercourse with an unfit man? Clearly, their inclusion pertains to their marriage to a priest and their partaking of teruma as his wife.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚拽讗讻诇讛 讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讛

The Gemara rejects this assertion: Why not? Why can鈥檛 the inclusion be referring to the partaking of teruma exclusively? You find that possibility when she partakes of teruma due to her son. If an Israelite woman has a son from a priest, she may partake of teruma. Therefore, it is necessary to include a Levite or Israelite woman in the prohibition against partaking of teruma if she engaged in intercourse with an unfit man.

讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讻讛谞转 讚讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚谞驻砖讛 讗讻诇讛 驻住讬诇 诇讛 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讘谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds: The halakha that this woman does not partake of teruma due to her son is deduced through an a fortiori inference: If a priestess, who partakes of teruma by virtue of her own sanctity, is disqualified from partaking of teruma by an unfit man who engaged in intercourse with her, then with regard to a Levite or Israelite woman, who partakes of teruma only due to her son, is it not all the more so that it should be prohibited for her to partake of teruma after this act?

讜讛讬讗 讛谞讜转谞转 讻讛谞转 讚拽讚讬砖 讙讜驻讛 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讚讬砖 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讙专讜砖讛 讜诪讛 讙专讜砖讛 砖诪讜转专转 讘转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讝讜 砖讗住讜专讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖驻住讜诇讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara rejects that response: But that provides support for the contrary reasoning. It is logical that a priestess, who is herself sacred, is disqualified by intercourse with an unfit man. However, with regard to this woman, who is not sacred herself, and who eats teruma only due to her son, intercourse with an unfit man should not disqualify her. Rather, the prohibition against these women marrying into the priesthood is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a divorc茅e: If a divorc茅e who is the daughter of a priest, who is permitted to partake of teruma, is nevertheless prohibited from marrying into the priesthood, as is written in the Torah (Leviticus 21:7), then with regard to this woman, for whom it is prohibited to partake of teruma, is it not right that she should be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?

讜讻讬 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讙诇讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to that inference: But do we warn, i.e., do we deduce a prohibition through logical derivation? The Gemara answers: This is not a new prohibition; rather, it is merely a revelation of the above prohibition鈥檚 scope. In other words, the prohibition against marrying a priest is subsumed under the prohibition against partaking of teruma.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讱 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 讛讜讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讛讜讬讛

Now that the source has been established, the Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that this halakha pertaining to a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man unfit for her applies only to those liable to receive karet for their act of intercourse, but not to intercourse with a man who is unfit to marry into the assembly of Israel. The Gemara answers that the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淚f a priest鈥檚 daughter be married鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that this halakha is referring to those who can have a valid marriage, while those liable to receive karet for their act of intercourse are not fit for marriage.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 诇讗 诇讬驻住诇讜 讛谞讱 驻住诇讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜注诇 讻讛谞转 讜诇讜讬讛 砖驻住诇讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: If so, a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman should not have disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as they cannot marry her. The Gemara answers: These disqualify her, as derived by Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, or with a priestess, or a Levite woman, that they have disqualified her? As it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13).

Scroll To Top