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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 12, 2014 | 讻壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

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

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

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

Yevamot 69

诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讬爪讗讜 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉

This verse is referring to a man who has potential widowhood and divorce with her, excluding a gentile and a slave, who do not have widowhood and divorce with her, as they cannot marry Jews at all. Therefore, they disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood through sexual intercourse, even if she does not have a child with them.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诪谞讗 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 have found a source for the halakha that a gentile and a slave disqualify a priestess. From where do we derive this with regard to a Levite and an Israelite woman? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The verse 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced鈥 (Leviticus 22:13) could have begun with the words: If a priest鈥檚 daughter. The word 鈥渂ut,鈥 the prefix vav, expands 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 as it actually appears in the verse: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 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 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讛 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. The Gemara responds: Even if you say it is accordance with the Rabbis, the entire phrase: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 is superfluous in the verse, as the previous verses had 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 拽讗讻诇讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 谞诪讬 转讬讻讜诇

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps you should say a different interpretation of the mention of widowhood and divorce in the verse: In the case of one who has potential widowhood and divorce with her, if he does not have offspring from her she may partake of teruma upon her widowhood or divorce, whereas if he does have offspring from her she does not partake. However, in the case of one who does not have widowhood and divorce with her, even if she has offspring from him, she should be allowed to partake of teruma, as the offspring is not considered his.

讗诐 讻谉 专讘讜讬讬 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need to include a Levite and an Israelite woman? If the daughter of a priest is not disqualified from teruma due to intercourse with a gentile or slave, certainly a Levite or Israelite woman is not. The fact that the verse indicates inclusion of Levite and Israelite women proves that the halakha that is derived from it is a stringency and not a leniency.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜诪讗讬 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讻讬 转讬讘注诇 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that betrothal of those who may not engage in intercourse, as they are liable for violating a prohibition, does not take effect, and therefore the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be [tihye] to a common man鈥 (Leviticus 22:12) is not: If she marries him, but rather: If she engages in intercourse with him, why do I need the Torah to mention the phrase 鈥渁 widow, or divorced鈥 in the verse: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced鈥he may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13)? It is not necessary for this phrase to teach that a gentile and a slave disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood through sexual intercourse, as suggested by Rabbi Yishmael, as they are included in the prohibition proscribing a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man who is unfit for her.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讝专注 讗讻诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讝专注 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专讜砖讛 讙专讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讝专注 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讗诇诪谞讛 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讝专注 谞诪讬 转讬讻讜诇 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: A widow is mentioned to be stringent with her, and a divorc茅e to be lenient with her, and both are necessary. As, had the Torah taught us only the case of a widow, you might have assumed that specifically if this daughter of a priest is a widow she partakes of teruma when she does not have offspring because she is fit for the priesthood, as she may marry a common priest, but with regard to a divorc茅e, who is not fit for the priesthood at all, you might say that even if she does not have offspring she does not partake of teruma. And had it taught us only the case of a divorc茅e, you might have assumed that only a divorc茅e does not partake of teruma when she has offspring from a non-priest because she is not fit for the priesthood, but with regard to a widow, who is fit for the priesthood, you might say that even if she has offspring she should also partake of teruma. It is therefore necessary for both cases to be stated.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬 砖讝专 讗爪诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讝专 讗爪诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that the category of a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man who is unfit for her and is therefore disqualified from the priesthood applies even to the case of a man remarrying his divorc茅e after she had been married to another man in the meantime, which is prohibited. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淭o a common man [ish zar],鈥 literally, a man who is a stranger, 鈥渟he shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred.鈥 The 聽Gemara understands the notion of a stranger to be one whom she was forbidden to marry and interprets homiletically: Only marriage to one who was a stranger, i.e., forbidden, to her from the outset precludes her from partaking of teruma, to the exclusion of one who was not a stranger to her from the outset, such as her ex-husband.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞诇诇 讚诇讗讜 讝专 讛讜讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诇驻住讜诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讘注诪讬讜 诪拽讬砖 讝专注讜 诇讜 诪讛 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讗祝 讝专注讜 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇

The Gemara asks: If so, a 岣lal, who was not excluded at the outset, as he may marry even the daughter of a priest, should not disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood. The Gemara answers that the verse states, with regard to a priest who marries a woman unfit for the priesthood: 鈥淗e shall not profane his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15), thereby juxtaposing his seed to him. Just as he, a priest who married a woman forbidden to him, disqualifies her from the priest-hood, so too, his seed, the 岣lal, also disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪砖注转 讛讜讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讘讘讬讗讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man unfit for her is disqualified from the time of their betrothal, even before they engaged in intercourse. The Gemara answers that this is similar to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow: Just as a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow has disqualified her through intercourse, not betrothal, so too, this unfit man has also disqualified her through intercourse.

讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讜讬讛 讜讘讬讗讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诇讞讜讚讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讘讬讗讛 诇讞讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that he does not disqualify her until there is both betrothal and intercourse. The Gemara again answers that this is similar to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow: Just as a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow disqualifies her through intercourse alone, so too, this man also disqualified her through intercourse alone.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 It was taught in the baraita under discussion (68a) that Rabbi Yosei says: Of the men unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, anyone whose offspring are also unfit disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from the priesthood. However, anyone whose offspring are not unfit does not disqualify her. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the first tanna of the baraita and Rabbi Yosei?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 砖谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The practical difference between them pertains to a second-generation Egyptian and a second-generation Edomite. The children of these men, i.e., the third generation, may marry Jews of unflawed lineage. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosei, they too do not disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse with them. The first tanna, however, holds that they have the same status as a first-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, in that they disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse.

讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讘讬讗转讜 讘注讘讬专讛 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇

And both tanna鈥檌m derived their respective opinions only from the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they reached different conclusions. The first tanna reasoned: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, his act of intercourse with her is a transgression, and therefore he disqualifies her from the priesthood, so too, this man, a second-generation Egyptian or Edomite, also disqualifies her.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 讚讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬诐 讗砖专 讬讜诇讚讜 诇讛诐 讚讜专 砖诇讬砖讬 讬讘讗 诇讛诐 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

And Rabbi Yosei also reasoned: This is like a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow. Just as the High Priest鈥檚 children are unfit for the priesthood, and he himself disqualifies the widow from marrying into the priesthood, so too, any man whose children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. This inference comes to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose children are not unfit, as it is written: 鈥淭he children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:9).

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 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

It is taught in the baraita under discussion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? They appear to be stating the same principle, that a man disqualifies a woman from the priesthood only if his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage as well.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇

Ulla said: The practical difference between them is in the case of an Ammonite and a Moabite convert. And both of them derived their respective opinions from none other than the case of a High Priest with a widow. Rabbi Yosei reasoned: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, his children are unfit for the priesthood and he himself disqualifies the widow, so too, any man whose children are unfit disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讚讗讬谉 讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讚讗诪专 诪专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转 诪讜讗讘讬 讜诇讗 诪讜讗讘讬转

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel reasoned: Just as in the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, where all of his children from her are unfit for the priesthood and he disqualifies her as well, so too, in the case of a man all of whose children are unfit, he disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse. This is to the exclusion of an Ammonite or a Moabite convert, as not all of his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage, as the Master said: An Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is unfit but not a Moabite woman. Since only the sons of an Ammonite or Moabite convert are unfit, they do not disqualify a woman with whom they engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜谞住 讜讛诪驻转讛 讜讛砖讜讟讛 诇讗 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 讻讬爪讚 (讛讬讛) 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who rapes a woman without marrying her; or one who seduces a woman without marrying her; or an imbecile who engages in intercourse with a woman, even if he did marry her, if they are non-priests they do not disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma, and if they are priests they do not enable an Israelite woman to partake of teruma. And if they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, they disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma. How so? If it was an Israelite who engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma, as this act of intercourse does not disqualify her.

注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞讞转讱 讛注讜讘专 讘诪注讬讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讬诇讚讛 转讗讻诇 谞诪爪讗 讻讞讜 砖诇 讘谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖诇 讗讘

If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e., she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does.

讛注讘讚 驻讜住诇 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 诪砖讜诐 讝专注 讻讬爪讚 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讜讛诇讱 讛讘谉 讜谞讻讘砖 注诇 讛砖驻讞讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 讛讬转讛 讗诐 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her offspring. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she a bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter鈥檚 father鈥檚 mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father鈥檚 offspring.

诪诪讝专 驻讜住诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讻讬爪讚 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘转 讜讛诇讻讛 讛讘转 讜谞讬砖讗转 诇注讘讚 讗讜 诇讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪诪讝专 讛讬转讛 讗诐 讗诪讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother鈥檚 mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband鈥檚 death, as she has offspring from him.

讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讻讬爪讚 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘转 讜讛诇讻讛 讛讘转 讜谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诪讚 讜诪砖诪砖 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讗诪讜 讜驻讜住诇 讗诐 讗诪讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 讻讘谞讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇谞讬 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother鈥檚 mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter鈥檚 son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖谞砖讗讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

GEMARA: We already learned that the marriage of an imbecile is invalid, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor boy who married women and died, their wives are exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 注讬讘专讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诪讗 诪注讜讘专讜转 讛谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna: How so? If an Israelite engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Since if he impregnated her she may not partake, let us be concerned in any case of intercourse between an Israelite and the daughter of a priest lest he impregnated her, thereby rendering it prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that if two men betrothed two women, and then at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, they accidently switched wives, and engaged in relations with each other鈥檚 wives that night, in this case, after the accident is discovered, the court removes the wives from their husbands for three months, lest they are pregnant from the men they presumed to be their husbands and the fetus is therefore a mamzer, although they engaged in intercourse only once (33b)?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讞砖砖讜 诇转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜诇转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转转讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

The Gemara answers that Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About lineage the Sages were concerned, and they therefore decreed a three-month separation of the husbands and wives, to prevent the possibility of a child being of uncertain lineage. However, about the prohibition against a non-priest eating teruma they were not concerned. The Gemara asks: And for teruma were they not concerned? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, if she is an Israelite woman married to a priest it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately, as the Sages were concerned that her husband might die within the hour?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讞砖砖讜 讘讝谞讜转 诇讗 讞砖砖讜

Rather, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About impregnation through an act of marriage they were concerned, but about impregnation through licentious intercourse they were not concerned, as the woman generally takes precautions to ensure that she will not become pregnant.

讜讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诪讬 讞砖砖讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬砖讗转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诪转 讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

The Gemara asks: And about marriage were they concerned? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and her husband died on that same day, she immerses to purify herself, as she is ritually impure due to their intercourse, and she may partake of teruma that same evening? Evidently, the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant from the initial act of intercourse, even that of marriage.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讬注讘专讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬注讘专讗 讜讗讬 诪讬注讘专讗 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗

Rav 岣sda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband鈥檚 death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讘诪注讬讛 转讛讗 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 诇诪驻专注 诪讗讬 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐

Abaye said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: Once her fetus in her womb is noticeable, she is ruined retroactively. Her prior consumption of teruma is retroactively prohibited. Evidently, pregnancy immediately disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Therefore, the reason that she may partake of teruma immediately after her husband鈥檚 death is that the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant. Rav 岣sda responded: What is the period in which she is retroactively ruined? It is from the moment the fetus is noticeable and back in time until forty days from the beginning of her pregnancy. During the first forty days of the pregnancy, she is not retroactively ruined, as the fetus is not yet considered a living being.

讗讬转诪专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗专讜住转讜 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讜 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讘转专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

It was stated: With regard to a man who engaged in intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law鈥檚 house, i.e., before they got married, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, as the future husband is not considered his father. And Shmuel said that the offspring is a shetuki, a child of unknown paternity. Rava said: Rav鈥檚 statement stands to reason in a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. However, if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him, i.e., we assume that the child is the betrothed鈥檚 son.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讬诇讚讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讬诇讚讛 讗诪讗讬 转讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讬讬诪讗 讜诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗

Rava said: From where do I say that? What is the source for my assertion? The source is the mishna, which teaches that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she gave birth, she may partake of teruma due to her child, who is a priest. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she gave birth, why may she partake of teruma? Shouldn鈥檛 there be concern that the child鈥檚 father is not the priest? Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others?

讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讘转专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

And if there, in the case of the mishna, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is a prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest, with whom she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse, is a prohibition of the same degree, nevertheless, we cast the child after the priest, then here, where for her to engage in intercourse with that man who is not her betrothed is a Torah prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with this man, her betrothed, is permitted by Torah law, is it not all the more so that her betrothed should be considered the father? Therefore, Rav鈥檚 statement stands to reason only if the woman is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚讗驻拽专讗 谞驻砖讛 诇讙讘讬 讗专讜住 讗驻拽专讗 谞驻砖讛 诇注诇诪讗 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讘讜砖讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

Abaye said to him in rejection of his proof: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, her betrothed, even if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. What is the reason? It is that we say that since she exposed herself to her betrothed, although they were not married yet, she apparently exposed herself to others as well. And the mishna that you cited as support for your assertion is referring to a situation where they were both incarcerated alone together in prison. Therefore, there is no concern that she engaged in intercourse with another man. This is one version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讘讗 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗专讜住讛 砖注讬讘专讛 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讚诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗

Some say that when the betrothed admits that he engaged in intercourse with her, everyone agrees that we cast the child after him. Rather, their dispute was stated as follows: In the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, if her betrothed denies that he engaged in intercourse with her, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, and Shmuel said that the offspring is a child whose father鈥檚 identity is not known. Rava said: Rav鈥檚 statement stands to reason in a case where the woman is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. Therefore, it is assumed that the child is a mamzer.

  • 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 69: Second Generation Edomites (and Others)

Those kohanim whose progeny are to be disqualified from eating terumah will disqualify their mother - according to R. Yosei....

Yevamot 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 69

诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讬爪讗讜 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉

This verse is referring to a man who has potential widowhood and divorce with her, excluding a gentile and a slave, who do not have widowhood and divorce with her, as they cannot marry Jews at all. Therefore, they disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood through sexual intercourse, even if she does not have a child with them.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻讛谞转 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诪谞讗 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 have found a source for the halakha that a gentile and a slave disqualify a priestess. From where do we derive this with regard to a Levite and an Israelite woman? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The verse 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced鈥 (Leviticus 22:13) could have begun with the words: If a priest鈥檚 daughter. The word 鈥渂ut,鈥 the prefix vav, expands 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 as it actually appears in the verse: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 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 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讛 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. The Gemara responds: Even if you say it is accordance with the Rabbis, the entire phrase: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter,鈥 is superfluous in the verse, as the previous verses had 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 拽讗讻诇讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝专注 谞诪讬 转讬讻讜诇

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps you should say a different interpretation of the mention of widowhood and divorce in the verse: In the case of one who has potential widowhood and divorce with her, if he does not have offspring from her she may partake of teruma upon her widowhood or divorce, whereas if he does have offspring from her she does not partake. However, in the case of one who does not have widowhood and divorce with her, even if she has offspring from him, she should be allowed to partake of teruma, as the offspring is not considered his.

讗诐 讻谉 专讘讜讬讬 诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need to include a Levite and an Israelite woman? If the daughter of a priest is not disqualified from teruma due to intercourse with a gentile or slave, certainly a Levite or Israelite woman is not. The fact that the verse indicates inclusion of Levite and Israelite women proves that the halakha that is derived from it is a stringency and not a leniency.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜诪讗讬 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讻讬 转讬讘注诇 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that betrothal of those who may not engage in intercourse, as they are liable for violating a prohibition, does not take effect, and therefore the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be [tihye] to a common man鈥 (Leviticus 22:12) is not: If she marries him, but rather: If she engages in intercourse with him, why do I need the Torah to mention the phrase 鈥渁 widow, or divorced鈥 in the verse: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced鈥he may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13)? It is not necessary for this phrase to teach that a gentile and a slave disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood through sexual intercourse, as suggested by Rabbi Yishmael, as they are included in the prohibition proscribing a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man who is unfit for her.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讝专注 讗讻诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讙专讜砖讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讝专注 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专讜砖讛 讙专讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讝专注 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讗诇诪谞讛 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讝专注 谞诪讬 转讬讻讜诇 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: A widow is mentioned to be stringent with her, and a divorc茅e to be lenient with her, and both are necessary. As, had the Torah taught us only the case of a widow, you might have assumed that specifically if this daughter of a priest is a widow she partakes of teruma when she does not have offspring because she is fit for the priesthood, as she may marry a common priest, but with regard to a divorc茅e, who is not fit for the priesthood at all, you might say that even if she does not have offspring she does not partake of teruma. And had it taught us only the case of a divorc茅e, you might have assumed that only a divorc茅e does not partake of teruma when she has offspring from a non-priest because she is not fit for the priesthood, but with regard to a widow, who is fit for the priesthood, you might say that even if she has offspring she should also partake of teruma. It is therefore necessary for both cases to be stated.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讬 砖讝专 讗爪诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讝专 讗爪诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that the category of a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man who is unfit for her and is therefore disqualified from the priesthood applies even to the case of a man remarrying his divorc茅e after she had been married to another man in the meantime, which is prohibited. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淭o a common man [ish zar],鈥 literally, a man who is a stranger, 鈥渟he shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred.鈥 The 聽Gemara understands the notion of a stranger to be one whom she was forbidden to marry and interprets homiletically: Only marriage to one who was a stranger, i.e., forbidden, to her from the outset precludes her from partaking of teruma, to the exclusion of one who was not a stranger to her from the outset, such as her ex-husband.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讞诇诇 讚诇讗讜 讝专 讛讜讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诇驻住讜诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜 讘注诪讬讜 诪拽讬砖 讝专注讜 诇讜 诪讛 讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讗祝 讝专注讜 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇

The Gemara asks: If so, a 岣lal, who was not excluded at the outset, as he may marry even the daughter of a priest, should not disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood. The Gemara answers that the verse states, with regard to a priest who marries a woman unfit for the priesthood: 鈥淗e shall not profane his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:15), thereby juxtaposing his seed to him. Just as he, a priest who married a woman forbidden to him, disqualifies her from the priest-hood, so too, his seed, the 岣lal, also disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪砖注转 讛讜讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讘讘讬讗讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man unfit for her is disqualified from the time of their betrothal, even before they engaged in intercourse. The Gemara answers that this is similar to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow: Just as a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow has disqualified her through intercourse, not betrothal, so too, this unfit man has also disqualified her through intercourse.

讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讜讬讛 讜讘讬讗讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讘讘讬讗讛 诇讞讜讚讛 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讘讬讗讛 诇讞讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that he does not disqualify her until there is both betrothal and intercourse. The Gemara again answers that this is similar to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow: Just as a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow disqualifies her through intercourse alone, so too, this man also disqualified her through intercourse alone.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 It was taught in the baraita under discussion (68a) that Rabbi Yosei says: Of the men unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, anyone whose offspring are also unfit disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from the priesthood. However, anyone whose offspring are not unfit does not disqualify her. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the first tanna of the baraita and Rabbi Yosei?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬 砖谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The practical difference between them pertains to a second-generation Egyptian and a second-generation Edomite. The children of these men, i.e., the third generation, may marry Jews of unflawed lineage. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosei, they too do not disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse with them. The first tanna, however, holds that they have the same status as a first-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, in that they disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse.

讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讘讬讗转讜 讘注讘讬专讛 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇

And both tanna鈥檌m derived their respective opinions only from the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, although they reached different conclusions. The first tanna reasoned: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, his act of intercourse with her is a transgression, and therefore he disqualifies her from the priesthood, so too, this man, a second-generation Egyptian or Edomite, also disqualifies her.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 讚讗讬谉 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬诐 讗砖专 讬讜诇讚讜 诇讛诐 讚讜专 砖诇讬砖讬 讬讘讗 诇讛诐 讘拽讛诇 讛壮

And Rabbi Yosei also reasoned: This is like a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow. Just as the High Priest鈥檚 children are unfit for the priesthood, and he himself disqualifies the widow from marrying into the priesthood, so too, any man whose children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. This inference comes to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose children are not unfit, as it is written: 鈥淭he children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:9).

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 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

It is taught in the baraita under discussion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? They appear to be stating the same principle, that a man disqualifies a woman from the priesthood only if his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage as well.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇

Ulla said: The practical difference between them is in the case of an Ammonite and a Moabite convert. And both of them derived their respective opinions from none other than the case of a High Priest with a widow. Rabbi Yosei reasoned: Just as with regard to a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, his children are unfit for the priesthood and he himself disqualifies the widow, so too, any man whose children are unfit disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讗诇诪谞讛 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 讗祝 砖讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讜驻讜住诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注诪讜谞讬 讜诪讜讗讘讬 讚讗讬谉 讻诇 讝专注讜 驻住讜诇 讚讗诪专 诪专 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转 诪讜讗讘讬 讜诇讗 诪讜讗讘讬转

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel reasoned: Just as in the case of a High Priest who engaged in intercourse with a widow, where all of his children from her are unfit for the priesthood and he disqualifies her as well, so too, in the case of a man all of whose children are unfit, he disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse. This is to the exclusion of an Ammonite or a Moabite convert, as not all of his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage, as the Master said: An Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is unfit but not a Moabite woman. Since only the sons of an Ammonite or Moabite convert are unfit, they do not disqualify a woman with whom they engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜谞住 讜讛诪驻转讛 讜讛砖讜讟讛 诇讗 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讜住诇讬谉 讻讬爪讚 (讛讬讛) 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who rapes a woman without marrying her; or one who seduces a woman without marrying her; or an imbecile who engages in intercourse with a woman, even if he did marry her, if they are non-priests they do not disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma, and if they are priests they do not enable an Israelite woman to partake of teruma. And if they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, they disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma. How so? If it was an Israelite who engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma, as this act of intercourse does not disqualify her.

注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞讞转讱 讛注讜讘专 讘诪注讬讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讬诇讚讛 转讗讻诇 谞诪爪讗 讻讞讜 砖诇 讘谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖诇 讗讘

If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e., she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does.

讛注讘讚 驻讜住诇 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 诪砖讜诐 讝专注 讻讬爪讚 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讜讛诇讱 讛讘谉 讜谞讻讘砖 注诇 讛砖驻讞讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 讛讬转讛 讗诐 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her offspring. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she a bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter鈥檚 father鈥檚 mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father鈥檚 offspring.

诪诪讝专 驻讜住诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讻讬爪讚 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘转 讜讛诇讻讛 讛讘转 讜谞讬砖讗转 诇注讘讚 讗讜 诇讙讜讬 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪诪讝专 讛讬转讛 讗诐 讗诪讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother鈥檚 mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband鈥檚 death, as she has offspring from him.

讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇 讻讬爪讚 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘转 讜讛诇讻讛 讛讘转 讜谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 讛专讬 讝讛 专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诪讚 讜诪砖诪砖 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讗诪讜 讜驻讜住诇 讗诐 讗诪讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 讻讘谞讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讜住诇谞讬 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother鈥檚 mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter鈥檚 son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 砖谞砖讗讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 谞砖讜转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

GEMARA: We already learned that the marriage of an imbecile is invalid, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor boy who married women and died, their wives are exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗 注诇 讘转 讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬讘专讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 注讬讘专讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诪讗 诪注讜讘专讜转 讛谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna: How so? If an Israelite engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Since if he impregnated her she may not partake, let us be concerned in any case of intercourse between an Israelite and the daughter of a priest lest he impregnated her, thereby rendering it prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that if two men betrothed two women, and then at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, they accidently switched wives, and engaged in relations with each other鈥檚 wives that night, in this case, after the accident is discovered, the court removes the wives from their husbands for three months, lest they are pregnant from the men they presumed to be their husbands and the fetus is therefore a mamzer, although they engaged in intercourse only once (33b)?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讞砖砖讜 诇转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜诇转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讞砖砖讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转转讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讚

The Gemara answers that Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About lineage the Sages were concerned, and they therefore decreed a three-month separation of the husbands and wives, to prevent the possibility of a child being of uncertain lineage. However, about the prohibition against a non-priest eating teruma they were not concerned. The Gemara asks: And for teruma were they not concerned? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, if she is an Israelite woman married to a priest it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately, as the Sages were concerned that her husband might die within the hour?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讞砖砖讜 讘讝谞讜转 诇讗 讞砖砖讜

Rather, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About impregnation through an act of marriage they were concerned, but about impregnation through licentious intercourse they were not concerned, as the woman generally takes precautions to ensure that she will not become pregnant.

讜讘谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诪讬 讞砖砖讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬砖讗转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诪转 讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

The Gemara asks: And about marriage were they concerned? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and her husband died on that same day, she immerses to purify herself, as she is ritually impure due to their intercourse, and she may partake of teruma that same evening? Evidently, the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant from the initial act of intercourse, even that of marriage.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讬注讘专讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬注讘专讗 讜讗讬 诪讬注讘专讗 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗

Rav 岣sda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband鈥檚 death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 讘诪注讬讛 转讛讗 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 诇诪驻专注 诪讗讬 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐

Abaye said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: Once her fetus in her womb is noticeable, she is ruined retroactively. Her prior consumption of teruma is retroactively prohibited. Evidently, pregnancy immediately disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Therefore, the reason that she may partake of teruma immediately after her husband鈥檚 death is that the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant. Rav 岣sda responded: What is the period in which she is retroactively ruined? It is from the moment the fetus is noticeable and back in time until forty days from the beginning of her pregnancy. During the first forty days of the pregnancy, she is not retroactively ruined, as the fetus is not yet considered a living being.

讗讬转诪专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗专讜住转讜 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讜 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讘转专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

It was stated: With regard to a man who engaged in intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law鈥檚 house, i.e., before they got married, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, as the future husband is not considered his father. And Shmuel said that the offspring is a shetuki, a child of unknown paternity. Rava said: Rav鈥檚 statement stands to reason in a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. However, if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him, i.e., we assume that the child is the betrothed鈥檚 son.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讬诇讚讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讬诇讚讛 讗诪讗讬 转讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讬讬诪讗 讜诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗

Rava said: From where do I say that? What is the source for my assertion? The source is the mishna, which teaches that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she gave birth, she may partake of teruma due to her child, who is a priest. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she gave birth, why may she partake of teruma? Shouldn鈥檛 there be concern that the child鈥檚 father is not the priest? Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others?

讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讘转专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

And if there, in the case of the mishna, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is a prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest, with whom she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse, is a prohibition of the same degree, nevertheless, we cast the child after the priest, then here, where for her to engage in intercourse with that man who is not her betrothed is a Torah prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with this man, her betrothed, is permitted by Torah law, is it not all the more so that her betrothed should be considered the father? Therefore, Rav鈥檚 statement stands to reason only if the woman is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚讗驻拽专讗 谞驻砖讛 诇讙讘讬 讗专讜住 讗驻拽专讗 谞驻砖讛 诇注诇诪讗 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讘讜砖讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

Abaye said to him in rejection of his proof: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, her betrothed, even if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. What is the reason? It is that we say that since she exposed herself to her betrothed, although they were not married yet, she apparently exposed herself to others as well. And the mishna that you cited as support for your assertion is referring to a situation where they were both incarcerated alone together in prison. Therefore, there is no concern that she engaged in intercourse with another man. This is one version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讘讗 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗专讜住讛 砖注讬讘专讛 专讘 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 砖转讜拽讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讚诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗

Some say that when the betrothed admits that he engaged in intercourse with her, everyone agrees that we cast the child after him. Rather, their dispute was stated as follows: In the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, if her betrothed denies that he engaged in intercourse with her, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, and Shmuel said that the offspring is a child whose father鈥檚 identity is not known. Rava said: Rav鈥檚 statement stands to reason in a case where the woman is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. Therefore, it is assumed that the child is a mamzer.

Scroll To Top