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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 30, 2022 | 讻状讟 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

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

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

Yevamot 84

Presentation in PDF format

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by David Wenner in honor of Yaffa (Wenner) joining Hadran鈥檚 Daf Yomi. 鈥淔rom your loving family.”

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings further support for the assertion made that even though Rabbi Eliezer ruled that an androgynous is considered a male for truma, regarding animals for sacrifices, he views them as incapable of being sanctified. A braita tells about Rebbe, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that when he went to Rabbi Eliezer ben Arach, the students made a lot of ruckus to prevent him from learning and all he managed to do was to learn the line in our Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the punishment received by an androgynous for engaging in relations with a man. The ninth chapter begins with a reorganization of cases previously learned. The Mishna shows that there are cases where a woman is permitted to her husband but forbidden to her yabam (her husband鈥檚 brother), forbidden to her husband but permitted to her yabam, permitted to both and forbidden to both. While the Mishna lists specific cases, the Gemara questions why specifically were certain cases were written in a particular manner, when they could have been described in other ways. Further, they suggest that perhaps the Mishna doesn鈥檛 hold by a certain opinion regarding the offspring of an Egyptian convert (that it follows the mother) as otherwise, it would have listed a particular case in the Mishna. However, in the end, they conclude that it is inconclusive as the Mishna left off other cases as well. What else was left out? Were they really considered left out? Rav holds that a daughter of a kohen can marry a chalal. Can this be proven from our Mishna? A difficulty is raised against this halacha of Rav from a braita, but Rava interprets the braita differently.

 

讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉

Forbidden crossbred livestock, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], an animal delivered through the abdominal wall, and an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite do not become sacred and do not render another animal sacred in their place.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讘转诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讘注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And Shmuel said: They do not become sacred by way of substitution, i.e., if one had an animal that had been designated as an offering, and he wished to substitute one of these animals for it, the substituted animal does not become sacred. And they themselves do not render another animal sacred when it is made a substitute for them. If one designated one of these animals as an offering and he wished to substitute another animal for it, it does not become sacred. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rabbi Eliezer does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a proper male.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 讻讝讻专 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讞讘专讜 注诇讬 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讻转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讘讜拽讬讗 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜谞讬 诇诇诪讜讚 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 讻讝讻专

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male. It is taught on this matter in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When I went to learn Torah from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, his students joined together against me like the roosters of Beit Bukya, highly aggressive animals that do not allow other creatures to remain among them, and they did not let me learn there. Therefore, I managed to learn only one thing in our mishna, which is that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛注专诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜

MISHNA: There are women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, while others are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands. Certain women are permitted both to these and to those, and others are forbidden to both these and to those.

讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻砖专

The mishna elaborates: And these are cases of women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin: In the case of a common priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is the High Priest, the widow, who was permitted to her husband, is forbidden to her yavam, as it is prohibited for the High Priest to marry a widow. The same is true in the case of a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal], e.g., the son of a priest and a divorc茅e, who married a woman fit to marry a priest, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service. That woman was permitted to marry the 岣lal but is forbidden to his brother. Having engaged in intercourse with the 岣lal, she is rendered a 岣lala, a woman disqualified from marrying a priest.

讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

Another example is the case of an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married an Israelite woman of similar lineage, and he has a brother who is a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer]; or a mamzer who married a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret], and he has a brother who is an Israelite of unflawed lineage. A mamzer is permitted to marry a mamzeret, but neither is per-mitted to a Jew of unflawed lineage. In each of these cases, these women are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin.

讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讬讚砖 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讻砖专 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讞诇诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉

And these are cases of women who are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands: For example, there is the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest, whom she is permitted to marry. This is true only if the High Priest merely betrothed her. However, if he consummated the marriage, he rendered her a 岣lala forbidden to all priests, including her yavam. The additional cases are a priest fit for service who married a 岣lala and he has a brother who is a 岣lal; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is a mamzer; and a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is, similarly, an Israelite of unflawed lineage. All of these women are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands.

讜讗诇讜 讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讻砖专 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻砖专 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

And these are cases where women are forbidden both to these and to those: A High Priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is a High Priest or a common priest; a priest fit for service who married a 岣lala, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is similarly an ordinary Israelite, or a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is a mamzer. All of these women are forbidden both to these and to those. And all other women are permitted to their husbands and to their yevamin.

砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讘注诇 讜诇讗 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇 讜诪讜转专转 诇讬讘诐 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛

With regard to secondary relatives, who are forbidden by rabbinic law, if the woman is a secondary relative to the husband but not a secondary relative to the yavam, she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. Conversely, if she is a secondary relative to the yavam but not a secondary relative to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she is a secondary relative both to this man and to that man, she is forbidden to this one and to that one.

讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转 讜讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗

Furthermore, if a man marries a woman forbidden to him as a secondary relative, she does not have the right to receive payment for her marriage contract if divorced or widowed, nor is she entitled to payment from her husband for the produce of her property that he used, nor is she entitled to provisions for her sustenance from his estate, nor does she get back her worn clothes or other objects she brought with her to her marriage. And the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and the court forces him to divorce her.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘讛

In contrast, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza] married to a common priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite of unflawed lineage, and an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer all have the right to receive payment for their marriage contract, although it was prohibited for them to marry.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 谞砖讗 诇讬转谞讬 拽讬讚砖

GEMARA: As an example of a woman who is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam, the mishna cites the case of a widow married to a common priest whose brother was a High Priest. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna specifically teach a case where the priest married the widow? Let him teach that he betrothed her, as even if she is widowed after betrothal she requires levirate marriage or 岣litza.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚谞砖讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讛讗 讻讜诇讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛

And if you would say: The reason that the tanna cited the case where they were married is that in this case there is a positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and also a prohibition to marry a widow, and therefore she is forbidden to him. However, if he betrothed her, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage comes and overrides the prohibition against marrying a widow. To counter this argument, the tanna states: But that cannot be the case, as the entire chapter discusses cases involving the positive mitzva of levirate marriage and prohibitions, and in all those cases, the positive mitzva does not come and override the prohibition, even in the absence of an additional positive mitzva.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讚讜拽讗 谞砖讗 讚砖讜讬讬讛 讞诇诇讛 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 谞砖讗

The Gemara answers: The mishna could have cited a case where the priest betrothed the widow. Instead, the mishna cites a case where the priest married a widow, due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach in the latter clause of the mishna the case of a High Priest who married a widow who has a brother who is a common priest. That case is specifically if he married her, because he thereby rendered her a 岣lala. However, if he only betrothed her, she is permitted to his brother who is a common priest, as it is permitted for him to marry a widow. Therefore, the tanna also taught in the first clause the case where the priest married her.

讜讗讚转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 诇讬转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬注转讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讬讚砖 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讘讜拽转讗 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讟注诪讗 讚谞砖讗 讚砖讜讬讬讛 讞诇诇讛 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞砖讗

The Gemara asks: But rather than teaching a case where she was married in the first clause due to the latter clause of the mishna, let him teach a case where she was betrothed in the first clause due to the middle clause, which speaks of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the reason the tanna taught the case where the priest married the widow is due to the halakha that is its neighbor [bat bukta], i.e., due to the fact that in the adjacent case he wants to teach the case of a 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest. There, the reason that the woman is forbidden to his brother is specifically that the 岣lal married her, as he rendered her a 岣lala by consummating the marriage. However, if the 岣lal merely betrothed her, she is permitted to him. Due to that reason, the tanna teaches the case where the priest married the widow.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讬转谞讬 讘转讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: And why does the tanna specifically teach the case of a common priest who married a widow? Let him teach that the priest married a virgin. Since in any case she becomes a widow upon his death, what difference is there whether she was previously a widow?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬谉 讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬谉

And if you would say that this tanna holds that it is her status at the time of the first marriage that determines her status when she happens before the yavam for levirate marriage, and not her status at the time of her husband鈥檚 death, and therefore if she had been a virgin when she married she would have been permitted to enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest, that cannot be so, as the mishna cites the case: A 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam. And in that case, we do not say that the first marriage determines her status when she happens before him for levirate marriage, as the woman was fit to marry the brother when she married the 岣lal and was rendered a 岣lala only as a result of her marriage.

讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚讜拽讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讘转讜诇讛 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇诪谞讛

The Gemara answers: That fact, that the mishna cited a case where the priest married a widow, is certainly due to the latter clause of the mishna, i.e., due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach in the latter clause: A High Priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is the High Priest or a common priest. In the case where the yavam is a common priest, the widow is forbidden to him specifically if the High Priest married a widow, as by consummating the marriage he rendered her a 岣lala. However, had she been a virgin when the High Priest married her, he would not render her a 岣lala, and when the High Priest dies she would be fit for his brother. It is due to that reason that the tanna teaches the case of a widow in the first clause as well.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖谞砖讗 诪爪专讬转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘谞讛 砖谞讬 讛讜讬 诇转谞讬 谞诪讬

Rav Pappa objects to the mishna: If it is so, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that in the case of a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, her son is considered a second-generation Egyptian, as the child鈥檚 status in this matter is determined according to the mother, then let the tanna of the mishna also teach the following case:

诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖谞砖讗 砖转讬 诪爪专讬讜转 讗讞转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗讞转 砖谞讬讬讛 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讬讛 讗讬 谞住讜讘 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

With regard to a second-generation Egyptian who married two Egyptian women, one of whom was a first-generation Egyptian convert and one of whom was from the second generation, and he had sons from both the first and second women, if these two sons married in their proper way, meaning that the third-generation Egyptian married an ordinary Jewish woman, and the second-generation convert married another second-generation Egyptian, then it is also true of these women that they are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin. The second-generation Egyptian is forbidden to his Jewish yevama, while the third-generation Egyptian is an ordinary Jew and therefore prohibited to marry his yevama, who is a second-generation Egyptian woman.

讜讗讬 讗讬驻讜讱 讜谞住讜讘 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讙讬讜专讜转 讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬讜转

And if they married in the reverse manner, i.e., the third-generation convert married a second-generation Egyptian woman, and the second-generation man married an ordinary Jewish woman, they are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands. Similarly, they are permitted both to these and to those if these sons married converts, for an Egyptian convert is permitted to marry a convert of a different nationality. And there is also a case in which they are forbidden to these and to those, namely if they married sexually underdeveloped women [ayloniot]. If an Egyptian married an aylonit, she is forbidden to him as a Jewish woman, and she is forbidden to his brother, a third-generation Egyptian convert who is permitted to marry a Jewish woman, because levirate marriage is prohibited with an aylonit. The fact that the mishna omits these cases appears to indicate that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗

The Gemara answers: There is no proof from here with regard to the halakha, as the tanna of the mishna did not mention all possible examples. Rather, he taught certain cases and omitted others. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The tanna would not have omitted only one example. The Gemara answers: He omitted the case of a man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals. If the husband is such a man, the wife is forbidden to her husband and permitted to her yavam. If the yavam is such a man, the opposite is true.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讚讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

The Gemara asks: If this mishna is determined to have taught certain cases and omitted others due to the omission of the case of a man with crushed testicles or other wounds to his genitals, this is not an omission, as in this mishna the tanna taught a principle that applies to all forbidden relationships for which one is liable for violating a prohibition. This category includes such a case, and therefore it was not omitted.

讗讟讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖谞砖讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛

The Gemara answers: Is that to say that with regard to those relationships for which one is liable for violating a prohibition, he does not teach a principle and again teach them in detail? But this is not the case. He teaches the case of a common priest who married a widow and he had a brother who was a high priest, and the case of a 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest and he had a brother who was a priest fit for service, both of whom are forbidden as they are liable for violating a prohibition. Therefore, since the tanna did not specifically teach the case of the man with crushed testicles, this constitutes an omission.

讛讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉

The Gemara responds: That clause of the mishna is not merely a specification of the previous general halakha, as it was necessary for the tanna to mention these cases individually in order to teach us another halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is not prohibited for daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests to marry men who are disqualified from the priesthood, although this marriage disqualifies them from subsequently marrying a priest.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专 诪讬转谞讗 讛讬讗 讚讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗讜 讛砖讜讛 讘讻诇

The Gemara challenges that answer: But the mishna also teaches these cases: A 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest; and an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is a mamzer. These are specifications that do not teach additional halakhot. The Gemara answers: This too is not a case of the tanna going back and teaching additional examples of the same halakha without adding anything, as he teaches us something new through each of these two examples. The first example is referring to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, such as one concerning priests, and the second example is referring to a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, such as one involving a mamzer.

讛讗 拽转谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 (讜诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇) 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara further challenges the answer: But the mishna also teaches the case of an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret and who has a brother who is an Israelite of similar lineage, and the example of a mamzer who married a mamzeret and he has a brother who is an Israelite of unflawed lineage. Consequently, the tanna does in fact teach the same halakha several times with regard to a prohibition that is equally applicable to all. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from it that he taught and omitted certain cases and did not list all possible examples? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case, and therefore there is no proof from here that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讛谞转 [讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜] 讜诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

搂 The Gemara returns to a statement cited incidentally above, in order to discuss the matter itself: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is not prohibited for daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests to marry men who are disqualified from the priesthood, although this marriage would disqualify them from subsequently marrying a priest, and they may do so even ab initio. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following statement of the mishna supports his opinion: A 岣lal who married a woman who is fit, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service, this woman is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam. What, is it not referring to a priestess, i.e., a priest鈥檚 daughter, who is appropriate to marry him? And what is the meaning of: Fit? This means that she is fit for the priesthood, and yet the mishna says she is permitted to her husband, the 岣lal.

诇讗 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇拽讛诇

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that the mishna is speaking of an Israelite woman. And what is the meaning of: Fit? It means that she is fit to enter the congregation of the Jewish people, through marriage. According to this explanation, there is no proof from the mishna about daughters of priests.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻砖专 谞诪讬 讻砖专 诇拽讛诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 诇拽讛诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讜诪讚讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, consider the phrase: A 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest, and he has a brother who is also fit. Consistency demands that here too it means that the brother is fit to enter the congregation. Can it not therefore be deduced by inference that he, the deceased 岣lal, was unfit to enter the congregation? But such an inference would be an error, as a 岣lal is disqualified only from the priesthood. Rather, is it not referring to a priest, and from the fact that he must be a priest, she too must be a priestess? The Gemara rejects this claim: Are the cases comparable? This case, of the 岣lal, is as it is, i.e., he is fit for the priesthood. And that case, of the woman, is as it is, i.e., she is fit to enter the congregation.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬谉 讘专 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讗砖讛 诪讜讝讛专转 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讬砖

Ravin bar Na岣an raised an objection against Rav鈥檚 ruling from the following baraita: The verse states about priests: 鈥淭hey may not take a woman who is a harlot [zona], or profaned [岣lala]鈥 (Leviticus 21:7). The same verse says: 鈥淭hey also may not take a woman divorced from her husband.鈥 This repetition of 鈥渢hey may not take鈥 teaches us that the woman is also prohibited by means of the prohibition addressed to the man. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a prohibition for a daughter of a priest to marry a 岣lal.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讗 诪讜讝讛专 讛讬讗 诪讜讝讛专转 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讜讝讛专 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讝讚讛专讗

Rava said: Ravin bar Na岣an鈥檚 objection is not valid. All that the baraita teaches is that anywhere that a prohibition of sexual intercourse applies to him, i.e., to a man, the same prohibition applies to her, his female partner. And anywhere that a prohibition does not apply to him, the prohibition does not apply to her either. It does not, however, indicate that since it is prohibited for a priest to marry a 岣lala it is also prohibited for the daughter of a priest to marry a 岣lal.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita itself: And is this matter derived from here? It is derived from a different statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael similarly taught: The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall commit any sin that people commit鈥 (Numbers 5:6). The verse here equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments of the Torah. Consequently, the halakhot of forbidden marriages apply equally to women and to men. Why then do we need to learn the same thing from the repetition of 鈥渢hey may not take鈥?

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讛砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讘诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 诇讗

The Gemara answers: If it was derived only from that verse, I would say that this principle is true of a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, but with regard to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, such as the prohibitions pertaining to priests, this is not the case. Since these prohibitions only apply to priests, we might have thought that they do not extend to women. The verse therefore teaches that the prohibition applies to women in the same manner as men.

  • 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: 79-85 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss various types of eunuchs and if they have the ability to do Chalitza or Yibum....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 84: A Prohibited Husband and a Permitted Yavam

Chapter 9! A very long mishnah... Categories of women who were permitted to their husbands and prohibited to the yavam....
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 9: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...

Yevamot 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 84

讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉

Forbidden crossbred livestock, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], an animal delivered through the abdominal wall, and an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite do not become sacred and do not render another animal sacred in their place.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讘转诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讘注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And Shmuel said: They do not become sacred by way of substitution, i.e., if one had an animal that had been designated as an offering, and he wished to substitute one of these animals for it, the substituted animal does not become sacred. And they themselves do not render another animal sacred when it is made a substitute for them. If one designated one of these animals as an offering and he wished to substitute another animal for it, it does not become sacred. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rabbi Eliezer does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a proper male.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 讻讝讻专 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讞讘专讜 注诇讬 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讻转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讘讜拽讬讗 讜诇讗 讛谞讬讞讜谞讬 诇诇诪讜讚 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 讻讝讻专

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male. It is taught on this matter in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When I went to learn Torah from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, his students joined together against me like the roosters of Beit Bukya, highly aggressive animals that do not allow other creatures to remain among them, and they did not let me learn there. Therefore, I managed to learn only one thing in our mishna, which is that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛注专诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜

MISHNA: There are women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, while others are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands. Certain women are permitted both to these and to those, and others are forbidden to both these and to those.

讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻砖专

The mishna elaborates: And these are cases of women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin: In the case of a common priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is the High Priest, the widow, who was permitted to her husband, is forbidden to her yavam, as it is prohibited for the High Priest to marry a widow. The same is true in the case of a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal], e.g., the son of a priest and a divorc茅e, who married a woman fit to marry a priest, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service. That woman was permitted to marry the 岣lal but is forbidden to his brother. Having engaged in intercourse with the 岣lal, she is rendered a 岣lala, a woman disqualified from marrying a priest.

讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

Another example is the case of an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married an Israelite woman of similar lineage, and he has a brother who is a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer]; or a mamzer who married a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret], and he has a brother who is an Israelite of unflawed lineage. A mamzer is permitted to marry a mamzeret, but neither is per-mitted to a Jew of unflawed lineage. In each of these cases, these women are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin.

讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讬讚砖 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讻砖专 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讞诇诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉

And these are cases of women who are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands: For example, there is the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest, whom she is permitted to marry. This is true only if the High Priest merely betrothed her. However, if he consummated the marriage, he rendered her a 岣lala forbidden to all priests, including her yavam. The additional cases are a priest fit for service who married a 岣lala and he has a brother who is a 岣lal; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is a mamzer; and a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is, similarly, an Israelite of unflawed lineage. All of these women are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands.

讜讗诇讜 讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讻砖专 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻砖专 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

And these are cases where women are forbidden both to these and to those: A High Priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is a High Priest or a common priest; a priest fit for service who married a 岣lala, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is similarly an ordinary Israelite, or a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is a mamzer. All of these women are forbidden both to these and to those. And all other women are permitted to their husbands and to their yevamin.

砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讘注诇 讜诇讗 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇 讜诪讜转专转 诇讬讘诐 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛

With regard to secondary relatives, who are forbidden by rabbinic law, if the woman is a secondary relative to the husband but not a secondary relative to the yavam, she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. Conversely, if she is a secondary relative to the yavam but not a secondary relative to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she is a secondary relative both to this man and to that man, she is forbidden to this one and to that one.

讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转 讜讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗

Furthermore, if a man marries a woman forbidden to him as a secondary relative, she does not have the right to receive payment for her marriage contract if divorced or widowed, nor is she entitled to payment from her husband for the produce of her property that he used, nor is she entitled to provisions for her sustenance from his estate, nor does she get back her worn clothes or other objects she brought with her to her marriage. And the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and the court forces him to divorce her.

讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘讛

In contrast, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza] married to a common priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite of unflawed lineage, and an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer all have the right to receive payment for their marriage contract, although it was prohibited for them to marry.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 谞砖讗 诇讬转谞讬 拽讬讚砖

GEMARA: As an example of a woman who is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam, the mishna cites the case of a widow married to a common priest whose brother was a High Priest. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna specifically teach a case where the priest married the widow? Let him teach that he betrothed her, as even if she is widowed after betrothal she requires levirate marriage or 岣litza.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚谞砖讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讛讗 讻讜诇讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛

And if you would say: The reason that the tanna cited the case where they were married is that in this case there is a positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and also a prohibition to marry a widow, and therefore she is forbidden to him. However, if he betrothed her, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage comes and overrides the prohibition against marrying a widow. To counter this argument, the tanna states: But that cannot be the case, as the entire chapter discusses cases involving the positive mitzva of levirate marriage and prohibitions, and in all those cases, the positive mitzva does not come and override the prohibition, even in the absence of an additional positive mitzva.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讚讜拽讗 谞砖讗 讚砖讜讬讬讛 讞诇诇讛 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 谞砖讗

The Gemara answers: The mishna could have cited a case where the priest betrothed the widow. Instead, the mishna cites a case where the priest married a widow, due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach in the latter clause of the mishna the case of a High Priest who married a widow who has a brother who is a common priest. That case is specifically if he married her, because he thereby rendered her a 岣lala. However, if he only betrothed her, she is permitted to his brother who is a common priest, as it is permitted for him to marry a widow. Therefore, the tanna also taught in the first clause the case where the priest married her.

讜讗讚转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 诇讬转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬注转讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讬讚砖 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讘讜拽转讗 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讟注诪讗 讚谞砖讗 讚砖讜讬讬讛 讞诇诇讛 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞砖讗

The Gemara asks: But rather than teaching a case where she was married in the first clause due to the latter clause of the mishna, let him teach a case where she was betrothed in the first clause due to the middle clause, which speaks of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the reason the tanna taught the case where the priest married the widow is due to the halakha that is its neighbor [bat bukta], i.e., due to the fact that in the adjacent case he wants to teach the case of a 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest. There, the reason that the woman is forbidden to his brother is specifically that the 岣lal married her, as he rendered her a 岣lala by consummating the marriage. However, if the 岣lal merely betrothed her, she is permitted to him. Due to that reason, the tanna teaches the case where the priest married the widow.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讬转谞讬 讘转讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: And why does the tanna specifically teach the case of a common priest who married a widow? Let him teach that the priest married a virgin. Since in any case she becomes a widow upon his death, what difference is there whether she was previously a widow?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬谉 讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬谉

And if you would say that this tanna holds that it is her status at the time of the first marriage that determines her status when she happens before the yavam for levirate marriage, and not her status at the time of her husband鈥檚 death, and therefore if she had been a virgin when she married she would have been permitted to enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest, that cannot be so, as the mishna cites the case: A 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam. And in that case, we do not say that the first marriage determines her status when she happens before him for levirate marriage, as the woman was fit to marry the brother when she married the 岣lal and was rendered a 岣lala only as a result of her marriage.

讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚讜拽讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讘转讜诇讛 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇诪谞讛

The Gemara answers: That fact, that the mishna cited a case where the priest married a widow, is certainly due to the latter clause of the mishna, i.e., due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach in the latter clause: A High Priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is the High Priest or a common priest. In the case where the yavam is a common priest, the widow is forbidden to him specifically if the High Priest married a widow, as by consummating the marriage he rendered her a 岣lala. However, had she been a virgin when the High Priest married her, he would not render her a 岣lala, and when the High Priest dies she would be fit for his brother. It is due to that reason that the tanna teaches the case of a widow in the first clause as well.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖谞砖讗 诪爪专讬转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘谞讛 砖谞讬 讛讜讬 诇转谞讬 谞诪讬

Rav Pappa objects to the mishna: If it is so, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that in the case of a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, her son is considered a second-generation Egyptian, as the child鈥檚 status in this matter is determined according to the mother, then let the tanna of the mishna also teach the following case:

诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖谞砖讗 砖转讬 诪爪专讬讜转 讗讞转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗讞转 砖谞讬讬讛 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讬讛 讗讬 谞住讜讘 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉

With regard to a second-generation Egyptian who married two Egyptian women, one of whom was a first-generation Egyptian convert and one of whom was from the second generation, and he had sons from both the first and second women, if these two sons married in their proper way, meaning that the third-generation Egyptian married an ordinary Jewish woman, and the second-generation convert married another second-generation Egyptian, then it is also true of these women that they are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin. The second-generation Egyptian is forbidden to his Jewish yevama, while the third-generation Egyptian is an ordinary Jew and therefore prohibited to marry his yevama, who is a second-generation Egyptian woman.

讜讗讬 讗讬驻讜讱 讜谞住讜讘 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬讘诪讬讛谉 讜讗住讜专讜转 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讙讬讜专讜转 讗住讜专讜转 诇讗诇讜 讜诇讗诇讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬讜转

And if they married in the reverse manner, i.e., the third-generation convert married a second-generation Egyptian woman, and the second-generation man married an ordinary Jewish woman, they are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands. Similarly, they are permitted both to these and to those if these sons married converts, for an Egyptian convert is permitted to marry a convert of a different nationality. And there is also a case in which they are forbidden to these and to those, namely if they married sexually underdeveloped women [ayloniot]. If an Egyptian married an aylonit, she is forbidden to him as a Jewish woman, and she is forbidden to his brother, a third-generation Egyptian convert who is permitted to marry a Jewish woman, because levirate marriage is prohibited with an aylonit. The fact that the mishna omits these cases appears to indicate that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗

The Gemara answers: There is no proof from here with regard to the halakha, as the tanna of the mishna did not mention all possible examples. Rather, he taught certain cases and omitted others. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The tanna would not have omitted only one example. The Gemara answers: He omitted the case of a man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals. If the husband is such a man, the wife is forbidden to her husband and permitted to her yavam. If the yavam is such a man, the opposite is true.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讚讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

The Gemara asks: If this mishna is determined to have taught certain cases and omitted others due to the omission of the case of a man with crushed testicles or other wounds to his genitals, this is not an omission, as in this mishna the tanna taught a principle that applies to all forbidden relationships for which one is liable for violating a prohibition. This category includes such a case, and therefore it was not omitted.

讗讟讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖谞砖讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛

The Gemara answers: Is that to say that with regard to those relationships for which one is liable for violating a prohibition, he does not teach a principle and again teach them in detail? But this is not the case. He teaches the case of a common priest who married a widow and he had a brother who was a high priest, and the case of a 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest and he had a brother who was a priest fit for service, both of whom are forbidden as they are liable for violating a prohibition. Therefore, since the tanna did not specifically teach the case of the man with crushed testicles, this constitutes an omission.

讛讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉

The Gemara responds: That clause of the mishna is not merely a specification of the previous general halakha, as it was necessary for the tanna to mention these cases individually in order to teach us another halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is not prohibited for daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests to marry men who are disqualified from the priesthood, although this marriage disqualifies them from subsequently marrying a priest.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪诪讝专 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专 诪讬转谞讗 讛讬讗 讚讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗讜 讛砖讜讛 讘讻诇

The Gemara challenges that answer: But the mishna also teaches these cases: A 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest; and an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is a mamzer. These are specifications that do not teach additional halakhot. The Gemara answers: This too is not a case of the tanna going back and teaching additional examples of the same halakha without adding anything, as he teaches us something new through each of these two examples. The first example is referring to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, such as one concerning priests, and the second example is referring to a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, such as one involving a mamzer.

讛讗 拽转谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇 (讜诪诪讝专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讬砖专讗诇) 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara further challenges the answer: But the mishna also teaches the case of an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret and who has a brother who is an Israelite of similar lineage, and the example of a mamzer who married a mamzeret and he has a brother who is an Israelite of unflawed lineage. Consequently, the tanna does in fact teach the same halakha several times with regard to a prohibition that is equally applicable to all. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from it that he taught and omitted certain cases and did not list all possible examples? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case, and therefore there is no proof from here that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讛谞转 [讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜] 讜诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛

搂 The Gemara returns to a statement cited incidentally above, in order to discuss the matter itself: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is not prohibited for daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests to marry men who are disqualified from the priesthood, although this marriage would disqualify them from subsequently marrying a priest, and they may do so even ab initio. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following statement of the mishna supports his opinion: A 岣lal who married a woman who is fit, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service, this woman is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam. What, is it not referring to a priestess, i.e., a priest鈥檚 daughter, who is appropriate to marry him? And what is the meaning of: Fit? This means that she is fit for the priesthood, and yet the mishna says she is permitted to her husband, the 岣lal.

诇讗 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜诪讗讬 讻砖专讛 讻砖专讛 诇拽讛诇

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that the mishna is speaking of an Israelite woman. And what is the meaning of: Fit? It means that she is fit to enter the congregation of the Jewish people, through marriage. According to this explanation, there is no proof from the mishna about daughters of priests.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 讻砖专 谞诪讬 讻砖专 诇拽讛诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 诇拽讛诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讜诪讚讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讛讬讗 讻讛谞转 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, consider the phrase: A 岣lal who married a woman fit to marry a priest, and he has a brother who is also fit. Consistency demands that here too it means that the brother is fit to enter the congregation. Can it not therefore be deduced by inference that he, the deceased 岣lal, was unfit to enter the congregation? But such an inference would be an error, as a 岣lal is disqualified only from the priesthood. Rather, is it not referring to a priest, and from the fact that he must be a priest, she too must be a priestess? The Gemara rejects this claim: Are the cases comparable? This case, of the 岣lal, is as it is, i.e., he is fit for the priesthood. And that case, of the woman, is as it is, i.e., she is fit to enter the congregation.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬谉 讘专 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 诇讗 讬拽讞讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讗砖讛 诪讜讝讛专转 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讬砖

Ravin bar Na岣an raised an objection against Rav鈥檚 ruling from the following baraita: The verse states about priests: 鈥淭hey may not take a woman who is a harlot [zona], or profaned [岣lala]鈥 (Leviticus 21:7). The same verse says: 鈥淭hey also may not take a woman divorced from her husband.鈥 This repetition of 鈥渢hey may not take鈥 teaches us that the woman is also prohibited by means of the prohibition addressed to the man. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a prohibition for a daughter of a priest to marry a 岣lal.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讗 诪讜讝讛专 讛讬讗 诪讜讝讛专转 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讜讝讛专 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讝讚讛专讗

Rava said: Ravin bar Na岣an鈥檚 objection is not valid. All that the baraita teaches is that anywhere that a prohibition of sexual intercourse applies to him, i.e., to a man, the same prohibition applies to her, his female partner. And anywhere that a prohibition does not apply to him, the prohibition does not apply to her either. It does not, however, indicate that since it is prohibited for a priest to marry a 岣lala it is also prohibited for the daughter of a priest to marry a 岣lal.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita itself: And is this matter derived from here? It is derived from a different statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael similarly taught: The verse states: 鈥淲hen a man or woman shall commit any sin that people commit鈥 (Numbers 5:6). The verse here equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments of the Torah. Consequently, the halakhot of forbidden marriages apply equally to women and to men. Why then do we need to learn the same thing from the repetition of 鈥渢hey may not take鈥?

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗讜 讛砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讘诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 诇讗

The Gemara answers: If it was derived only from that verse, I would say that this principle is true of a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, but with regard to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, such as the prohibitions pertaining to priests, this is not the case. Since these prohibitions only apply to priests, we might have thought that they do not extend to women. The verse therefore teaches that the prohibition applies to women in the same manner as men.

Scroll To Top