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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 31, 2022 | 讗壮 讘住讬讜谉 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 85

This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Michelle and Bill Futornick in honor of Shira鈥檚 18th birthday and high school graduation. 鈥淪hira was born on Shavuot, and has always been connected to Torah, especially through her more than 1,000 hours of community service in high school, the majority of which were with Friendship Circle. We are so proud of our daughter (and chevruta) and the mensch that she is.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Michelle and Laurence Berkowitz in loving memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam upon the 18th Yahrzeit of her passing. 鈥淛oy was a pioneer in women’s torah learning and would be so proud of Rabbanit Farber and the Hadran project as it has provided a forum for gemara learning for many women.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored anonymously on behalf of Memorial Day in America and in memory of all those who gave their lives to protect our freedom.

From where is it derived that women are commanded just as men are not to engage in a prohibited relationship with a kohen? Does it need its own unique verse as the issue is for a specific limited population or can it be derived from the verse in Bamidbar 5:6 鈥渁 man or woman who perform a sin鈥︹ from which is derived that men and women are equal as regards all Torah prohibitions? A discussion took place between Rav Papa and Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehushua regarding the issue of whether a daughter of a kohen can marry a chalal. Rav Papa tried to prove it from a Mishna in Kiddushin about ten types of lineages that came from Babylonia and who is allowed to marry who. There it lists chalalim with Israelites and Levites but not Kohanim. Rav Huna rejects this claim as the Mishna only refers to cases that apply equally to men and women. Male kohanim cannot marry a chalala, but a female kohenet can marry a chalal. They asked Rav Sheshet whether a woman could get a ketuba from her yabam if she was married to a man forbidden by rabbinic law, but his brother (the yabam) was permitted to her? He answered that since the ketuba from a yabam is from the first husband, she would not be able to get her ketuba, as one who marries someone forbidden by rabbinic law forfeits her ketuba. Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yochanan if those forbidden to marry a kohen who marry a kohen, even though they can get their ketuba, can they get mezonot, payment for sustenance? First, the Gemara clarifies precisely in which case the question is asked. Then they answer that she does not get mezonot. That answer does not correspond to a braita but an explanation is brought. Why in the rabbinic prohibition, the woman forfeits her ketuba but in the forbidden marriages to a kohen, she gets her ketuba. Two different answers are brought. What are the practical differences between the two opinions? The Gemara brings five different practical differences, but difficulties are raised against the first four. The Mishna discusses different connections between a woman and a Kohen or a Levi or a Yisrael that would not entitle her to eat truma or maaser or if she was a kohenet, would not permit her to eat truma or maaser in her father鈥檚 house. The Gemara questions why one cannot eat maaser? Isn鈥檛 a non-levi allowed to eat maaser?

讜讛专讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara asks: But there is the prohibition for priests to contract ritual impurity from a corpse, which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, as only priests are bound by this prohibition, and the reason that this command applies only to male priests is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淪peak to the priests the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), from which it is inferred: The sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron. Therefore, were it not for this specific derivation, I would say that women from priestly families are also obligated to avoid becoming ritually impure. What is the reason for this? Is it not due to the principle that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, that women are equated to men with regard to all punishments in the Torah, including those that are not equally applicable to all?

诇讗 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 诪诇讗 讬拽讞讜

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, that initial assumption, that the daughters of priests might be obligated to avoid ritual impurity, is not due to the halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, but rather it is something that we learn through tradition from the words 鈥渢hey may not take.鈥 This phrase teaches that women are included in the marital prohibitions of the priesthood, and we might therefore have thought that they are included in all halakhot pertaining to priests.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讬讞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

There are those who say a different version of this answer: With regard to that verse about taking, it was necessary for him to mention this explicitly, for it might enter your mind to say: We should learn this halakha from the prohibition of impurity and conclude that just as only male descendants of Aaron are prohibited from contracting ritual impurity, the restrictions of marriage also apply only to men. The verse therefore teaches us, with the words 鈥渢hey may not take,鈥 that this is not the case.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讛讬谞爪讘讜 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, arrived at the town of Hintzevu, to the place of Rav Idi bar Avin. The townspeople asked them: Is it prohibited for daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests to marry men disqualified from the priesthood or not?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讬转讜讛 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬谉 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讙专讬诐 讜讞专讜专讬诐 讜诪诪讝专讬诐 谞转讬谞讬诐 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讜讬诐 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讙专讬诐 讞专讜专讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讙讬专讬 讞专讜专讬 讜诪诪讝专讬 谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讻讛谞讜转 诇讞诇诇 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rav Pappa said to them: You learned it in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): People of ten types of lineages ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, 岣lalim, converts, and freed slaves, and mamzerim, Gibeonites, children of unknown paternity [shetukim], and foundlings. With regard to Priests, Levites, and Israelites, they are permitted to marry into one another鈥檚 families; Levites, Israelites, 岣lalim, converts, and freed slaves are permitted to marry into one another鈥檚 families; converts, freed slaves, and mamzerim, Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings are permitted to marry into one another鈥檚 families; whereas the tanna does not teach that priestesses, i.e., daughters of priests, are permitted to marry a 岣lal. This must mean they are forbidden to them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛谞讬 谞住讘讬 诪讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬 谞住讘讬 诪讛谞讬 拽转谞讬 讻讛谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬谞住讘 讞诇诇讛 讗住讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 讛讻讬 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 诇讬谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬诐

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him: There is no proof from here, for he teaches the halakha anywhere that these men may marry those women, and there is also a parallel case where these women may marry those men. With regard to the case of a priest, however, since if he wants to marry a 岣lala this is prohibited to him, the tanna does not teach this halakha. Consequently, there is no proof from this mishna that daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests are warned against marrying men disqualified from the priesthood. They came before Rav Idi bar Avin and told him about the question and their debate about the matter. He said to them: Children, this is what Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests are not warned against marrying men disqualified from the priesthood.

砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谞讬 讘讬专讬 诪专讘 砖砖转 砖谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讜诇讗 砖谞讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬讘诐 讗讜 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讬转 诇讛

搂 We learned in the mishna that secondary forbidden relatives, whose status is established by rabbinic law, are sometimes forbidden to the husband and sometimes to the yavam. The residents of the town of Biri inquired of Rav Sheshet: Is a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative of the husband but not a secondary forbidden relative of the yavam entitled to a marriage contract from the yavam or not? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Perhaps, since the Master said that in a levirate marriage, the payment of her marriage contract is due from the property of her first husband, and this woman, who was a secondary relative of her first husband, does not receive a marriage contract from him, she consequently does not have the right to one from the yavam either.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 诪砖谞讬 讗讬转 诇讛

Or perhaps, since there is a principle in levirate marriage that if she does not have a marriage contract from the first husband, e.g., he died without leaving behind any property, the Sages instituted a marriage contract for her from the second one, we should say that she has a marriage contract from the yavam?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讘诐 讗讬谉 诇讛

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita: Payment of her marriage contract is due from the property of her first husband, and if she was a secondary forbidden relative of the husband, she does not have one even from the yavam. This baraita clearly answers the question.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讬讘诐 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 诪砖谞讬 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讘诐 讗讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Can it be concluded by inference from the baraita that there is a case of a woman in a levirate marriage who does have a marriage contract from the yavam? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Payment of her marriage contract is due from the property of her first husband, and if she does not have anything from the first husband because he died without property, they instituted a marriage contract for her from the second one. And if she was a secondary forbidden relative of the husband, she does not have one even from the yavam.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬转讘讛 转讜转讬讛 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讜爪讗 拽讗讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬转 诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛诇讱 讛讜讗 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诇讜转讛 讜讗讻诇讛 诪讗讬

Rabbi Elazar inquired of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Do women in cases like a widow married to a High Priest and a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza married to a common priest have rights to payment for their sustenance from their husbands, or do they not have a right to sustenance? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that she is dwelling under his roof, he stands in a position where he is obligated to arise and divorce her. In such a situation, does she have a right to sustenance? It is obvious that she does not. The Gemara clarifies: No, it is necessary to ask this question with regard to a case where he went overseas and therefore is not present to divorce her, and in the meantime she borrowed money for her sustenance and ate. What is the halakha is in that case?

诪讝讜谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜诪讬驻拽 讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讚诇诪讗 转讬注讻讘 讙讘讬讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讛

Is it correct to say that sustenance is a stipulation in the marriage contract, and since she has a marriage contract she also has a right to sustenance, and therefore the husband must pay her debt? Or perhaps there is a difference between the cases: Concerning a marriage contract, which gives her motivation to take the money and leave him, she has rights to it, as the Sages wanted to motivate her to seek divorce and end the prohibited marriage. However, with regard to sustenance, we are worried that if he provides for her sustenance, perhaps she might tarry with him, as she would have no reason to rush the divorce, and consequently she does not have rights to it. He said to him: She does not have a right to sustenance.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖 诇讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that she does have a right to sustenance? The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to sustenance she receives after his death. At that point, she is no longer in violation of a prohibition, while the obligation to sustain her remains intact.

讗讬转 讚讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬讗 讬砖 诇讛 讛讗 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讜爪讗 拽讗讬 讜讗诇讗 讛转谞讬讗 讬砖 诇讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

Some say a different version of the discussion, which is that he said to him: It is taught in a baraita that she has a right to sustenance. He replied: He stands in a position where he is obligated to arise and divorce her. He should not be required to provide for her sustenance. He again asked: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that she has a right to sustenance? He responded: When that baraita is taught it is referring to the period after his death.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 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 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 驻讬专讜转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘诇讗讜转 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讜讜诇讚讛 驻住讜诇 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转 讜讛讬讗 讻砖讬专讛 讜讜诇讚讛 讻砖专 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗

The Sages taught: A widow married to a High Priest, or a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza married to a common priest has the right to receive payment for her marriage contract; and for the produce of her property that her husband used; and sustenance; and she gets back her worn clothes and other objects she brought to the marriage; and she is disqualified as a 岣lala from marrying a priest; and her offspring is disqualified from the priesthood as a 岣lal; and the court forces him to divorce her. A woman who is a secondary relative prohibited by rabbinic law has neither a marriage contract; nor payment for the produce of her property; nor sustenance; nor does she get back her worn clothes; and she is fit to marry a priest and her offspring is fit for the priesthood; and the court forces him to divorce her.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: For what reason did they say that a widow married to a High Priest has a marriage contract? Because he is disqualified from the priesthood by his marriage to her, as a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him is barred from the Temple service until he divorces her and agrees not to remarry her, and she is rendered a 岣lala and disqualified from the priesthood by intercourse with him, and any place where he is disqualified and she is disqualified,

拽谞住讜 讗讜转讜 讻转讜讘讛 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 讜讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 讜讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 拽谞住讜 讗讜转讛 讻转讜讘讛

they penalized him through the marriage contract. In other words, the Sages did not exempt him from payment of the marriage contract in that case. Since he is disqualified from the priesthood until he divorces her, the marriage will not last, and they did not force her to forfeit her marriage contract. And for what reason did they say that women forbidden as secondary relatives by rabbinic law do not have a marriage contract? Because he is fit for the priesthood and she is similarly fit, the couple therefore sees no need to divorce, and any place where he is fit and she is fit they penalized her by exempting him from payment of the marriage contract, in order to speed up the divorce.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讜讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讚讘专 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪专讙讬诇转讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says a different reason: These cases, a widow married to a High Priest and a divorc茅e married to a common priest, are prohibited by Torah law, and Torah law does not require strengthening by means of additional enactments. But those secondary relatives are forbidden by rabbinic law, and rabbinic law does require strengthening. Alternatively, the Gemara presents a second explanation: In this case, when they are both disqualified, it is he who encourages her to live with him despite the deleterious effect the prohibition will have on her and her offspring. Therefore, they penalized him by making him pay the marriage contract. But in that case, when they both remain fit for the priesthood despite the prohibited nature of their marriage, it is she who encourages him, and they consequently penalized her.

讚讘专 讗讞专 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 拽谞住讜 讗讜转讜 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗 讻砖专 讜讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 拽谞住讜 讗讜转讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪专讙讬诇转讜

The Gemara asks: Who teaches the alternative explanation; whose opinion does it follow? Some say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches it and is saying: What is the reason? In other words, the latter part of the baraita provides the rationale for the previous statement: What is the reason that they said that if he is disqualified from the priesthood and she is similarly disqualified, they penalized him through the marriage contract? It is because in such a case he primarily encourages her to violate the prohibition, as the main disqualification concerns her, so they penalize him for enticing her to sin. And for what reason did they say that when he is fit and she is fit they penalized her through the marriage contract? It is because in such a case she encourages him, since she is not disqualified and therefore may care less about the sin. The Sages therefore penalized her.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住讬诇 诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讝讛 讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪专讙讬诇转讜

Conversely, some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who teaches it, and the case of a 岣lutza poses a difficulty to his opinion, as it seems to contradict his principle that rabbinic law requires strengthening: A 岣lutza is forbidden to a priest by rabbinic law, and yet she does have a marriage contract. In response, he then said an additional explanation: Since he disqualifies her from the priesthood by rabbinic law, in this case it is he who encourages her, and in that case of secondary relatives, when neither of them is disqualified, she encourages him.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Practically speaking, what difference is there between the explanations of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Rav 岣sda said: The practical difference between them concerns the cases of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to a Jew of unflawed lineage.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛

According to the one who says that the reason the marriage contract is not revoked from a widow who is married to the High Priest is because this relationship is prohibited by Torah law, which doesn鈥檛 require strengthening, this too is by Torah law, and therefore she receives her marriage contract. But according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as the woman is disqualified regardless, and she wants to marry a Jew because there is a way for her descendants to be fit to enter the congregation: If her mamzer son marries a maidservant and has children, they will be slaves who can then be freed and enter the congregation.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 讜诪诪讝专 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖讛 诪砖谞讬住转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a) that if a mamzer marries a maidservant and they have a child, their son is both a slave and a mamzer, since she has no hope of her descendants being fit to enter into the congregation, she does not encourage him at all. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The practical difference between them is with regard to one who remarries his divorc茅e after she has married another man. According to the one who says that it depends on whether the prohibition is by Torah law, this too is prohibited by Torah law. And according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as she and her children are unaffected by this marriage.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诪诪讝专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that offspring from forbidden intercourse for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is a mamzer, she does not encourage him at all, because according to this opinion her children would be adversely affected by the marriage. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them involves a non-virgin married to a High Priest. According to the one who says that it depends on whether the prohibition is by Torah law, this too is prohibited by Torah law. And according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as the marriage merely violates a positive mitzva, which does not disqualify her children.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讞讝讬专 住驻拽 住讜讟转讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who said that offspring conceived through intercourse with a priest for which one is liable for violating a positive mitzva is a 岣lal, she does not encourage him at all. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the case of one who remarries his wife when there is an uncertainty if she is an adulteress. If a married woman was in seclusion with another man after her husband had become suspicious and had warned her concerning that man, and the husband did not subsequently bring her to be examined by the bitter waters as a sota, but rather continued to live with her, he has acted contrary to Torah law, as she is forbidden to him.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 住讜讟讛 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

In this case, according to the one who says that it depends on whether the prohibition is by Torah law, this too is prohibited by Torah law. And according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as her children are not disqualified by such a relationship. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash, who said that even if her husband went to cause her to drink the bitter waters and had intercourse with her on the way, he has thereby rendered her a zona and disqualified her from the priesthood, she does not encourage him at all. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the case of a definite adulteress. In such a case, all agree that their children are not mamzerim, despite the prohibition against their cohabitation. Consequently, she encourages him to sin.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讜专住转 诇讻讛谉 诪注讜讘专转 诪讻讛谉 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讻讛谉 讜讻谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讜专住转 诇诇讜讬 诪注讜讘专转 诪诇讜讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇诇讜讬 讜讻谉 讘转 诇讜讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专

MISHNA: If there is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest or pregnant from a priest, and he died; and a widow awaiting her yavam, who is a priest; and similarly, the daughter of a priest who is betrothed, pregnant from, or is a widow waiting for her yavam, who is an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma. If there is an Israelite woman betrothed to a Levite or pregnant from a Levite; and a widow awaiting her yavam, who is a Levite; and similarly the daughter of a Levite who is betrothed, pregnant from, or a widow waiting for her yavam, who is an Israelite, she may not partake of tithes.

讘转 诇讜讬 诪讗讜专住转 诇讻讛谉 诪注讜讘专转 诪讻讛谉 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讻讛谉 讜讻谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇诇讜讬 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专

If there is a daughter of a Levite betrothed to a priest or pregnant from a priest; and a widow awaiting her yavam, who is a priest; and similarly a daughter of a priest who is betrothed to or pregnant from a Levite, or is a widow waiting for her yavam, who is a Levite, she may partake of neither teruma nor tithes. This follows the halakha that betrothal, pregnancy, and waiting for a yavam disqualify the daughter of a priest from eating teruma, but they do not enable an Israelite woman to partake of teruma.

讙诪壮 讜转讛讗 讝专讛 讝专讛 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘诪注砖专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna states that an Israelite woman betrothed to a Levite may not partake of tithes. The Gemara is puzzled by this ruling: And let her even be a complete foreigner who is not a Levite; may a foreigner not partake of tithes? In contradistinction to teruma, no special sanctity pertains to tithes; they are merely the possession of the Levite. What difference does it make, then, whether she is a Levite or not? Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the first tithe is forbidden to foreigners, i.e., non-Levites, as it is taught in a baraita:

  • 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 85: How Pure Are Your Marriages

R. Pappa and R. Hina arrived in Hintzvu, where R. Idi bar Avin lived. When they got there, they were...

Yevamot 85

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 85

讜讛专讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讛专谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara asks: But there is the prohibition for priests to contract ritual impurity from a corpse, which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all, as only priests are bound by this prohibition, and the reason that this command applies only to male priests is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淪peak to the priests the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), from which it is inferred: The sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron. Therefore, were it not for this specific derivation, I would say that women from priestly families are also obligated to avoid becoming ritually impure. What is the reason for this? Is it not due to the principle that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, that women are equated to men with regard to all punishments in the Torah, including those that are not equally applicable to all?

诇讗 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 诪诇讗 讬拽讞讜

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, that initial assumption, that the daughters of priests might be obligated to avoid ritual impurity, is not due to the halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, but rather it is something that we learn through tradition from the words 鈥渢hey may not take.鈥 This phrase teaches that women are included in the marital prohibitions of the priesthood, and we might therefore have thought that they are included in all halakhot pertaining to priests.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讬讞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙诪专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

There are those who say a different version of this answer: With regard to that verse about taking, it was necessary for him to mention this explicitly, for it might enter your mind to say: We should learn this halakha from the prohibition of impurity and conclude that just as only male descendants of Aaron are prohibited from contracting ritual impurity, the restrictions of marriage also apply only to men. The verse therefore teaches us, with the words 鈥渢hey may not take,鈥 that this is not the case.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讛讬谞爪讘讜 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讝讛专讜 讻砖专讜转 诇讛谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, arrived at the town of Hintzevu, to the place of Rav Idi bar Avin. The townspeople asked them: Is it prohibited for daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests to marry men disqualified from the priesthood or not?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讬转讜讛 注砖专讛 讬讜讞住讬谉 注诇讜 诪讘讘诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讙专讬诐 讜讞专讜专讬诐 讜诪诪讝专讬诐 谞转讬谞讬诐 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 诇讜讬诐 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讙专讬诐 讞专讜专讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讙讬专讬 讞专讜专讬 讜诪诪讝专讬 谞转讬谞讬 砖转讜拽讬 讜讗住讜驻讬 诪讜转专讬诐 诇讘讗 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讻讛谞讜转 诇讞诇诇 诇讗 拽转谞讬

Rav Pappa said to them: You learned it in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): People of ten types of lineages ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, 岣lalim, converts, and freed slaves, and mamzerim, Gibeonites, children of unknown paternity [shetukim], and foundlings. With regard to Priests, Levites, and Israelites, they are permitted to marry into one another鈥檚 families; Levites, Israelites, 岣lalim, converts, and freed slaves are permitted to marry into one another鈥檚 families; converts, freed slaves, and mamzerim, Gibeonites, shetukim, and foundlings are permitted to marry into one another鈥檚 families; whereas the tanna does not teach that priestesses, i.e., daughters of priests, are permitted to marry a 岣lal. This must mean they are forbidden to them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛谞讬 谞住讘讬 诪讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬 谞住讘讬 诪讛谞讬 拽转谞讬 讻讛谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬谞住讘 讞诇诇讛 讗住讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 讛讻讬 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 诇讬谞砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讬诐

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him: There is no proof from here, for he teaches the halakha anywhere that these men may marry those women, and there is also a parallel case where these women may marry those men. With regard to the case of a priest, however, since if he wants to marry a 岣lala this is prohibited to him, the tanna does not teach this halakha. Consequently, there is no proof from this mishna that daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests are warned against marrying men disqualified from the priesthood. They came before Rav Idi bar Avin and told him about the question and their debate about the matter. He said to them: Children, this is what Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests are not warned against marrying men disqualified from the priesthood.

砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谞讬 讘讬专讬 诪专讘 砖砖转 砖谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讜诇讗 砖谞讬讛 诇讬讘诐 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪讬讘诐 讗讜 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讬转 诇讛

搂 We learned in the mishna that secondary forbidden relatives, whose status is established by rabbinic law, are sometimes forbidden to the husband and sometimes to the yavam. The residents of the town of Biri inquired of Rav Sheshet: Is a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative of the husband but not a secondary forbidden relative of the yavam entitled to a marriage contract from the yavam or not? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Perhaps, since the Master said that in a levirate marriage, the payment of her marriage contract is due from the property of her first husband, and this woman, who was a secondary relative of her first husband, does not receive a marriage contract from him, she consequently does not have the right to one from the yavam either.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 诪砖谞讬 讗讬转 诇讛

Or perhaps, since there is a principle in levirate marriage that if she does not have a marriage contract from the first husband, e.g., he died without leaving behind any property, the Sages instituted a marriage contract for her from the second one, we should say that she has a marriage contract from the yavam?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讘诐 讗讬谉 诇讛

Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita: Payment of her marriage contract is due from the property of her first husband, and if she was a secondary forbidden relative of the husband, she does not have one even from the yavam. This baraita clearly answers the question.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讬讘诐 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻转讜讘转讛 注诇 谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 诪砖谞讬 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讘诐 讗讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Can it be concluded by inference from the baraita that there is a case of a woman in a levirate marriage who does have a marriage contract from the yavam? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Payment of her marriage contract is due from the property of her first husband, and if she does not have anything from the first husband because he died without property, they instituted a marriage contract for her from the second one. And if she was a secondary forbidden relative of the husband, she does not have one even from the yavam.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬转讘讛 转讜转讬讛 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讜爪讗 拽讗讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬转 诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛诇讱 讛讜讗 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诇讜转讛 讜讗讻诇讛 诪讗讬

Rabbi Elazar inquired of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Do women in cases like a widow married to a High Priest and a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza married to a common priest have rights to payment for their sustenance from their husbands, or do they not have a right to sustenance? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that she is dwelling under his roof, he stands in a position where he is obligated to arise and divorce her. In such a situation, does she have a right to sustenance? It is obvious that she does not. The Gemara clarifies: No, it is necessary to ask this question with regard to a case where he went overseas and therefore is not present to divorce her, and in the meantime she borrowed money for her sustenance and ate. What is the halakha is in that case?

诪讝讜谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻转讜讘讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜诪讬驻拽 讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 讚诇诪讗 转讬注讻讘 讙讘讬讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讛

Is it correct to say that sustenance is a stipulation in the marriage contract, and since she has a marriage contract she also has a right to sustenance, and therefore the husband must pay her debt? Or perhaps there is a difference between the cases: Concerning a marriage contract, which gives her motivation to take the money and leave him, she has rights to it, as the Sages wanted to motivate her to seek divorce and end the prohibited marriage. However, with regard to sustenance, we are worried that if he provides for her sustenance, perhaps she might tarry with him, as she would have no reason to rush the divorce, and consequently she does not have rights to it. He said to him: She does not have a right to sustenance.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖 诇讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that she does have a right to sustenance? The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to sustenance she receives after his death. At that point, she is no longer in violation of a prohibition, while the obligation to sustain her remains intact.

讗讬转 讚讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬讗 讬砖 诇讛 讛讗 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讜爪讗 拽讗讬 讜讗诇讗 讛转谞讬讗 讬砖 诇讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

Some say a different version of the discussion, which is that he said to him: It is taught in a baraita that she has a right to sustenance. He replied: He stands in a position where he is obligated to arise and divorce her. He should not be required to provide for her sustenance. He again asked: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that she has a right to sustenance? He responded: When that baraita is taught it is referring to the period after his death.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 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 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 驻讬专讜转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘诇讗讜转 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讜讜诇讚讛 驻住讜诇 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转 讜讛讬讗 讻砖讬专讛 讜讜诇讚讛 讻砖专 讜讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗

The Sages taught: A widow married to a High Priest, or a divorc茅e or a 岣lutza married to a common priest has the right to receive payment for her marriage contract; and for the produce of her property that her husband used; and sustenance; and she gets back her worn clothes and other objects she brought to the marriage; and she is disqualified as a 岣lala from marrying a priest; and her offspring is disqualified from the priesthood as a 岣lal; and the court forces him to divorce her. A woman who is a secondary relative prohibited by rabbinic law has neither a marriage contract; nor payment for the produce of her property; nor sustenance; nor does she get back her worn clothes; and she is fit to marry a priest and her offspring is fit for the priesthood; and the court forces him to divorce her.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: For what reason did they say that a widow married to a High Priest has a marriage contract? Because he is disqualified from the priesthood by his marriage to her, as a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him is barred from the Temple service until he divorces her and agrees not to remarry her, and she is rendered a 岣lala and disqualified from the priesthood by intercourse with him, and any place where he is disqualified and she is disqualified,

拽谞住讜 讗讜转讜 讻转讜讘讛 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 讜讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 讜讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 拽谞住讜 讗讜转讛 讻转讜讘讛

they penalized him through the marriage contract. In other words, the Sages did not exempt him from payment of the marriage contract in that case. Since he is disqualified from the priesthood until he divorces her, the marriage will not last, and they did not force her to forfeit her marriage contract. And for what reason did they say that women forbidden as secondary relatives by rabbinic law do not have a marriage contract? Because he is fit for the priesthood and she is similarly fit, the couple therefore sees no need to divorce, and any place where he is fit and she is fit they penalized her by exempting him from payment of the marriage contract, in order to speed up the divorce.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讜讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讚讘专 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪专讙讬诇转讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says a different reason: These cases, a widow married to a High Priest and a divorc茅e married to a common priest, are prohibited by Torah law, and Torah law does not require strengthening by means of additional enactments. But those secondary relatives are forbidden by rabbinic law, and rabbinic law does require strengthening. Alternatively, the Gemara presents a second explanation: In this case, when they are both disqualified, it is he who encourages her to live with him despite the deleterious effect the prohibition will have on her and her offspring. Therefore, they penalized him by making him pay the marriage contract. But in that case, when they both remain fit for the priesthood despite the prohibited nature of their marriage, it is she who encourages him, and they consequently penalized her.

讚讘专 讗讞专 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 拽谞住讜 讗讜转讜 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗 讻砖专 讜讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 拽谞住讜 讗讜转讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪专讙讬诇转讜

The Gemara asks: Who teaches the alternative explanation; whose opinion does it follow? Some say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar teaches it and is saying: What is the reason? In other words, the latter part of the baraita provides the rationale for the previous statement: What is the reason that they said that if he is disqualified from the priesthood and she is similarly disqualified, they penalized him through the marriage contract? It is because in such a case he primarily encourages her to violate the prohibition, as the main disqualification concerns her, so they penalize him for enticing her to sin. And for what reason did they say that when he is fit and she is fit they penalized her through the marriage contract? It is because in such a case she encourages him, since she is not disqualified and therefore may care less about the sin. The Sages therefore penalized her.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讞诇讜爪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讛讚专 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住讬诇 诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讝讛 讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪专讙讬诇转讜

Conversely, some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who teaches it, and the case of a 岣lutza poses a difficulty to his opinion, as it seems to contradict his principle that rabbinic law requires strengthening: A 岣lutza is forbidden to a priest by rabbinic law, and yet she does have a marriage contract. In response, he then said an additional explanation: Since he disqualifies her from the priesthood by rabbinic law, in this case it is he who encourages her, and in that case of secondary relatives, when neither of them is disqualified, she encourages him.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Practically speaking, what difference is there between the explanations of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Rav 岣sda said: The practical difference between them concerns the cases of a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to a Jew of unflawed lineage.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛

According to the one who says that the reason the marriage contract is not revoked from a widow who is married to the High Priest is because this relationship is prohibited by Torah law, which doesn鈥檛 require strengthening, this too is by Torah law, and therefore she receives her marriage contract. But according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as the woman is disqualified regardless, and she wants to marry a Jew because there is a way for her descendants to be fit to enter the congregation: If her mamzer son marries a maidservant and has children, they will be slaves who can then be freed and enter the congregation.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 注讘讚 讜诪诪讝专 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖讛 诪砖谞讬住转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a) that if a mamzer marries a maidservant and they have a child, their son is both a slave and a mamzer, since she has no hope of her descendants being fit to enter into the congregation, she does not encourage him at all. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The practical difference between them is with regard to one who remarries his divorc茅e after she has married another man. According to the one who says that it depends on whether the prohibition is by Torah law, this too is prohibited by Torah law. And according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as she and her children are unaffected by this marriage.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诪诪讝专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that offspring from forbidden intercourse for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is a mamzer, she does not encourage him at all, because according to this opinion her children would be adversely affected by the marriage. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them involves a non-virgin married to a High Priest. According to the one who says that it depends on whether the prohibition is by Torah law, this too is prohibited by Torah law. And according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as the marriage merely violates a positive mitzva, which does not disqualify her children.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讞诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讞讝讬专 住驻拽 住讜讟转讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who said that offspring conceived through intercourse with a priest for which one is liable for violating a positive mitzva is a 岣lal, she does not encourage him at all. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the case of one who remarries his wife when there is an uncertainty if she is an adulteress. If a married woman was in seclusion with another man after her husband had become suspicious and had warned her concerning that man, and the husband did not subsequently bring her to be examined by the bitter waters as a sota, but rather continued to live with her, he has acted contrary to Torah law, as she is forbidden to him.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专讙讬诇讛 讛讗 讛讬讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇专讘讬 诪转讬讗 讘谉 讞专砖 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇讛砖拽讜转讛 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘讚专讱 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪专讙诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 住讜讟讛 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

In this case, according to the one who says that it depends on whether the prohibition is by Torah law, this too is prohibited by Torah law. And according to the one who says it is because he encourages her, in this case she encourages him, as her children are not disqualified by such a relationship. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Matya ben 岣rash, who said that even if her husband went to cause her to drink the bitter waters and had intercourse with her on the way, he has thereby rendered her a zona and disqualified her from the priesthood, she does not encourage him at all. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the case of a definite adulteress. In such a case, all agree that their children are not mamzerim, despite the prohibition against their cohabitation. Consequently, she encourages him to sin.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讜专住转 诇讻讛谉 诪注讜讘专转 诪讻讛谉 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讻讛谉 讜讻谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讜专住转 诇诇讜讬 诪注讜讘专转 诪诇讜讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇诇讜讬 讜讻谉 讘转 诇讜讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专

MISHNA: If there is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest or pregnant from a priest, and he died; and a widow awaiting her yavam, who is a priest; and similarly, the daughter of a priest who is betrothed, pregnant from, or is a widow waiting for her yavam, who is an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma. If there is an Israelite woman betrothed to a Levite or pregnant from a Levite; and a widow awaiting her yavam, who is a Levite; and similarly the daughter of a Levite who is betrothed, pregnant from, or a widow waiting for her yavam, who is an Israelite, she may not partake of tithes.

讘转 诇讜讬 诪讗讜专住转 诇讻讛谉 诪注讜讘专转 诪讻讛谉 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讻讛谉 讜讻谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇诇讜讬 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专

If there is a daughter of a Levite betrothed to a priest or pregnant from a priest; and a widow awaiting her yavam, who is a priest; and similarly a daughter of a priest who is betrothed to or pregnant from a Levite, or is a widow waiting for her yavam, who is a Levite, she may partake of neither teruma nor tithes. This follows the halakha that betrothal, pregnancy, and waiting for a yavam disqualify the daughter of a priest from eating teruma, but they do not enable an Israelite woman to partake of teruma.

讙诪壮 讜转讛讗 讝专讛 讝专讛 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘诪注砖专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna states that an Israelite woman betrothed to a Levite may not partake of tithes. The Gemara is puzzled by this ruling: And let her even be a complete foreigner who is not a Levite; may a foreigner not partake of tithes? In contradistinction to teruma, no special sanctity pertains to tithes; they are merely the possession of the Levite. What difference does it make, then, whether she is a Levite or not? Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the first tithe is forbidden to foreigners, i.e., non-Levites, as it is taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top