יבמות נז

יבמות נז

הָא נָמֵי אָכְלָה. מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאֵין לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר — לָא.

this one may also partake of teruma until that time. The Gemara refutes this argument: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion there only with regard to a priest whose status can entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, but here, in the case of a priest with crushed testicles, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who was born Jewish, no, they did not state their opinion.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּבַת גֵּרִים, וְהָא מִיבַּעְיָא בְּעָא לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, וְלָא פְּשַׁיט לֵיהּ.

And if you say that here too, his status can at least entitle his wife to partake of teruma if he marries the daughter of converts, wasn’t it already raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yoḥanan before Rabbi Oshaya whether the daughter of converts who married a priest with crushed testicles may partake of teruma, and he was unable to resolve it for him? Therefore, there is a difference between a priest with crushed testicles and other priests who betroth women who are disqualified by their intercourse.

אִיתְּמַר, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּמַאֲכִילָהּ בְּלֹא יְדָעָהּ.

It was stated that Abaye said: Women betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles may eat teruma since his status entitles his wife to partake of teruma in a case where he has not known her. If a priest was properly married and then his testicles became crushed, as long as he has not known his wife, i.e., engaged in intercourse with her, after that point in time, she may continue partaking of teruma as his wife.

רָבָא אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּמַאֲכִילָהּ בַּעֲבָדָיו וְשִׁפְחוֹתָיו הַכְּנַעֲנִים.

Rava said she may continue to partake of teruma for a different reason: She may eat teruma since the status of this priest entitles his Canaanite slaves and maidservants to partake of teruma. Because he has the power to enable others to partake of teruma, the case of a woman betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles is comparable to the cases in the mishna, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon would permit the woman to partake of teruma.

אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא — קִנְיָן דְּאִישׁוּת מִקִּנְיָן דְּאִישׁוּת יָלְפִינַן, וְלָא יָלְפִינַן קִנְיָן דְּאִישׁוּת מִקִּנְיָן דַּעֲבָדִים.

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Abaye did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rava because he claims that we derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of marriage, and we do not derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of slaves.

וְרָבָא לָא אָמַר כְּאַבַּיֵּי — שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה. וְאַבָּיֵי: שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה לָא אָמְרִינַן, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְכֹהֵן וּמִית — תֵּיכוֹל, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה. וְרָבָא: הָתָם פָּקַע קִנְיָנֵיהּ, הָכָא לָא פָּקַע קִנְיָנֵיהּ.

And Rava did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as he maintains that it is different there, as she had already partaken of teruma before her husband’s testicles were crushed and therefore she may continue to partake of it. And Abaye would respond that we do not say that the case is different because she had already partaken of teruma, as, if you do not say so, the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who died childless should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she had already partaken of teruma while her husband was alive. And Rava replies that there is no comparison between the two cases: There, his acquisition lapses upon his death; here, his acquisition does not lapse, as she is still his wife.

גּוּפָא, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת גֵּרִים. מַהוּ שֶׁיַּאֲכִילֶנָּה בִּתְרוּמָה? אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. לְסוֹף אֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אַחֲרִינָא וּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא [אַחְרִיתָא] וּפְשַׁט לֵיהּ. וּמַנּוּ — רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה לְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אַטּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָאו גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּקָבָעֵי מִינַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּלֵית לַהּ פָּתְרִי.

§ The Gemara earlier mentioned a question that Rabbi Yoḥanan posed to Rabbi Oshaya, and it now turns its attention to that matter itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts, what is the halakha concerning whether his status entitles her to partake of teruma? Rabbi Oshaya was silent and said nothing to him. Eventually another great man came and raised a different dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya, and he resolved his question. And who was this great man? Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Oshaya: Is Rabbi Yoḥanan not a great man? Why didn’t you address his dilemma? Rabbi Oshaya said to him: I did not respond because he raised a dilemma before me that has no resolution.

לְמַאן? אִי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בֵּין בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי בֵּין לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — לָא אָכְלָה. אִי בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — לָא אָכְלָה, דְּהָא אָמַר מָר: בַּת גֵּר זָכָר כְּבַת חָלָל זָכָר.

The Gemara explains: According to whom did he raise his dilemma? If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then, whether the priest with crushed testicles retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity and may marry women forbidden to priests, she may not partake of teruma. The reasoning is as follows: If he retains his priestly sanctity she may not partake of teruma, as the Master said: The status of the daughter of a male convert is like that of the daughter of a male ḥalal. They are both prohibited from marrying a priest, and therefore even if they marry a priest, it is prohibited for them to eat teruma.

אִי לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — לָא אָכְלָה, דְּהָא אָמְרִינַן: קְהַל גֵּרִים אִיקְּרִי קָהָל.

Even if he does not retain his priestly sanctity she may not eat, as we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the congregation of converts is called the congregation of the Lord. Therefore, when the Torah renders it prohibited for a man with crushed testicles to marry into the congregation of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 23:2), it renders it prohibited for him to marry converts.

וְאִי לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בֵּין בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי בֵּין לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — אָכְלָה. בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — אָכְלָה, דְּהָא אָמַר: אַף גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיּוֹרֶת — בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהוּנָּה. אִי לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — אָכְלָה, דְּהָא אָמַר: קְהַל גֵּרִים לָא אִיקְּרִי קָהָל.

And if he raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then, whether he retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity, she may partake of teruma. If he retains his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: Even if a convert married a convert, his daughter is fit for marrying into the priesthood. If he does not retain his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: The congregation of converts is not called the congregation of the Lord, and therefore even those forbidden from entering the congregation may marry converts. Consequently, it is certainly permitted for the priest with crushed testicles to marry the daughter of converts.

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּהַאי תַּנָּא: דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה בַּת גֵּרִים לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לִכְהוּנָּה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 1:5) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A woman who is the daughter of converts may not marry into the priesthood unless her mother was Jewish from birth.

וְהָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּשְׁרוּת מִיתּוֹסְפָא בַּהּ — וְאָכְלָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא קְדוּשָּׁה מִיתּוֹסְפָא בַּהּ — וְלָא אָכְלָה.

And his dilemma was as follows: Is the reason she may marry a priest if her mother was Jewish from birth that fitness to marry a priest has been added to her, but she is not considered a member of the congregation of the Lord and may therefore marry a man with crushed testicles? If so, since she may marry a priest, she may partake of teruma once she does so. Or perhaps sanctity has been added to her and she is considered a member of the congregation of the Lord. Consequently, she may not marry a man with crushed testicles, and if she does, she may not partake of teruma even if he is a priest.

תָּא שְׁמַע: כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חִינָּנָא מִדָּרוֹמָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: מִנַּיִן לִפְצוּעַ דַּכָּא כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת גֵּרִים שֶׁמַּאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ וְגוֹ׳ יֹאכַל בּוֹ״.

The Gemara suggests an answer to this dilemma. Come and hear: When Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥinnana came from the south, he came and brought this baraita in hand: From where is it derived that a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts entitles her to partake of teruma? As it is stated: “But if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11). In this context, a wife is also considered his monetary acquisition, and therefore she may partake of teruma.

לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: בֵּין בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי בֵּין לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — לָא אָכְלָה. וְאִי לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — לְמָה לִי קְרָא, הָאָמַר: בֵּין בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי בֵּין לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי — אָכְלָה! אֶלָּא לָאו, לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כַּשְׁרוּת אִיתּוֹסַפָא בַּהּ וְאָכְלָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara analyzes this source: According to whom is this baraita stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that whether this priest retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may not partake of teruma? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, why do I need a special verse to teach this halakha? Didn’t he say that whether he retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may partake of teruma? Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? And you can learn from this baraita that fitness was added to her, and therefore she may partake of teruma. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

אִיתְּמַר, רַב אָמַר:

§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to an issue related to the previous discussion. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following question. Rav said:

יֵשׁ חוּפָּה לִפְסוּלוֹת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין חוּפָּה לִפְסוּלוֹת.

There is significance to a priest entering a wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. If a priest’s daughter who is unfit to marry a priest enters the wedding canopy with a priest, she becomes disqualified from partaking of teruma from her father’s household. This is the case even if the priest did not betroth her and they did not engage in sexual intercourse. And Shmuel said: There is no significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest. Only sexual intercourse disqualifies her from the privileges of priesthood.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וּמוֹדֶה לִי אַבָּא בְּתִינוֹקֶת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ בִּיאָה, אֵין לָהּ חוּפָּה.

Shmuel said: And Abba, i.e., Rav, whose first name was Abba, concedes to me, with regard to a girl less than three years and one day old, that she is not disqualified by merely entering the wedding canopy. Since there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with her, there is no legal significance to entering the wedding canopy with her.

אָמַר רָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִיאָה, וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ יָבָם — קְנָאָהּ, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וּמְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כְּעֶלְיוֹן.

Rava said: We, too, learn in the following baraita that there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with a girl less than three years old: A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse; and if she was a yevama and her yavam had intercourse with her, he has acquired her; and a man who has intercourse with her while she is married to someone else is liable on her account because of the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman; and if she experiences a menstrual discharge she renders ritually impure a man who has intercourse with her, so that he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one.

נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן — אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. בָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִכׇּל הַפְּסוּלִין — פְּסָלָהּ.

If she is married to a priest she may partake of teruma. If one of those who render women unfit for marrying a priest had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from being able to partake of teruma.

בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, הוּא דְּמִפַּסְלָה בְּבִיאָה — מִפַּסְלָה בְּחוּפָּה. הָא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, דְּלָא מִפַּסְלָה בְּבִיאָה — לָא מִפַּסְלָה נָמֵי בְּחוּפָּה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rava infers from this baraita that it is a girl three years and one day old who is disqualified via intercourse, and consequently she is also disqualified via the wedding canopy. However, a girl who is less than three years and one day old, who is not disqualified via intercourse, is also not disqualified via the wedding canopy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: יֵשׁ חוּפָּה לִפְסוּלוֹת — בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rami bar Ḥama said: With regard to the question of whether there is legal significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with women who are unfit to marry a priest, we have arrived at the dispute cited in the mishna between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.