יבמות סט

יבמות סט

מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, יָצְאוּ גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין.

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

אַשְׁכְּחַן כֹּהֶנֶת — לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית מְנָא לַן? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״, הָכָא נָמֵי ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״.

The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that a gentile and a slave disqualify a priestess. From where do we derive this with regard to a Levite and an Israelite woman? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The verse “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced” (Leviticus 22:13) could have begun with the words: If a priest’s daughter. The word “but,” the prefix vav, expands the prohibition to include additional women. Here too, it may be derived from the distinction between the phrase: If a priest’s daughter, and the phrase as it actually appears in the verse: “But if a priest’s daughter,” that Levite and Israelite women are subject to the prohibition as well.

כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּדָרֵישׁ וָוֵי? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן — כּוּלֵּהּ ״וּבַת״ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this exposition possible? It is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as he derives halakhot from the prefix vav. The Gemara responds: Even if you say it is accordance with the Rabbis, the entire phrase: “But if a priest’s daughter,” is superfluous in the verse, as the previous verses had already mentioned the priest’s daughter. Therefore, the inclusion of Levite and Israelite women in the prohibition may be derived from the entire expression.

וְאֵימָא: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, כִּי לֵית לֵיהּ זֶרַע — קָאָכְלָה, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ זֶרַע — לָא אָכְלָה. מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ זֶרַע נָמֵי תֵּיכוֹל!

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

אִם כֵּן, רַבּוֹיֵי לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית לְמָה לִי?

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

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וּמַאי ״כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״ — כִּי תִּיבָּעֵל, אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לְמָה לִי?

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

אַלְמָנָה לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ, וּגְרוּשָׁה לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ. וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אַלְמָנָה: אַלְמָנָה הוּא דְּכִי לֵית לַהּ זֶרַע — אָכְלָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּחַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה. אֲבָל גְּרוּשָׁה, דְּלָא חַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה, אֵימָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לַהּ זֶרַע — לָא אָכְלָה. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גְּרוּשָׁה: גְּרוּשָׁה הוּא דְּכִי אִית לַהּ זֶרַע — לָא אָכְלָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה. אֲבָל אַלְמָנָה, דְּחַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה, אֵימָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לַהּ זֶרַע — נָמֵי תֵּיכוֹל, צְרִיכָא.

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

וְאֵימָא נִבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ אַף מַחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ! ״לְאִישׁ זָר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מִי שֶׁזָּר אֶצְלָהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא. לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי, דְּלֹא זָר אֶצְלָהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא.

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

אִי הָכִי, חָלָל, דְּלָאו זָר הוּא מֵעִיקָּרָא, לָא לִפְסוֹל! אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״, מַקִּישׁ זַרְעוֹ לוֹ, מָה הוּא פּוֹסֵל — אַף זַרְעוֹ נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל.

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

וְאֵימָא מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה! דּוּמְיָא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה בְּבִיאָה, אַף הַאי נָמֵי בְּבִיאָה.

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

וְאֵימָא: עַד דְּאִיכָּא הֲוָיָה וּבִיאָה?! דּוּמְיָא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה בְּבִיאָה לְחוּדַּהּ, אַף הַאי נָמֵי בְּבִיאָה לְחוּדַּהּ.

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

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי?

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי וַאֲדוֹמִי שֵׁנִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

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

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה וּפוֹסֵל — אַף הַאי נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל.

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

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל. לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי דְּאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל. דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה׳״.

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

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל?

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

אָמַר עוּלָּא: גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל.

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

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁכׇּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף שֶׁכׇּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל. לְאַפּוֹקֵי עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, דְּאֵין כָּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל. דְּאָמַר מָר: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית, ״מוֹאָבִי״ וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

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

מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה — לֹא פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין. וְאִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין. כֵּיצַד? (הָיָה) יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

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

עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. נֶחְתַּךְ הָעוּבָּר בְּמֵעֶיהָ — תֹּאכַל. הָיָה כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל. יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. נִמְצָא כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן גָּדוֹל מִשֶּׁל אָב.

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

הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה, וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם זֶרַע. כֵּיצַד? בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן, וְהָלַךְ הַבֵּן וְנִכְבַּשׁ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד. הָיְתָה אֵם אָבִיו בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

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

מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. כֵּיצַד? בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַּת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִישֵּׂאת לְעֶבֶד אוֹ לְגוֹי וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה מַמְזֵר. הָיְתָה אֵם אִמּוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

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

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל. כֵּיצַד? בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַּת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִיסֵּת לַכֹּהֵן, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאֲכִיל אֶת אִמּוֹ, וּפוֹסֵל אֵם אִמּוֹ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: לֹא כִּבְנִי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

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

גְּמָ׳ תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים, וּמֵתוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן — פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם.

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

כֵּיצַד? הָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל. כֵּיוָן דְּעִיבְּרָה לֹא תֹּאכַל? לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא עִיבְּרָה! מִי לָא תְּנַן: מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁמָּא מְעוּבָּרוֹת הֵן?

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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לְיוּחֲסִין חָשְׁשׁוּ, לִתְרוּמָה לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ. וְלִתְרוּמָה לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם לְמִיתָתִי״ — אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד!

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בְּנִישּׂוּאִין חָשְׁשׁוּ, בִּזְנוּת לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ.

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

וּבְנִישּׂוּאִין מִי חָשְׁשׁוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וָמֵת — טוֹבֶלֶת, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לְעָרֵב!

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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: טוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת עַד אַרְבָּעִים, דְּאִי לָא מִיעַבְּרָא — הָא לָא מִיעַבְּרָא, וְאִי מִיעַבְּרָא — עַד אַרְבָּעִים מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ — תְּהֵא מְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמַפְרֵעַ. מַאי מְקוּלְקֶלֶת — עַד אַרְבָּעִים.

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

אִיתְּמַר: הַבָּא עַל אֲרוּסָתוֹ בְּבֵית חָמִיו — רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא, אֲבָל לָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא — בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּקָתָנֵי: יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא, יָלְדָה אַמַּאי תֹּאכַל? אֶלָּא לָאו: מִינֵיהּ דָּיְימָא, וְלָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא.

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

וּמָה הָתָם, דִּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא וּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא — בָּתְרָא דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, הָכָא, דִּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא וּלְהַאי הֶיתֵּירָא — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּדָיְימָא מִינֵּיהּ אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא אָמַר רַב הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּאָמְרִינַן: מִדְּאַפְקַרָא נַפְשָׁהּ לְגַבֵּי אָרוּס — אַפְקַרָא נַפְשָׁהּ לְעָלְמָא, וּמַתְנִיתִין שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם חֲבוּשִׁים בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין.

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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּבָא עָלֶיהָ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ. וְהָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אֲרוּסָה שֶׁעִיבְּרָה, רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּלָא דָּיְימָא מִינֵּיהּ וְדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא,

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