Yevamot 111

מכאן ואילך אינו אלא נשיקה ופטור עליה ופליג אדשמואל:

Beyond this, the act is no more than superficial contact and one is exonerated in regard to it'. He thus differs from Samuel. WHETHER HE PASSED ONLY THE FIRST, OR ALSO THE FINAL STAGE OF CONTACT HE CONSTITUTES THEREBY A <i>KINYAN</i>. In what respect is <i>kinyan</i> constituted? — Rab replied: <i>Kinyan</i> is constituted in all respects;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The yebamah may even eat of terumah if the levir was a priest. ');">¹</span> and Samuel replied: <i>Kinyan</i> is constituted only in respect of the things specified in the section,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5ff, which deals with the obligations and privileges of the levir and the yebamah. ');">²</span>

אחד המערה ואחד הגומר קנה: מאי קנה רב אמר קנה לכל ושמואל אמר לא קנה אלא לדברים האמורים בפרשה לירש בנכסי אחיו ולפוטרה מן הייבום

viz., to inherit the estate of his brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inferred from v. 6 in the section. ');">³</span> and to exempt her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he died without issue from her but had children from another wife, or if he divorced her. ');">⁴</span> from the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first stage having the same validity as actual marriage. ');">⁵</span>

מן הנשואין לד"ה אכלה דהא הות קאכלה מעיקרא כי פליגי מן האירוסין רב אמר אוכלת דהא רבי רחמנא ביאת שוגג כמזיד

If [she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law upon whom one of the forms of kinyan, including cohabitation in error, spoken of in our Mishnah had been executed. ');">⁶</span> became subject to the levir] after her marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With her husband, the levir's deceased brother. ');">⁷</span> she may, according to the view of all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. ');">⁸</span>

ושמואל אמר כי רבי רחמנא לאוקמיה במקום בעל לאלומי מבעל לא

eat [<i>terumah</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the levir was a priest. ');">⁹</span> since she has been eating it before.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While she was still with her husband. ');">¹⁰</span> They differ only [where she became subject to the levir] after betrothal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With her husband, the levir's deceased brother. ');">⁷</span>

ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל כל שהבעל מאכיל יבם מאכיל וכל שאין הבעל מאכיל יבם אינו מאכיל

Rab maintains that she may eat, since the All Merciful has included cohabitation in error, [giving it the same validity] as when done presumptuously. But Samuel maintains that the All Merciful has included it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cohabitation in error. ');">¹¹</span> in so far only as to put him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">¹²</span> in the same position as the husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is entitled to confer upon his sister-in-law the same rights that had been conferred upon her by her husband. Hence, if she was married and entitled to eat terumah the levir also may confer upon her this privilege. ');">¹³</span>

מיתיבי בת ישראל פקחת שנתארסה לכהן פקח ולא הספיק לכונסה עד שנתחרש אינה אוכלת מת ונפלה לפני יבם חרש אוכלת ובזו יפה כח היבם מכח הבעל

but not to confer upon him more power than upon the husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As her husband's priesthood did not entitle her to eat terumah during the period of their betrothal, since only actual marriage can confer this privilege, the levir also cannot now confer this privilege upon her. ');">¹⁴</span> And [in giving this ruling] Samuel is consistent with his own view, for R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: wherever the husband entitles her to eat, the levir also entitles her to eat; and wherever the husband does not entitle her to eat the levir also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the kinyan was in one of the imperfect forms spoken of in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁵</span> does not entitle her to eat.

בשלמא לרב ניחא אלא לשמואל קשיא

An objection was raised: 'If the daughter of an Israelite, capable of bearing, was betrothed to a priest capable of hearing, who became deaf before he had time to marry her, she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after their marriage. The reason will be explained infra. ');">¹⁶</span> If he died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the marriage. ');">¹⁷</span> and she became subject to a deaf levir, she may eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the levirate marriage. The cohabitation of a deaf levir is considered to be no less valid to constitute a kinyan than the imperfect forms of kinyan mentioned in our Mishnah which constitute kinyan in the case of any levir. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר לך שמואל אימא הכי ולא הספיק לכונסה עד שנתחרש אינה אוכלת בתרומה כנס ואח"כ נתחרש אוכלת מת ונפלה לפני יבם חרש אוכלת

and in this respect the power of the levir is superior to that of the husband'. Now, according to Rab, this statement is perfectly satisfactory.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he regards an imperfect cohabitation which in ordinary cases constitutes no kinyan as valid in the case of the levir. ');">¹⁹</span> According to Samuel, however, a difficulty arises!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to him, imperfect cohabitation confers no more rights through the levir than through the husband; and here it is stated that the levir entitles her to eat terumah though her husband could not confer this privilege upon her! ');">²⁰</span> Samuel can answer you: Read thus&nbsp;… who became deaf before he had time to marry her, she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>]; if, however, he married her and then became deaf she may eat it; if he died and she became subject to a deaf levir, she may eat it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she was entitled to the same privilege during the lifetime of her husband, ');">²¹</span>

ומאי בזו דאילו בעל חרש מעיקרא לא אוכלת ואילו יבם חרש מעיקרא אכלה

'Then what is meant by 'in this respect'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is only entitled to the privilege she enjoyed during the lifetime of her husband, in what respect is 'the power of the levir superior to that of the husband'? ');">²²</span> — While if the husband had been deaf before,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He married her. ');">²³</span> she would not have been entitled to eat, if the levir had been deaf before<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He married her. ');">²³</span>

ואיכא דאמרי מן האירוסין ד"ה לא אכלה דהא לא אכלה בחיי בעל

she may eat. Others say: If [she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 374, n. 6. ');">²⁴</span> became subject to the levir] after her betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 7. ');">²⁵</span>

כי פליגי מן הנשואין רב אמר אוכלת דהא הות אכלה מעיקרא ושמואל אמר אינה אוכלת כי רבי רחמנא ביאת שוגג כמזיד לדברים האמורים בפרשה אבל לכל מילי לא

all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 8. ');">²⁶</span> agree that she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>], since 'she was not allowed to eat it during the lifetime of her husband. They differ only [when she became subject to the levir] after her marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 7. ');">²⁵</span> Rab maintains that she may eat, since she has been eating before; but Samuel maintains that she may not eat, because the All Merciful has included cohabitation in error, [giving it the same force] as cohabitation in presumption, only in respect of the things that were enumerated in the section,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 2. ');">²⁷</span>

והאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל כל שהבעל מאכיל יבם מאכיל אימא כל ביאה שהבעל מאכיל בה יבם מאכיל בה וכל ביאה שאין הבעל מאכיל בה אין היבם מאכיל בה

but not in all other respects. But surely R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel, 'Wherever the husband entitles her to eat the levir also entitles her to eat'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could Samuel maintain that 'she may not eat' even though she had enjoyed that privilege while her husband was alive? ');">²⁸</span> — Read: Every cohabitation whereby a husband entitles her to eat also entitles her to eat if performed by the levir, and every cohab itation whereby the husband does not entitle her to eat, does not entitle her to eat if performed by the levir. An objection was raised: 'If the daughter of an Israelite capable of hearing was betrothed to a priest capable of hearing, who became deaf before he had time to marry her, she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 374, n. 16. ');">²⁹</span>

מיתיבי בת ישראל פקחת שנתארסה לכהן פקח ולא הספיק לכונסה עד שנתחרש אינה אוכלת מת ונפלה לפני יבם חרש אוכלת ובזו יפה כח יבם מכח בעל בשלמא לרב מתרץ כדתריץ מעיקרא אלא לשמואל קשיא קשיא:

If he died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit., n. 17. ');">³⁰</span> and she became subject to a deaf levir she may eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 375, n. 1. ');">³¹</span> and in this respect the power of the levir is superior to that of the husband'. Now, according to Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he maintains (according to the second version) that the levir does not confer any privileges that were not previously conferred by the husband. ');">³²</span>

ת"ר בת ישראל פקחת שנתארסה לכהן פקח ולא הספיק לכונסה עד שנתחרש אינה אוכלת נולד לה בן אוכלת מת הבן רבי נתן אומר אוכלת וחכמים אומרים אינה אוכלת

this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement just cited that she may eat terumah if the levir is deaf though she was not permitted to eat it while her husband was alive. ');">³³</span> might well be explained as was explained above;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the explanation given supra, in reply to the objection raised against Samuel, may now be given as a reply to the objection against Rab, viz., that the clause, 'If however, he married her and then became deaf she may eat it', is to be inserted before 'If he died and she became subject to a deaf levir, she may eat', the last clause thus referring to a married woman that was permitted to eat terumah during the lifetime of her husband. ');">³⁴</span> according to Samuel, however, a difficulty arises!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, in his opinion (according to the second version), the deaf levir (whose kinyan has the same validity as that effected through the imperfect forms mentioned in our Mishnah) does not confer the privilege of eating terumah even if the woman had enjoyed the privilege while her husband was alive. ');">³⁵</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי נתן אמר רבה הואיל שכבר אכלה א"ל אביי אלא מעתה בת ישראל שניסת לכהן ומית ליה תיכול שכבר אכלה אלא כיון דמית ליה פקע ליה קדושתיה מינה הכא נמי כיון דמית ליה פקע קדושתיה מינה

— This is indeed a difficulty. Our Rabbis taught: If the daughter of an Israelite capable of hearing was betrothed to a priest capable of hearing, who became deaf before he had time to marry her, she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 374. n. 16. ');">³⁶</span> If a son was born to her she may eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terumah; by virtue of her son, as deduced from Lev. XXII, 11, infra 67a. ');">³⁷</span>

אלא אמר רב יוסף קסבר ר' נתן נשואי חרש מאכילין בתרומה ולא גזרינן נשואי חרש אטו קדושי חרש א"ל אביי אי הכי נולד לה בן למה לי משום רבנן

If the son died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But was survived by his father. ');">³⁸</span> R. Nathan said, she may eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By virtue of her husband. ');">³⁹</span> but the Sages said: She may not eat. What is R. Nathan's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why may she eat now by virtue of her husband while in the previous case, where she never had a son, her husband could not confer that privilege upon her? ');">⁴⁰</span>

וליפלוג רבי נתן עלייהו ברישא שביק להו לרבנן עד דמסיימי מילתייהו והדר פליג עלייהו אי הכי ליתני מת הבן אינה אוכלת רבי נתן אומר אוכלת קשיא:

Rabbah replied: Because she was eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 9. ');">⁴¹</span> before. Said Abaye to him: What now? would the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who subsequently died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being survived by any son. ');">⁴²</span> be entitled to eat [<i>terumah</i>] because she was eating it before? But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law is that she may not. ');">⁴³</span>

וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות: אמר רב עמרם הא מלתא אמר לן רב ששת

[the fact is that] as soon as [her husband] died his sanctity is withdrawn from her; so here also as soon as [the son] died his sanctity is withdrawn from her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could R. Nathan allow her to continue to eat terumah? ');">⁴⁴</span> — Rather, said R. Joseph, R. Nathan holds that marriage with a deaf [priest]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the betrothal took place while he was still capable of hearing. ');">⁴⁵</span> does entitle the woman to eat <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Pentateuchally the betrothal confers the privilege upon her. Its postponement until after the marriage is merely a preventive measure Rabbinically instituted (v. Keth. 57b). which is, of course, not applicable here where marriage with the deaf man had already taken place. ');">⁴⁶</span> and that no prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the woman's eating of terumah. ');">⁴⁷</span> is to be made in respect of the marriage of a deaf priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">⁴⁸</span> as a preventive measure against the betrothal of a deaf priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no need to provide against the possibility of mistaking betrothal for marriage and for thus allowing a woman to eat terumah immediately after betrothal, since it is well known that the betrothal of a deaf man has no validity. The Rabbis who forbid the woman to eat terumah even after the marriage, it may be explained, provided against the possibility of mistaking such a marriage which followed a betrothal that took place while the priest was still capable of hearing (which Pentateuchally entitles the woman to the privilege) for one which followed a betrothal that took place when he was already deaf and which is Pentateuchally invalid. ');">⁴⁹</span> Said Abaye to him: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If according to R. Nathan it is the marriage, even though there was no son, that entitles the woman to the terumah. ');">⁵⁰</span> what need was there [to state] 'If a son was born to her'? — Because of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in such a case only agree with R. Nathan that the woman may eat terumah. ');">⁵¹</span> Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he maintains that after the marriage, though there was no son, the woman is entitled to the privilege. ');">⁵²</span> R. Nathan should have expressed his disagreement with the Rabbis in the first clause!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the woman is prohibited to eat terumah even after the marriage. ');">⁵³</span> — He allowed the Rabbis to finish their statement and then expressed his disagreement with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With their views in both the first and the final clause. ');">⁵⁴</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Nathan reserved his opinion until the Rabbis had finished their full statement. ');">⁵⁵</span> the statement should have read, 'If the son died she may not eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have concluded the statement of the Rabbis. ');">⁵⁶</span> R. Nathan said: She may eat'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Nathan's view would thus have come at the very end. As, however, his opinion is inserted before 'she may not eat' which is the statement of the Rabbis, it cannot he maintained any more that he was waiting until they had concluded their full statement, and the original difficulty consequently arises again. ');">⁵⁷</span> — This is a difficulty. SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES. R. Amram said: The following statement was made to us by R. Shesheth