Yevamot 112

ואנהרינהו לעיינין ממתניתין אשת ישראל שנאנסה אע"פ שמותרת לבעלה פסולה לכהונה ותנא תונא וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה או פסולות

who enlightened us on the subject<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and lit up our eyes'. ');">¹</span> from our Mishnah. 'An Israelite's wife who was outraged, though she is permitted to her husband, is disqualified from the priesthood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 35a. She may not marry a priest even after the death of her husband. ');">²</span> and so it was taught by our Tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah [H] = our Tanna (Rashi). [H] = and our Tanna also taught so. Others render [H] 'confirmation: [H] = and the Tanna is (or provides) confirmation (v. Jast.). [Or, [H] 'The Tanna teaches', v. Epstein, Schwarz-Festschrift pp. 319ff]. ');">³</span>

מאי וכן מאי לאו לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד ולא שנא באונס ולא שנא ברצון וקתני פסלה

SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, OR WITH ANY OF THOSE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO MARRY HIM; now, what is the purport of SIMILARLY? Does it not mean, WHETHER IN ERROR OR IN PRESUMPTION, WHETHER UNDER COMPULSION OR OF HIS OWN FREE WILL? And yet it was stated, HE HAS THEREBY RENDERED HER INELIGIBLE'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. Since a married woman is subject to the same restrictions as the 'forbidden relatives', she being included in the penalty of incestuous unions in Lev. XVIII (v. verse 20), it follows that whatever renders the forbidden relatives in our Mishnah ineligible to marry a priest renders a married woman also ineligible. As 'outrage' or 'intercourse under compulsion' is included, our Mishnah must be in agreement with the ruling of R. Shesheth. ');">⁴</span> — No; SIMILARLY might refer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');">⁵</span> to the FIRST STAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as in the previously mentioned cases so in the following, the first stage has the same force as consummation. The ineligibility of an outraged woman, therefore, does not at all come within the purview of our Mishnah. ');">⁶</span>

לא מאי וכן אהעראה העראה דמאן אילימא דעריות למימרא דעריות ילפי' מיבמה אדרבה יבמה ילפינן מעריות דעיקר העראה בעריות כתיב

'To the first stage' with whom? If it be suggested, 'With one of the forbidden relatives', does this then imply [it might be retorted] that the case of the forbidden relatives is derived from that of the sister-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law in the latter is made to apply by comparison also to the former. ');">⁷</span> On the contrary, the case of the sister-in-law was derived from the forbidden relatives, since the original prohibition of the first stage was written in connection with the forbidden relatives! — Rather, SIMILARLY refers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');">⁸</span> to Unnatural intercourse with forbidden relatives.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning being that as with the sister-in-law so with the other forbidden relatives kinyan is constituted IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE INTERCOURSE, even if it was unnatural. Cf. supra p. 378, n. 6 second clause. ');">⁹</span>

אלא מאי וכן אשלא כדרכה דעריות אדרבה עיקר משכבי אשה בעריות כתיב

On the contrary; the original prohibition of the various forms of intercourse with a woman was written in connection with the forbidden relatives!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the sister-in-law is derived from them; not theirs from hers. ');">¹⁰</span> — Rather, SIMILARLY refers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');">⁸</span> to unnatural intercourse with those [cohabitation with whom is] subject to the penalty of negative precepts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 378, n. 6 and supra n. 2 mutatis mutandis. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא מאי וכן אשלא כדרכה דחייבי לאוין

Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Raba'. ');">¹²</span> stated: If the wife of a priest had been outraged, her husband suffers the penalty of flogging on her account<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he has intercourse with her. ');">¹³</span> for [cohabiting with] a harlot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to a priest (v. Lev. XXI, 7) whether her adultery was committed willingly or under compulsion. It is in the case of an Israelite only that a distinction is made between a woman's voluntary and compulsory adultery. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבא אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום זונה משום זונה אין משום טומאה לא אימא אף משום זונה

Only for [cohabiting with] a harlot, but not for 'defilement'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If to an Israelite she is forbidden on account of her defilement when her act was voluntary (v. supra 11b), she should be forbidden to a priest on the same account even when her act was under compulsion! ');">¹⁵</span> — Read, 'Also for [cohabitation with] a harlot'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He suffers for both. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Zera raised an objection: And she be not seized,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. E.V., neither she be taken in the act. ');">¹⁷</span>

מתיב רבי זירא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאע"פ שנתפשה אסורה ואי זו זו אשת כהן

she is forbidden; if, however, she was seized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she acted under compulsion. ');">¹⁸</span> she is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband. ');">¹⁹</span> But there is another woman who is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband. ');">¹⁹</span>

ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

even though she was seized.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she acted under compulsion. ');">¹⁸</span> And who is that? The wife of a priest. Now, a negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest must not live with his outraged wife. ');">²⁰</span> that is derived from a positive one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Israelite only may live with such a wife. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רבה הכל היו בכלל זונה כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת מכלל דאשת כהן כדקיימא קיימא

has only the force of a positive precept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not punishable by flogging. How then could Rabbah subject the husband to such a penalty? ');">²²</span> — Rabbah replied: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Married women who played the harlot whether willingly or under compulsion. ');">²³</span> were included in the category of harlot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to her husband by a negative precept. ');">²⁴</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום טומאה משום טומאה אין משום זונה לא אלמא באונס לא קרינא ביה זונה

When, therefore, Scripture specified in the case of the wife of an Israelite that only if she be not seized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. E.V., neither she be taken in the act. ');">¹⁷</span> she is forbidden but if she was seized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she acted under compulsion. ');">¹⁸</span> she is permitted, it may be inferred that the wife of a priest retains her forbidden status.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her prohibition to the priest, even if she acted under compulsion, is consequently derived from the original negative precept, and not, as had been assumed, from the positive precept relating to an Israelite. ');">²⁵</span>

מתיב רבי זירא והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאף על פי שנתפשה אסורה ואיזו זו אשת כהן ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

Others say: Rabbah stated, If the wife of a priest had been outraged, her husband suffers for her the penalty of flogging<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he has intercourse with her. ');">²⁶</span> on account of 'defilement'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.supra p. 379, n. 8. ');">²⁷</span> Only on account of 'defilement' but not for [connubial relationship with] a harlot. Thus it is obvious that [when the woman acted] under compulsion she is not to be regarded as a harlot. R. Zera raised an objection: 'And she be not seized,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. E.V., neither she be taken in the act. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רבא הכל היו בכלל (דברים כד, ד) אחרי אשר הוטמאה כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת מכלל דאשת כהן כדקיימא קיימא:

she is forbidden; if, however, she was seized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she acted under compulsion. ');">²⁹</span> she is permitted. But there is another woman who is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband. ');">³⁰</span> even though she was seized.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she acted under compulsion. ');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט מן האירוסין לא יאכלו בתרומה רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון מכשירין

And who is that? The wife of a priest'. Now, a negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 379, n. 13 mutatis mutandis. ');">³¹</span> that is derived from a positive one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Israelite only may live with such a wife. ');">³²</span> has only the force of a positive precept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 379, n. 15. ');">³³</span>

נתארמלו או נתגרשו מן הנשואין פסולות מן האירוסין כשרות:

— Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd., 'Raba'. ');">³⁴</span> replied: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 379, n. 16. ');">³⁵</span> were included in [the prohibition to live with her] after that she is defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 4. ');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא אמר ר"מ ק"ו ומה קדושי רשות אין מאכילין קדושי עבירה לא כ"ש

When, therefore, Scripture specified in the case of the wife of an Israelite that only when she be not seized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13, E.V., neither she be taken in the act. ');">³⁷</span> she is forbidden, but if she was seized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she acted under compulsion. ');">³⁸</span> she is permitted, it may be inferred that the wife of a priest retains her forbidden status.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 1. ');">³⁹</span>

אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בקידושי רשות שכן אין לו להאכיל במקום אחר תאמר בקדושי עבירה שכן יש לו להאכיל במקום אחר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE BETROTHAL OF A WIDOW TO A HIGH PRIEST AND OF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <i>HALIZAH</i> TO A COMMON PRIEST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such betrothal is unlawful. ');">⁴⁰</span> DOES NOT CONFER UPON THEM THE RIGHT TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they were the daughters of Israelites. If they were the daughters of priests, their right to the eating of terumah which they enjoyed prior to their betrothal, ceases with the forbidden betrothal. (V. Rashi s.v. rjt iuak a.l.) According to Tosaf. (s.v. in a.l.) the Mishnah refers to the daughters of priests only. Cf. also [H] a.l. ');">⁴¹</span> R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, DECLARE THEM ELIGIBLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the period of betrothal, so long as actual marriage has not taken place. ');">⁴²</span>

א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא פצוע דכא כהן שקדש בת ישראל באנו למחלוקת ר"מ ורבי אלעזר ור"ש

IF THEY BECAME WIDOWS OR WERE DIVORCED AFTER MARRIAGE THEY REMAIN INELIGIBLE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, in the case of priests' daughters, marriage caused their permanent profanation, and in that of others the privilege had never been conferred upon them. ');">⁴³</span> IF AFTER BETROTHAL THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to the first Tanna. Priests' daughters lose the privilege only during the period of betrothal. As soon as the betrothal period ends either through death or divorce they may again eat terumah; and in the case of widowhood they may also marry a common priest. Daughters of Israelites are entitled to the same privileges except that of eating of terumah to which, of course, they had never been entitled. ');">⁴⁴</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: R. Meir said, [this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the betrothals spoken of in our Mishnah do not confer upon the daughter of an Israelite the privilege of eating terumah (v. Rashi, second explanation). ');">⁴⁵</span>

לר"מ דאמר משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא לא אכלה הא נמי לא אכלה לר' אלעזר ור' שמעון דאמרי משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא אכלה

may be arrived at by an inference] a minori ad majus: If permissible betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an Israelite betroths the daughter of an Israelite. ');">⁴⁶</span> does not confer the right of eating <i>terumah</i>, how much less forbidden betrothal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which our Mishnah speaks. [Var. lec.: 'If permissible betrothal renders her ineligible (a priest's daughter is not allowed to eat terumah after her betrothal to an Israelite), how much more forbidden betrothal'. This reading — a reading which it must be confessed appears more feasible — is adopted by Tosaf. in view of their interpretation (v. supra p. 380, n. 17) that the Mishnah refers only to daughters of priests]. ');">⁴⁷</span> They, however, replied: No; if you have said it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That betrothal does not confer the privilege of eating terumah. ');">⁴⁸</span> in respect of permissible betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When an Israelite betroths the daughter of an Israelite. ');">⁴⁶</span> where the man may never confer the right of eating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Israelite is neither himself entitled to the eating of terumah nor can he confer the right upon others. ');">⁴⁹</span> would you also say it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That betrothal does not confer the privilege of eating terumah. ');">⁴⁸</span> in respect of sinful betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which our Mishnah speaks. [Var. lec.: 'If permissible betrothal renders her ineligible (a priest's daughter is not allowed to eat terumah after her betrothal to an Israelite), how much more forbidden betrothal'. This reading — a reading which it must be confessed appears more feasible — is adopted by Tosaf. in view of their interpretation (v. supra p. 380, n. 17) that the Mishnah refers only to daughters of priests]. ');">⁴⁷</span> where the [priest], in other circumstances,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he married a woman permitted to him. ');">⁵⁰</span> is entitled to confer the right of eating?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. Hence the ruling in our Mishnah that the betrothals confer the privilege. ');">⁵¹</span> R. Eleazar stated in the name of R. Oshaia: In the case where a priest who was wounded in the stones<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One so incapacitated is not permitted to marry even the daughter of an Israelite, v. Deut. XXIII, 2. ');">⁵²</span> betrothed a daughter of an Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec.: 'a daughter of a priest'. A reading adopted by Tosaf. on their interpretation (cf. n. 6)]. ');">⁵³</span> we have a difference of opinion between R. Meir and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. According to R. Meir who holds that a woman awaiting a pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she was betrothed to a man whom she is forbidden to marry. ');">⁵⁴</span> may not eat <i>terumah</i>, this woman also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married the incapacitated priest. ');">⁵⁵</span> may not eat; but according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon who maintain that a woman awaiting a pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she was betrothed to a man whom she is forbidden to marry. ');">⁵⁴</span> may eat