Yevamot 119

שאין משלם קנס במפותה

that he pays no fine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prescribed in Ex. XXII, 16. ');">¹</span> in the case of a seduced woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage exempts him from the fine (v. ibid. 15-16). ');">²</span> R. Gebiha of Be Kathil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [On the Tigris N. of Bagdad, v. Obermeyer, pp. 143 ff]. ');">³</span> came and repeated the reported ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of R. Huna in the name of Rab, supra 59b ad fin. ');">⁴</span>

אזל רב גביהה מבי כתיל אמרה לשמעתא קמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה והא רב ור' יוחנן דאמרי תרוייהו בוגרת ומוכת עץ לא ישא ואם נשא נשוי

in the presence of R. Ashi, whereupon the other said to him: Surely both Rab and R. Johanan stated '[a High Priest] must not marry a woman who is adolescent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bogereth, v. Glos. ');">⁵</span> or "wounded",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah. ');">⁶</span> but if he married her, the marriage is valid', which clearly proves [that he may continue to live with the woman because in any case] she would ultimately have become adolescent and would ultimately have been 'wounded' by living with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'under'. ');">⁷</span> him; here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf.supra note 8. ');">⁸</span>

אלמא סופה להיות בוגרת תחתיו סופה להיות מוכת עץ תחתיו הכא נמי סופה להיות בעולה תחתיו קשיא:

[she should be permitted to live with him because] ultimately she would have become a be'ulah by living with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'under'. ');">⁷</span> him! — This is a difficulty. 'He shall not marry a woman whom another man has outraged or seduced. If he did marry her, the child, said R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Eleazar' is apparently a misprint. ');">⁹</span> b.Jacob, is profaned; but the Sages said: The child is fit'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 59b. ');">¹⁰</span>

אנוסת חבירו ומפותת חבירו לא ישא ואם נשא ר' אלעזר בן יעקב אומר הולד חלל וחכמים אומרים הולד כשר: אמר רב הונא אמר רב הלכה כר' אליעזר בן יעקב וכן אמר רב גידל אמר רב הלכה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב

Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; and so said R. Giddal in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Others say: R. Huna stated in the name of Rab. What is R. Eliezer b. Jacob's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For declaring the child to be a halal. ');">¹¹</span> — He is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated, infra 61b, that intercourse for a non-matrimonial purpose between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman renders the latter a harlot, cohabitation with whom is forbidden by a negative commandment, and any issue therefrom is deemed to be a halal. ');">¹²</span> But is the former of the same opinion as the latter? Surely we have an established tradition that 'the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity, but select',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 49b, q.v. for notes. ');">¹³</span> while in this case R. Amram<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH. Cur. edd. add, 'in the name of Rab'. ');">¹⁴</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא אמר רב מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב סבר לה כרבי אלעזר

stated that the <i>halachah</i> is not in accordance with R. Eleazar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 61b. ');">¹⁵</span> — This is a difficulty. R. Ashi explained: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer b. Jacob (who in fact is in disagreement with R. Eleazar), and the Rabbis. ');">¹⁶</span> differ [on the question whether the offspring] of a union forbidden by a positive commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as that between a High Priest and a be'ulah which is forbidden owing to the positive commandment that he must marry a virgin. ');">¹⁷</span>

ומי סבר לה כותיה והא קיימא לן משנת ר' אליעזר בן יעקב קב ונקי ואילו בהא אמר רב עמרם אמר רב אין הלכה כרבי אלעזר קשיא

is deemed to be a halal. R. Eliezer b. Jacob is of the opinion [that the offspring] of a union forbidden by a positive commandment is deemed to be a halal while the Rabbis are of the opinion that the offspring of a union forbidden by a positive commandment is no halal. What is R. Eliezer b. Jacob's reason? — Because it is written, A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take,' but a virgin etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">¹⁸</span> and this is followed by the Scriptural injunction, And he shall not profane<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., cause the child to be a halal. ');">¹⁹</span> his seed among his people,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 15. ');">²⁰</span> which refers to all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were previously enumerated, including the prohibition to marry a be'ulah, which is derived from the positive commandment a virgin … shall he take to wife'. ');">²¹</span>

רב אשי אמר ביש חלל מחייבי עשה קמיפלגי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב סבר יש חלל מחייבי עשה ורבנן סברי אין חלל מחייבי עשה

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, in view of this Scriptural proof do they not regard such offspring as a halal? ');">²²</span> — [By the expression] these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">¹⁸</span> the context is broken up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus separating those subject to the penalty of a negative commandment from those who are subject to the penalty of a positive commandment. The reference to profanation (halal) applies only to the former. ');">²³</span> But R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintains that the expression, these,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">¹⁸</span>

מ"ט דראב"י דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יד) אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה את אלה לא יקח כי אם בתולה וגו' וכתיב ולא יחלל זרעו בעמיו אכולהו

serves the purpose of excluding the menstruant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest cohabited with his wife while she was in such a condition, the child is not to be regarded as a halal. ');">²⁴</span> Whose view is represented in the following statement wherein it was taught: [Only the offspring] of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those enumerated in Lev. XXI, 14. ');">²⁵</span> is to be regarded a halal but no offspring of a menstruant is to be deemed a halal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">²⁶</span> — Whose view? That of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. But on the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, the expression these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14. ');">²⁶</span>

ורבנן אלה הפסיק הענין ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אמר אלה למעוטי נדה

should have been written at the end!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Lev, XXI, 14, since in his opinion it was not meant to break up the text. Cf. supra p. 399, n. 13. ');">²⁷</span> — This is a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Ashi who explained the dispute to be dependent on the interpretation of Lev. XXI. 14, 15. ');">²⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: For a betrothed sister,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who died, ');">²⁹</span> R. Meir and R. Judah said, [a common priest]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to defile himself for his married sister. V. Lev. XXI, 3, ');">³⁰</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא מאלה אתה עושה חלל ואי אתה עושה חלל מנדה כמאן כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב נכתביה לאלה לבסוף קשיא

may defile himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given infra. ');">³¹</span> R. Jose and R. Simeon said: He may not defile himself for her. For [a sister who was] outraged or seduced, all agree that he may not defile himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given infra. ');">³¹</span> As to one 'wounded',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah, ');">³²</span> R. Simeon says he may not defile himself for her; for R. Simeon maintains that he may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a virgin. ');">³³</span>

תנו רבנן אחותו ארוסה רבי מאיר ור' יהודה אומרים מטמא לה רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים אין מטמא לה אנוסה ומפותה ד"ה אין מטמא לה ומוכת עץ אין מטמא לה דברי ר' שמעון שהיה ר' שמעון אומר ראויה לכ"ג מטמא לה שאין ראויה לכ"ג אין מטמא לה

but he may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since virgin was mentioned in both cases (v. Lev. XXI, 3 and 14). As the 'wounded' is not permitted to a High Priest she is obviously not deemed to be a virgin. Hence she can no longer be regarded as a virgin in the matter of a priest's defilement either. ');">³⁴</span> For one who is adolescent, all agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Meir who forbids a High Priest to marry her. ');">³⁵</span> that he may defile himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given infra. ');">³⁶</span> What is R. Meir's and R. Judah's reason? — They make the following exposition: And for his sister a virgin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">³⁷</span>

ובוגרת מטמא לה דברי כל אדם

excludes one who had been outraged or seduced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cannot be regarded as a virgin. ');">³⁸</span> It might be assumed that one who was 'wounded' is also to be excluded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the term of virgin. Since she also has lost her virginity. ');">³⁹</span> Hence it was specifically stated, That hath had no husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">³⁷</span> only she whose condition is due to a man [is excluded]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the term of virgin. Since she also has lost her virginity. ');">³⁹</span>

מאי טעמא דר"מ ור' יהודה דדרשי הכי (ויקרא כא, ג) ולאחותו הבתולה פרט לאנוסה ומפותה

but not one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this went out'. ');">⁴⁰</span> whose condition is not due to a man. That is near,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">³⁷</span> includes a betrothed [sister]; <i>unto him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">³⁷</span> includes a sister who is adolescent.

יכול שאני מוציא אף מוכת עץ ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ג) אשר לא היתה לאיש מי שהוייתה על ידי איש יצאה זו שאין הוייתה על ידי איש הקרובה לרבות הארוסה אליו לרבות הבוגרת

What need was there for a Scriptural text in this case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To include one who is adolescent. ');">⁴¹</span> Surely R. Meir stated, 'virgin implies even [one who retains] some of her virginity'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 59a and notes. Since virgin includes one who is adolescent, what need was there again for the text of 'unto him' to include her? ');">⁴²</span> — It was required, because it might have been assumed that the expression of virgin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">⁴³</span> shall be deduced from virgin elsewhere;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut, XXII, 28, dealing with a case of outrage. ');">⁴⁴</span>

הא למה לי קרא והאמר רבי מאיר בתולה אפילו מקצת בתולה משמע איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא נילף בתולה בתולה מהתם מה להלן נערה אף כאן נמי נערה קא משמע לן

as there it refers to a na'arah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] one of the age of twelve to twelve and a half years. ');">⁴⁵</span> only, so here also it refers to a na'arah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] one of the age of twelve to twelve and a half years. ');">⁴⁵</span> only, hence we were taught [that the case here is different]. And what are the reasons of R. Jose and R. Simeon? — They make the following exposition: And for his sister a virgin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">⁴³</span> excludes one who has been outraged, seduced or wounded;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון מאי טעמייהו דרשי הכי ולאחותו הבתולה פרט לאנוסה ומפותה ומוכת עץ אשר לא היתה פרט לארוסה הקרובה לרבות ארוסה שנתגרשה אליו לרבות את הבוגרת הקרובה לרבות ארוסה שנתגרשה

that hath had no,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">⁴³</span> excludes one who is betrothed; that is near,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">⁴³</span> includes a betrothed who had been divorced; <i>unto him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 3. ');">⁴³</span> includes one who is adolescent. 'That is near, includes a betrothed who had been divorced';