Yevamot 120

והא אמר רבי שמעון ראויה לכהן גדול מטמא לה שאין ראויה לכהן גדול אין מטמא לה שאני התם דרבי רחמנא קרובה

but, surely, R. Simeon said, 'He may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest, but may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One divorced is not fit for a High Priest! ');">¹</span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Defilement by a common priest. ');">²</span> it is different, because the All Merciful has included her [by the expression] near.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','[H] sing. ');">³</span>

א"ה מוכת עץ נמי [רבי] קרובה אחת ולא שתים ומה ראית הא אתעביד בה מעשה הא לא אתעביד בה מעשה

If so, the 'wounded' also should be included! — Near<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','[H] sing. ');">³</span> implies one and not two. And what [reason for this]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude the one and include the other. ');">⁴</span> do you see? — To the body of the one something had been done while to that of the other nothing had been done.

ורבי יוסי מדשבקיה לבר זוגיה מכלל דבמוכת עץ כרבי מאיר סבירא ליה מנא ליה מלא היתה לאיש

As to R. Jose, since his colleague<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon who, in respect of the betrothed, expressed the same opinion as R. Jose (supra 60a). ');">⁵</span> had left him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd., 'since he left his colleague'. R. Simeon only is mentioned in the case of the wounded. ');">⁶</span> it may be inferred that in respect of the 'wounded', he himself is of the same opinion as R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the priest may defile himself for her. ');">⁷</span>

והא אפיקתיה חד מלא היתה וחד מלאיש

Whence, however, does he derive it? — From That hath had no man. But deduction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exclusion of the betrothed. ');">⁸</span> surely, had already been made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Jose. ');">⁹</span> from this text! — One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exclusion of the betrothed. ');">⁸</span>

אליו לרבות הבוגרת והא אמר ר' שמעון בתולה בתולה שלימה משמע טעמא דידיה נמי התם מהכא דדריש הכי מדאליו לרבות הבוגרת מכלל דבתולה בתולה שלימה משמע

is deduced from That hath had no and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permission to marry the wounded. ');">¹⁰</span> from man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only when her condition was due to the action of a man is she forbidden. ');">¹¹</span> &nbsp; &nbsp; '"<i>Unto him</i>", includes one who is adolescent'. But surely R. Simeon stated that '<i>virgin</i>' implied a perfect virgin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 59a. One who is adolescent is no more a perfect virgin. ');">¹²</span>

תניא ר' שמעון בן יוחי אומר גיורת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד כשירה לכהונה שנאמר (במדבר לא, יח) וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם והרי פנחס עמהם

— His reason there is also derived from here, because he makes the following exposition: since [the Scriptural text], '<i>unto him</i>', was required to include one who is adolescent, it is to be inferred that '<i>virgin</i>' implies a perfect virgin. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: <font>A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is not regarded as a harlot. ');">¹³</span> for it is said, <i>But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 18. ');">¹⁴</span>

ורבנן לעבדים ולשפחות אי הכי בת שלש שנים ויום אחד נמי

and Phinehas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a priest. ');">¹⁵</span> surely was with them. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte? ');">¹⁶</span> — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not for matrimony. ');">¹⁷</span>

כדרב הונא דרב הונא רמי כתיב (במדבר לא, יז) כל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר הרוגו הא אינה יודעת קיימו מכלל דהטף בין ידעו בין לא ידעו קיימו וכתיב (במדבר לא, יח) וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם הא ידעי הרוגו

If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony. ');">¹⁸</span> <font>a proselyte whose age is three years and one day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as she has 'not known man'. ');">¹⁹</span></font> should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, <i>Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 17. ');">²⁰</span>

הוי אומר בראויה ליבעל הכתוב מדבר

but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, <i>But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 18. ');">¹⁴</span> but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reconcile the contradiction. ');">²¹</span> it must be said that Scripture speaks of <font>one who is fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day. ');">²²</span></font>

תניא נמי הכי וכל אשה יודעת איש בראויה ליבעל הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בראויה ליבעל או אינו אלא נבעלה ממש כשהוא אומר וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר הוי אומר בראויה ליבעל הכתוב מדבר

for cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not one who had actually experienced it. ');">²³</span> It was also taught likewise: <i>And every woman that hath known man</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 17. ');">²⁰</span> Scripture speaks of one who is fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not one who had actually experienced it. ');">²³</span>

מנא ידעי אמר רב הונא בר ביזנא אמר ר' שמעון חסידא העבירום לפני הציץ כל שפניה מוריקות בידוע שהיא ראויה ליבעל כל שאין פניה מוריקות בידוע שאינה ראויה ליבעל אמר רב נחמן סימן לעבירה הדרוקן

for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, <i>But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that any grown-up woman is not to be spared, even if she hath not known man. ');">²⁴</span> it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not one who had actually experienced it. ');">²³</span> &nbsp; &nbsp; Whence did they know?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which of the Midianite women, referred to in the texts quoted, was, or was not fit for cohabitation. ');">²⁵</span>

כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (שופטים כא, יב) וימצאו מיושבי יבש גלעד ארבע מאות נערה בתולה אשר לא ידעו איש למשכב זכר מנא ידעי אמר רב כהנא הושיבום על פי חבית של יין בעולה ריחה נודף בתולה אין ריחה נודף

— R. Hana<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. [edd.], 'Huna'. ');">²⁶</span> b. Bizna replied in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: They were made to pass before the frontplate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] the gold plate which was worn by the High Priest on his forehead. V, Ex. XXVIII, 36ff. ');">²⁷</span> <font>If the face of anyone turned pale</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(sickly) green'. ');">²⁸</span>

ונעברינהו לפני הציץ אמר רב כהנא בריה דרב נתן (שמות כח, לח) לרצון להם כתיב לרצון ולא לפורענות אי הכי במדין נמי אמר רב אשי להם כתיב להם לרצון ולא לפורענות ולעובדי כוכבים אפילו לפורענות

it was known that she was <font>fit for cohabitation; if it did not turn pale<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(sickly) green'. ');">²⁸</span></font> it was known that she was unfit for cohabitation.</font> R. Nahman said: Dropsy is a manifestation of lewdness.

אמר רבי יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרבי שמעון בן יוחאי אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי יעקב בר אידי בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך

Similarly, it is said, <i>And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead <font>four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him</font></i><font>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XXI, 12. ');">²⁹</span></font> whence did they know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 1 mutatis mutandis. ');">³⁰</span> R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was done in the case of the Midianites (v. supra). ');">³¹</span>

מאי כללא דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי עיר אחת היתה בארץ ישראל שקרא עליה ערער ושגר רבי את רבי רומנוס ובדקה ומצא בה בת גיורת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד והכשירה רבי לכהונה אמר ליה בפירוש שמיע לי

— R. Kahana son of R. Nathan replied: It is written, <i>for acceptance</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVIII, 38, referring to the front-plate. ');">³²</span> for acceptance but not for punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was the test there performed before the plate? ');">³³</span> R. Ashi replied: It is written, '<i>unto them</i>', implying <i>unto them</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Israelites, as were the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. ');">³⁴</span>

ואי מכללא מאי דלמא שאני התם הואיל ואנסיב אנסיב דהא רב ורבי יוחנן דאמרי תרוייהו בוגרת ומוכת עץ לא ישא ואם נשא נשוי

for acceptance but not for punishment; unto idolaters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As were the Midianites. ');">³⁵</span> however, even for punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the front-plate. ');">³⁶</span> R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest. ');">³⁷</span>

הכי השתא בשלמא התם סופה להיות בוגרת תחתיו סופה להיות בעולה תחתיו הכא סופה להיות זונה תחתיו

Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest. ');">³⁷</span> explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted <font>an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And was married to a priest. ');">³⁸</span></font> and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband. ');">³⁹</span>

רב ספרא מתני לה מכללא וקשיא ליה ומשני ליה הכי

The other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jacob b. Idi. ');">⁴⁰</span> replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To R. Zera. ');">⁴¹</span> I heard it explicitly. And what [matters it] if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 403. n. 13. ');">⁴²</span>

ההוא כהנא דאנסיב גיורת פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד אמר ליה ר"נ בר יצחק מאי האי אמר ליה דאמר רבי יעקב בר אידי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי הלכה כר"ש בן יוחאי אמר ליה זיל אפיק ואי לא מפיקנא לך ר' יעקב בר אידי מאונך

was learned by deduction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the incident in the Palestinian city. Why then was R. Zera anxious to ascertain the manner whereby the ruling was obtained? ');">⁴³</span> — It is possible that there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incident in Palestine. ');">⁴⁴</span> it was different; since the marriage had already taken place he sanctioned it; for, indeed, both Rab and R. Johanan stated: A priest may not marry one who is adolescent or 'wounded', but if already married, he may continue to live with her. How now! There it is quite correct [to sanction the marriage since in any case] she would ultimately become adolescent while she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she were now virgo intacta. ');">⁴⁵</span>

תניא וכן היה ר"ש בן יוחאי אומר

will be with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The union is consequently allowed to remain. ');">⁴⁶</span> and she would also ultimately become a be'ulah while with him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The union is consequently allowed to remain. ');">⁴⁶</span> but here, would she ultimately become a harlot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the prohibition under which a priest may not marry the proselyte mentioned. ');">⁴⁷</span> while with him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. Hence, it may well be concluded that were she not allowed to marry a priest, the union would have had to be dissolved even after marriage had taken place. ');">⁴⁸</span> R. Safra taught [that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jacob b. Idi. ');">⁴⁰</span> arrived at it]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 403. n. 13. ');">⁴²</span> by deduction, and, having raised the difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned supra. that an ex post facto may be different. ');">⁴⁹</span> answered it in the same way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it not been permitted originally the marriage would have had to be annulled even ex post facto. ');">⁵⁰</span> A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on what authority did you contract the marriage. ');">⁵¹</span> — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 403. n. 13. ');">⁵²</span> 'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi. ');">⁵³</span> It was taught: And so did R. Simeon b. Yohai state