Yevamot 136

Chapter 136

א ההוא מיבעי ליה לגופיה תרי וכל זר כתיבי

1 But that text is required for its own purpose!1 The expression, 'There shall no strange man', is written twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once in Lev. XXII, 10, which refers to any non-priest; and a second time, ibid. 13. which speaks of the daughter of a priest who returns to her father's house, and concludes with the expression, There shall no strange etc. referring to the priest's daughter who is married to such a man. ');">2 But still is not this3 required for the exposition of R. Jose b. Hanina? For R. Jose b. Hanina stated: There shall no strange man3

ב ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא וכל זר זרות אמרתי לך ולא אנינות דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מן זר וכל זר נפקא

2 implies, 'I have imposed upon you a prohibition concerning non-priests only but not concerning onan'!4 — R. Jose b. Hanina's exposition may be deduced from the Scriptural use of the longer expression 'And there shall no strange man' instead of 'strange man'.5 But still is not this,6 required for the following which was taught:7

ג ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא כשהיא חוזרת חוזרת לתרומה ואינה חוזרת לחזה ושוק ואמר רב חסדא אמר רבינא בר רב שילא מאי קרא דכתיב (ויקרא כב, יב) ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל לא תאכל במורם מן הקדשים

3 When she8 returns,9 she returns only to [the privilege of eating] terumah, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and shoulder.10 And11

ד א"כ לכתוב קרא היא בקדשים לא תאכל מאי בתרומת הקדשים שמעת מינה תרתי

4 R. Hisda stated in the name of Rabina b. R. Shila, 'What Scriptural text proves this? It is written, but if a priest's daughter be married unto a strange man, she shall not eat of the terumah of the holy things,12 she must not eat of that which is set apart13 from the holy things'!14 — If so,15

ה אשכחן כהנת לויה וישראלית מנלן כדא"ר אבא אמר רב בת ובת הכא נמי בת ובת

5 Scripture should have written. She shall not eat of the holy things'. why [then the longer expression], of the terumah of the holy things? Two deductions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That (a) a disqualified person disqualifies a priest's daughter with whom he cohabited (supra 68a), and (b) that when a priest's daughter returns as a widow or a divorcee to her father's house she is not permitted to eat of the breast and the shoulder of the peace-offerings. ');">16 may, consequently be made. We have now deduced17 [the law relating to] a priest's daughter;18

ו כמאן כר"ע דדריש ווין אפילו תימא רבנן כוליה ובת קרא יתירא הוא

6 whence, however, is this deduced in respect of the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite? — As R. Abba stated in the name of Rab [that deduction is made from the Scriptural use of] 'But a daughter' [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used].19 so here also [deduction is made from the use of] 'and a daughter' [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used].20 In accordance with whose view?21 Is it Only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who bases expositions on [superfluous] Wawin!22

ז אשכחן לתרומה לכהונה מנלן אטו לויה וישראלית לא לכהונה מרבינן להו דאי לתרומה בנות מיכל תרומה נינהו

7 — It23 may be said to have been made even according to the view of the Rabbis, because the entire Scriptural expression, And a daughter24 is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the context, But if a priest … and such as are born in his house (Lev. XXII, 11) speaks of the relatives of a priest, it would have been obvious to whom v. 12 referred even if a priest's daughter were omitted, reading only. If she be married etc. ');">25 [Thus the disqualification] in respect of terumah has been proved;26

ח אלמה לא משכחת לה דקאכלה בשביל בנה

8 whence, [however, is it deduced that the disqualification extends also] to the prohibition of marrying a priest?27 — Has not the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite been included28 in respect of priestly marriage only? For, as regards terumah, neither of them is ever eligible to eat it.29 Are they never eligible?30

ט בשביל בנה ק"ו ומה כהנת דבקדושה דנפשה אכלה פסיל לה לויה וישראלית דלא אכלה אלא בשביל בנה לא כ"ש

9 Such eligibility surely occurs when [a mother]31 eats terumah32 by virtue of the rights of her son!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who survived his father. A Scriptural text might consequently have been required to forbid a woman in such circumstances from eating terumah if she cohabited with a disqualified person! ');">33 — [The case of a mother, who eats terumah] by virtue of the rights of her son, may be deduced by inference a minori ad majus: If the daughter of a priest who eats the terumah by virtue of her own sanctity becomes disqualified34

י והיא הנותנת כהנת דקדיש גופה פסיל לה הא דלא קדיש גופה לא פסיל לה אלא לכהונה ק"ו מגרושה ומה גרושה שמותרת בתרומה אסורה לכהונה זו שאסורה בתרומה אינו דין שפסולה לכהונה

10 how much more so the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite who eats it only by virtue of the rights of her son.35 [On the contrary], this [very point]36 provides the reason:37 A priest's daughter whose body is sacred is rightly disqualified,34

יא וכי מזהירין מן הדין גלוי מילתא בעלמא הוא

11 this woman, however, whose own body is not sacred might not become disqualified!38 — The fact is rather, that the prohibition39 to marry a priest may be deduced a minori ad majus from a divorced woman: If a divorced woman who is permitted to eat terumah is nevertheless forbidden to marry a priest, how much more reason is there that such a woman40 who is forbidden to eat terumah should be disqualified from marrying a priest.35

יב ואימא נבעלה לפסול לה חייבי כריתות כי תהיה אמר רחמנא הנך דאית בהו הויה חייבי כריתות לאו בני הויה

12 May a prohibition, however, be deduced by logical argument!41 This42 is a mere elucidation [of the law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The actual prohibition, how ever, is based on the fact that she is forbidden to eat terumah; as she is forbidden to eat it owing to the loss of her sanctity, so is she forbidden to marry a priest. ');">43 Might it not be suggested [that the statement,] 'she had connubial relations with a disqualified person'44

יג אי הכי עובד כוכבים ועבד לא ליפסלו הנך פסלי מדרבי ישמעאל דא"ר יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל מנין לעובד כוכבים ועבד שבא על בת ישראל ועל כהנת ולויה שפסלוה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יג) ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה וגו'

13 [refers to persons cohabitation with whom is] subject to the penalty of kareth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother, for instance, betrothal with whom is invalid. What proof, however, is there that persons, such as a Cuthean, a nathin or a bastard, cohabitation with whom is subject to flogging only and betrothal with whom is valid, also disqualify a priest's daughter from marrying a priest? ');">45 — The All Merciful said, If … be married,46 only those with whom marriage is valid;47 with those who are subject to the penalty of kareth marriage is not valid.48 If so,49 no idolater or slave should cause disqualification!50 — These cause disqualification in accordance with a ruling of R. Ishmael. For R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Ishmael: Whence is it deduced that if an idolater or a slave cohabits with the daughter of an Israelite, of a priest or of a Levite, he disqualifies her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From (a) marrying a priest; and (b) eating terumah in the case of the daughter of a priest, or in the case of the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite who was married to a priest who left her with children by virtue of whom she was entitled to the privilege of eating terumah. ');">51 — It was stated in, But if a priest's daughter be a widow or divorced etc.,52

Previous Chapter Next Chapter