Yevamot 137

Chapter 137

א מי שיש לו אלמנות וגירושין בה יצאו עובד כוכבים ועבד שאין לו אלמנות וגירושין

1 only in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood or divorce is applicable;1 an idolater and a slave, however, are excluded, since in relation to them no widowhood or divorce is applicable.2 Thus we have found [the law concerning] the daughter of a priest;3

ב אשכחן כהנת לויה וישראלית מנא לן כדאמר ר' אבא אמר רב בת ובת ה"נ בת ובת

2 whence, however, [is the law concerning] the daughter of a Levite and of an Israelite to be inferred? — As R. Abba stated in the name of Rab [that deduction is made from the Scriptural use of] 'And a daughter', [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used],4 so here also [deduction is made from the use of] 'And a daughter', [where only] 'daughter' could have been used.5 In accordance with whose view?6

ג כמאן כרבי עקיבא דדריש ווי אפילו תימא רבנן כולה ובת קרא יתירא הוא

3 Is it only in accordance with that of R. Akiba, who bases expositions on [superfluous] Wawin!7 — It8 may be said to have been made even according to the view of the Rabbis, because the entire [Scriptural expression] And a daughter9

ד ואימא מי שיש לו אלמנות וגירושין בה כי לית ליה זרע קאכלה כי אית ליה זרע לא אכלה מי שאין לו אלמנות וגירושין בה אע"ג דאית ליה זרע נמי תיכול

4 is a superfluous text.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Lev. XXII, 13 follows v. 12 which deals with the daughter of a priest, the subject, 'a priest's daughter', of v. 13, could have been omitted as self-evident.' ');">10 But might it be suggested that in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood and divorce is possible,11 [the woman]12

ה אם כן רבויי לויה וישראלית למה לי

5 may eat terumah if she13 has no children,14 and may not eat if she has children, but in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood and divorce are not possible15

ו ולרבי עקיבא דאמר אין קדושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין ומאי כי תהיה לאיש זר כי תיבעל אלמנה וגרושה למה לי

6 she may eat terumah even if she13 has children?16 — If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That from the Scriptural text mentioned a relaxation of the law is to be deduced, its purpose being the indication that a priest's daughter is not disqualified even where she has issue from an idolater or a slave. ');">17

ז אלמנה להחמיר עליה וגרושה להקל עליה וצריכא דאי אשמעינן אלמנה אלמנה הוא דכי לית לה זרע אכלה משום דחזיא לכהונה אבל גרושה דלא חזיא לכהונה אימא אע"ג דלית לה זרע לא אכלה ואי אשמעינן גרושה גרושה הוא דכי אית לה זרע לא אכלה משום דלא חזיא לכהונה אבל אלמנה דחזיא לכהונה אימא אע"ג דאית לה זרע נמי תיכול צריכא

7 what need was there to include the daughter of a Levite and of an Israelite!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest's daughter is not disqualified, how much less the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite. The purpose of the Scriptural text, therefore, must be taken to be the disqualification of the daughter of a priest. The inclusion of the daughter of a Levite and of an Israelite was, therefore, necessary to indicate that even if either of those was enjoying the privilege of eating terumah, by virtue of the rights of the children she had from a priest, she loses that privilege if she cohabited with an idolater or a slave even though the act resulted in no issue. ');">18 According to R. Akiba, however, who stated that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves the penalty of a negative commandment has no validity and that the meaning of19 If … be married20

ח ואימא נבעלה לפסול לה אף מחזיר גרושתו לאיש זר אמר רחמנא מי שזר אצלה מעיקרא לאפוקי האי דלא זר אצלה מעיקרא הוא

8 to a strange man21 is 'if she cohabits',22 what need was there23

ט אי הכי חלל דלאו זר הוא מעיקרא לא לפסול אמר קרא (ויקרא כא, טו) לא יחלל זרעו בעמיו מקיש זרעו לו מה הוא פוסל אף זרעו נמי פוסל

9 [for] 'widow or divorced'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude, as stated supra an idolater and slave, in relation to whom no widowhood or divorce is possible since they are surely included among the other disqualified persons betrothal or marriage with whom is invalid! ');">24 — The widow was stated25 in order to restrict her privilege;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To indicate that a priest's daughter who was the widow of an Israelite may not eat terumah if she has children, even after the death of her husband. Had no Scriptural text indicated this law it might have been assumed that she may eat terumah even if she had children from the Israelite. ');">26

י ואימא משעת הויה דומיא דכהן גדול באלמנה מה כהן גדול באלמנה בביאה אף האי נמי בביאה

10 and the divorced woman, in order to relax her restrictions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To allow her (cf. supra n. 4) to eat terumah where she has no issue from the Israelite. Had not Scripture indicated this law it might have been assumed that as the divorcee was forbidden to marry a priest so she was forbidden to eat terumah even if her union with the Israelite produced no issue. ');">27 And [both28 were] required. For had only the widow been mentioned it might have been assumed that only a widow may eat terumah if she has no children because she is eligible to marry a priests but, a divorced woman who is ineligible to marry a priest may not eat it even if she has no children. And had the divorced woman only been mentioned it might have been suggested that only a divorced woman may not eat terumah if she has children because she is ineligible to marry a priest, but a widow who is eligible to marry a priest may eat it even if she has children. [Hence both were] necessary.

יא ואימא עד דאיכא הויה וביאה דומיא דכ"ג באלמנה מה כהן גדול באלמנה בביאה לחודה אף האי נמי בביאה לחודה

11 Might it not be suggested [that the statement], 'She had connubial relations with a disqualified person'29 refers also to one who remarried his divorced wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had been married to another man. Such a marriage being forbidden (v. Deut. XXIV, 4), the first husband should be regarded as a 'strange man' (Lev. XXII, 12) and consequently included among the persons who cause a woman's disqualification. Why, then, was it stated (supra 44b) that a woman so remarried to her first husband is permitted to marry a priest and, all the more, to eat terumah! (V. Rashi a.l. Cf., however, Tosaf s.v. [H] supra 44b). ');">30 — The All Merciful said, To a strange man, only one who was formerly a stranger to her.31

יב ורבי יוסי אומר כל שזרעו פסול פוסל וכל שאין זרעו פסול אינו פוסל מאי איכא בין ת"ק לרבי יוסי

12 Her former husband32 is excluded since he was not formerly a stranger to her. If so, a halal,33

יג אמר ר' יוחנן מצרי שני ואדומי שני איכא בינייהו

13 who is not a stranger34 to her,35 should not cause her disqualification! Scripture stated, He shall not profane his seed among his people;36

יד ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מכהן גדול באלמנה ת"ק סבר מה כ"ג באלמנה שביאתו בעבירה ופוסל אף האי נמי פוסל

14 'his seed'37 is compared to himself, as he disqualifies38 so does his seed disqualify.39

טו ורבי יוסי סבר ככהן גדול מה כהן גדול שזרעו פסול ופוסל אף כל שזרעו פסול פוסל לאפוקי מצרי שני דאין זרעו פסול דכתיב (דברים כג, ט) בנים אשר יולדו להם דור שלישי יבא להם בקהל ה':

15 Might it be suggested [that the disqualification40 is effected] from the moment of betrothal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] as implied in the expression [H] '(she shall) be' Lev. XXII, 12 (of the same rt. [H]), the woman remaining disqualified even if, owing to the death of the disqualified person no cohabitation took place. ');">41 — [His case42

טז רשב"ג אומר כל שאתה נושא בתו אתה נושא אלמנתו וכו': מאי איכא בין ר' יוסי לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

16 must be] similar to that of a High Priest with a widow. As a High Priest, in the case of a widow, [causes her disqualification] by cohabitation only,43 so does this [person44 cause disqualification] by cohabitation only.

יז אמר עולא גר עמוני ומואבי איכא בינייהו ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מכהן גדול באלמנה רבי יוסי סבר מה כהן גדול באלמנה שזרעו פסול ופוסל אף כל שזרעו פסול פוסל

17 Might it be suggested [that disqualification40 is effected] only where there was betrothal as well as cohabitation? — His case42 must be similar to that of a High Priest with a widow. As the High Priest, [when he marries] a widow, [causes her disqualification] by cohabitation alone45

יח רשב"ג סבר מה כהן גדול באלמנה שכל זרעו פסול ופוסל אף שכל זרעו פסול ופוסל לאפוקי עמוני ומואבי דאין כל זרעו פסול דאמר מר עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית:

18 so does this [person46 cause disqualification] by cohabitation alone. 'R. Jose however said: 'Anyone whose children are disqualified causes disqualification, but he whose children are not disqualified does not cause disqualification'. What is the practical difference between the first Tanna and R. Jose? — R. Johanan replied: The difference between them is the case of an Egyptian proselyte of the second generation and an Idumean proselyte of the second generation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are themselves forbidden to marry into the congregation (v. Deut. XXIII, 8) but their children, being of the third generation, are permitted. (Ibid. 9). According to the first Tanna one of the second generation causes the disqualification of the woman he marries; while according to R. Jose he does not, because his children are not disqualified. ');">47

יט <big>מתני׳</big> האונס והמפתה והשוטה לא פוסלין ולא מאכילין ואם אינן ראויין לבא בישראל הרי אלו פוסלין כיצד (היה) ישראל שבא על בת כהן תאכל בתרומה

19 And both of them48 deduced their respective views from none other than [the disqualification] of a widow by a High Priest. The first Tanna reasons: As a High Priest whose cohabitation with a widow is forbidden causes her disqualification, so does this person49 also cause disqualification. R. Jose, however, reasons thus: Like a High Priest. As a High Priest whose seed is disqualified causes disqualification, so does any other person cause disqualification only when his seed is disqualified; an Egyptian proselyte of the second generation is thus excluded, since his children are not disqualified, for it is written, The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the Lord.50 'R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whenever you may marry his daughter, you may marry his widow etc.' What is the practical difference between R. Jose and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? 'Ullah replied: The difference between them is the case of an Ammonite and a Moabite proselyte.51 And both of them52 derived their respective views from none other than [the disqualification] of a widow by a High Priest. R. Jose reasons thus: As with a High Priest who married a widow, his seed is disqualified and he himself causes disqualification, so does any other person cause disqualification only when his seed is disqualified. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, reasons thus: As with a High Priest who married, a widow, all his seed53 is disqualified and he himself causes disqualification, so does only such a person cause disqualification, all whose seed is disqualified; an Ammonite and a Moabite are, therefore, excluded since not all their seed are disqualified.54 For a Master said: An Ammonite,55 but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite,55 but not a Moabitess.56 MISHNAH. THE VIOLATOR, THE SEDUCER AND THE IMBECILE57 CAN NEITHER DEPRIVE A WOMAN58 OF THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH NOR CAN THEY BESTOW THE RIGHT UPON HER.59 IF THEY ARE, HOWEVER, UNFIT TO ENTER INTO THE ASSEMBLY OF ISRAEL60 THEY DO DEPRIVE A WOMAN58 OF HER RIGHT TO THE EATING OF TERUMAH.61 HOW? IF62 AN ISRAELITE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST63 SHE MAY STILL CONTINUE TO EAT TERUMAH.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter