Yevamot 169

והרי טומאה דלאו שאין שוה בכל וטעמא דכתב רחמנא בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן הא לאו הכי ה"א נשים חייבות מאי טעמא לאו משום דרב יהודה אמר רב

Behold, however, [the prohibition against] defilement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the dead. ');">¹</span> which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been given to priests only. v. Lev. XXI, 1ff. ');">²</span> and [yet the sole] reason [why it is inapplicable to woman is] because the All Merciful wrote The sons of Aaron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2. ');">³</span> and not the daughters of Aaron; had, however, no such text been available<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but (if) not so'. ');">⁴</span>

לא דגמרינן מלא יקחו

it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not?' ');">⁵</span> because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that even a prohibition which is not applicable to all would be assumed to be applicable to women by deduction from Rab's text! ');">⁶</span> — No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 7, from which it has been deduced (supra 84b, end) that women are subject to the same prohibitions as men even where the prohibitions are not applicable to all. Hence the necessity for the text of Lev. XXI, 1, which excludes women. From Num. v, 6, however, it may still be maintained, deduction could be made only in respect of a prohibition that is applicable to all. ');">⁷</span> Others Say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the equality of men and women in respect of prohibitions could be deduced from the text cited by Rab Judah in the name of Rab. ');">⁸</span>

איכא דאמרי קיחה איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא ליגמר מטומאה קמשמע לן

[The prohibition in regard] to marrying had to be specified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taking was necessary for him', with reference to the verse, 'They shall not take'. ');">⁹</span> Since it might have been assumed that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of the marriage of the halalah to a halal. ');">¹⁰</span> should be inferred from [that relating to] defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, as has just been shewn, applies only to men and not to women. ');">¹¹</span> therefore he taught us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of marriage by the text of Lev. XXI, 7. ');">¹²</span>

רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע איקלעו להינצבו לאתריה דרב אידי בר אבין בעו מינייהו הוזהרו כשרות להנשא לפסולין או לא

[that women are subject to the same prohibition as men]. R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua once happened to be at Hinzebu,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'Shekanzebu' (BaH). The reading 'Shekanzib' (cf. supra 37b) is quoted by Golds., a.l., and rejected in favour of the reading in our text. ');">¹³</span> the town of R. Idi b. Abin, when the following question was asked of them: Were women of legitimate [priestly] status forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth or not? R. Papa replied, 'You have learned it [in the following]. Ten different genealogical classes went up from Babylon:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the days of Ezra. ');">¹⁴</span> Priests, Levites, Israelites, halalim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of halal, profaned priests. V. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר להו רב פפא תניתוה עשרה יוחסין עלו מבבל כהנים לוים וישראלים חללים גרים וחרורים וממזרים נתינים שתוקי ואסופי כהנים לוים ישראלים מותרין לבא זה בזה לוים ישראלים חללים גרים חרורים מותרין לבא זה בזה גירי חרורי וממזרי נתיני שתוקי ואסופי מותרים לבא זה בזה ואילו כהנות לחלל לא קתני

proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, nethinim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of nathin, v. Glos. ');">¹⁶</span> shethuki<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 37a. ');">¹⁷</span> and asufi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 37a. ');">¹⁷</span> Priests, Levites and Israelites may intermarry with one another. Levites, Israelites, halalim, proselytes and emancipated slaves may intermarry with one another. Proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, nethinim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of nathin, v. Glos. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כל היכא דהני נסבי מהני והני נסבי מהני קתני כהן כיון דאילו בעי למינסב חללה אסירא ליה לא קתני אתו לקמיה דרב אידי בר אבין אמר להו דרדקי הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא הוזהרו כשרות לינשא לפסולים:

shethuki<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 37a. ');">¹⁷</span> and asufi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 37a. ');">¹⁷</span> are permitted to intermarry with one another.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 69a. ');">¹⁸</span> That daughters of priests, however, [may be married to a] halal was not mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer to their question is, therefore, in the affirmative. ');">¹⁹</span>

שניות מדברי סופרים וכו': בעו מיניה בני בירי מרב ששת שניה לבעל ולא שניה ליבם יש לה כתובה מיבם או לא כיון דאמר מר כתובתה על נכסי בעלה הראשון לית לה

Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to him: Only cases where the women may marry the men, and the men may marry the women were enumerated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherever these take from those and those take from these he taught'. ');">²⁰</span> the case of the Priest, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though, were he a halal, he would not have been forbidden to marry a priest's daughter. ');">²¹</span> was not mentioned, because a halalah, should he even desire to marry one, is forbidden to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the Mishnah of Kid. is not conclusive. ');">²²</span> When they came before R. Idi b. Abin he said to them, 'O, school-children! Thus said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of illegitimate Status'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 84b. ');">²³</span>

או דלמא כיון דאילו לית לה מראשון תקינו לה רבנן משני אית לה

[IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES etc. The men of Bairi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 561, n. 10. [Here probably Be Bari, south of Sura (v. Obermeyer, p. 308)]. ');">²⁴</span> enquired of R. Shesheth: Is a woman who is of the second grade of kinship to her husband but not to her levir entitled to claim her <i>kethubah</i> from the levir or not? [Do we say that] since a Master said that her <i>kethubah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a widow subject to the levirate marriage. ');">²⁵</span> is a charge on the estate of her first husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 381, Keth. 80b. ');">²⁶</span> she has no [claim upon the levir];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in this particular case she can have no claim upon the estate of her husband. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה כתובתה על נכסי בעלה הראשון ואם היתה שניה לבעל אפי' מיבם אין לה

or, possibly, since the Rabbis have ordained that wherever she is unable to obtain it from her first husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, he is without means. ');">²⁸</span> [she may collect it] from the second, she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since here also she receives nothing from the estate of her first husband. ');">²⁹</span> is entitled to claim it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is to her'. ');">³⁰</span> [from the levir]? R. Shesheth replied, 'You have learned this: Her <i>kethubah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a widow subject to the levirate marriage. ');">²⁵</span>

מכלל דאיכא דאית לה מיבם חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני כתובתה על נכסי בעלה הראשון ואי לית לה מראשון תקינו לה משני ואם היתה שניה לבעל אפי' מיבם אין לה:

is a charge upon the estate of her first husband, but if she was a relative of the second grade of kinship to her husband she receives nothing even from the levir. Does [the expression,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'She receives nothing even from the levir'. ');">³¹</span> however,] imply that some [widows] do receive their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is to her'. ');">³⁰</span> <i>kethubah</i> from the levir!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is contrary to the ruling supra that the kethubah remains a charge upon the estate of the first husband. ');">³²</span>

בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרבי יוחנן אלמנה לכ"ג גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט יש להן מזונות או אין להן מזונות היכי דמי אילימא דיתבה תותיה בעמוד והוצא קאי מזונות אית לה לא צריכא שהלך הוא למדינת הים ולותה ואכלה מאי

— There is a lacuna, and thus it is the correct reading:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and thus he taught'. ');">³³</span> Her <i>kethubah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a widow subject to the levirate marriage. ');">²⁵</span> is a charge upon the estate of her first husband; and if she obtains nothing from the first, the Rabbis have ordained [that she is to receive it] from the second; but if she was a relative of the second grade of kinship to her husband she receives nothing even from the levir. R. Eleazar enquired of R. Johanan: Is a widow [who was married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or a <i>haluzah</i> [who was married] to a common priest entitled to maintenance or not? How is this question to be understood? If [it is a case] where she still lives with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sits under him', her forbidden husband. ');">³⁴</span>

מזוני תנאי כתובה נינהו מדאית לה כתובה אית לה מזוני או דלמא כתובה דלמשקל ומיפק אית לה מזוני דלמא תיעכב גביה לית לה א"ל לית לה

would she, when it is his duty to divorce her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'He stands under (the charge) to get up and make her go out'. ');">³⁵</span> be entitled to receive maintenance!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. What need, then, was there to ask a question the answer to which is so obvious? ');">³⁶</span> — This question was necessary in the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not required (but)'. ');">³⁷</span> where he went to a country beyond the sea and she borrowed money wherewith to maintain herself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and she ate'. ');">³⁸</span>

והתניא יש לה כי תניא ההיא לאחר מיתה

it being desired to ascertain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');">³⁹</span> whether, [owing to the fact that] maintenance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');">³⁹</span> among the conditions of the <i>kethubah</i>, she is entitled to mainte nance just as she is entitled to the <i>kethubah</i>, or is she entitled to the <i>kethubah</i> only because she receives it and goes, but not to maintenance which might induce her to remain with him? — The other replied: She is not entitled to maintenance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is not to her'. ');">⁴⁰</span> But, surely, it was taught: She is entitled to maintenance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is to her'. ');">⁴¹</span>

אית דאמר אמר ליה תניא יש לה הא בעמוד והוצא קאי ואלא התניא יש לה כי תניא ההיא לאחר מיתה

— That was taught In respect of [alimony] after [her husband's] death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If her husband died before she was divorced. Since in such a case there is no cause to apprehend that she will be induced to remain with him, she is entitled to alimony. ');">⁴²</span> Another reading:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is one who says'. ');">⁴³</span> He said to him, 'It was taught: She is entitled to maintenance'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is to her'. ');">⁴¹</span> 'Surely', [the other asked], 'it is his duty to divorce her!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 574 n. 11. How, then, could he he expected to maintain her? ');">⁴⁴</span>

ת"ר אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט יש לה כתובה פירות מזונות בלאות והיא פסולה וולדה פסול וכופין אותו להוציא שניות מדברי סופרים אין לה כתובה לא פירות לא מזונות ולא בלאות והיא כשירה וולדה כשר וכופין אותו להוציא

'But then', [the first retorted], 'it was taught: She is entitled to maintenance'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is to her'. ');">⁴¹</span> — 'That', [the other replied], 'was taught in respect of [alimony] after his death'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If her husband died before she was divorced. Since in such a case there is no cause to apprehend that she will be induced to remain with him, she is entitled to alimony. ');">⁴²</span> Our Rabbis taught: A widow [who was married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or <i>haluzah</i> [who was married] to a common priest is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>, usufruct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consumed by the husband from her melog (v. Glos.) property. ');">⁴⁵</span> alimony and worn clothes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. nn. on our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁶</span>

אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר מפני מה אמרו אלמנה לכ"ג יש לה כתובה מפני שהוא פסול והיא פסולה וכ"מ שהוא פסול והיא פסולה

but she becomes thereby unfit, and her child is unfit, and [the husband] is compelled to divorce her. Relatives of the second grade of kinship [who are forbidden] by the ordinances of scribes are entitled neither to <i>kethubah</i>, nor to usufruct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consumed by the husband from her melog (v. Glos.) property. ');">⁴⁵</span> nor to alimony<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. nn. on our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁶</span> nor to worn clothes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. nn. on our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁶</span> the woman remains fit and her child is fit; but [the husband] is compelled to divorce her. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, 'Why was it ordained that a widow married to a High Priest is entitled to her <i>kethubah</i>? Because he becomes unfit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is not permitted to perform the Temple service as long as he refuses to part with her. V. Bek. 45b and Git. 35b. ');">⁴⁷</span> and she becomes unfit and wherever he becomes unfit and she becomes unfit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosaf.: 'Wherever he becomes unfit or she becomes unfit'. The resulting unfitness of either of them is sufficient to act as a deterrent to the woman in view of the effect it has on the child's fitness. R. Tam, on the other hand, whilst agreeing with this rendering, takes 'he' as referring to the child]. ');">⁴⁸</span>