Yevamot 88

Chapter 88

א שהולד פגום לכהונה מאן הכל מודים שמעון התימני דאע"ג דאמר שמעון התימני אין ממזר מחייבי לאוין נהי דממזר לא הוי פגום מיהא הוי

1 the child1 is tainted in respect of the priesthood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] defective, inferior (in status). If a male he is disqualified from the priesthood: and if a female she is ineligible to marry a priest. [Rashi reads simply: 'the child is tainted', so MS.M.] ');">2

ב מק"ו מאלמנה ומה אלמנה לכ"ג שאין איסורה שוה בכל בנה פגום זו שאיסורה שוה בכל אינו דין שבנה פגום

2 Who [is meant by] 'All agree'? — Simeon the Temanite. For although Simeon the Temanite stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of flogging is not a bastard, he agrees that, though he is not a bastard, he is nevertheless tainted.3 This is deduced a minori ad majus from the case of a widow: If in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, the prohibition of whom is not applicable to all,4

ג איכא למיפרך מה לאלמנה שכן היא עצמה מתחללת

3 her son1 is tainted,3

ד ועוד היא תועבה כתיב ואין בניה תועבין

4 how much more should the son of a divorcee be tainted, whose prohibition is equally applicable to all.5 [This argument, however], may be refuted: A widow's case may well be different6

ה ועוד תניא המחזיר גרושתו והנושא חלוצתו והנושא קרובת חלוצתו ר"ע אומר אין לו בה קדושין ואינה צריכה הימנו גט והיא פסולה וולדה פסול וכופין אותו להוציא וחכ"א יש לו בה קדושין וצריכה הימנו גט והיא כשרה וולדה כשר

5 because she herself becomes profaned and;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having once married a High Priest unlawfully, she may not marry after his death even an ordinary priest (v. Kid. 77a), and if she is a priest's daughter she loses her privilege to eat terumah (v. infra 68a). In the case of a remarried divorcee these restrictions do not apply, since she is permitted to eat terumah if she is a priest's daughter (v. infra 69a) while her prohibition to marry a priest is not due to her remarriage, but to her previous divorce. ');">7 and, furthermore, it is written in Scripture, She is an abomination,8

ו למאן לאו לכהונה לא לקהל אי הכי היא כשרה למאן אילימא לקהל פשיטא משום דזניא אפסלה לקהל אלא לאו לכהונה

6 'she'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] rendered by E.V., it; lit., 'she', is taken to refer to the woman. The Talmudic text here is not very clear. (V. supra 11b for a smoother text and further notes, and cf. BaH a.l.). ');">9 only is an abomination but her children are not an abomination. — Furthermore, it was taught: Where a man remarried his divorced wife, or married his haluzah, or married the relative of his haluzah, R. Akiba said, his betrothal of her is not valid,10

ז ומדהיא לכהונה ולדה נמי לכהונה מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

7 she requires no divorce from him, she is disqualified,11 her child is disqualified,12

ח הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני רישא היא פסולה וולדה פסול היא פסולה למאן אילימא לקהל משום דזניא אפסלה ליה לקהל אלא לאו לכהונה

8 and the man is compelled to divorce her. And the Sages said: His betrothal of her is valid, she requires a divorce from the man, she is fit, and her child is fit. Now, in respect of what?13 Obviously in respect of the priesthood!14

ט וולדה פסול למאן אילימא לכהונה הא לקהל כשר האמר רבי עקיבא הולד ממזר אלא פשיטא לקהל

9 — No; in respect of entering the congregation.13 If so, in respect of whom is she15

י ומדרישא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא סיפא נמי הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

10 fit? If it be suggested 'in respect of entering the congregation', is not this [it may be retorted] obvious? Has she become ineligible to enter the congregation because she played the harlot!16 Consequently it must mean in respect of the priesthood. Now, since she is [untainted] in respect of the priesthood, her child also must be [untainted] in respect of the priesthood!14

יא והיא תועבה נמי היא תועבה ואין צרתה תועבה אבל בניה תועבין

11 — Is this an argument? The same term may bear different interpretations in harmony with its respective subjects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that as it is and that etc,'. The term 'untainted' in the case of the woman may have reference to priesthood, but in the case of the child it may refer to entry into the congregation; while in respect of the priesthood the child may well be regarded as tainted. ');">17 This18

יב אלא אלמנה קשיא מה לאלמנה שכן היא עצמה מתחללת

12 is also logically sound. For in the first clause19 it was stated, 'She is disqualified and her child is disqualified'. Now, in respect of what is 'she disqualified'? If it be suggested, 'in respect of entry into the congregation', does she [it may be retorted] become disqualified for entry into the congregation because she played the harlot!20

יג אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב יוסף אמר ר' שמעון ברבי הכל מודים בבא על חייבי כריתות שהולד פגום מאן הכל מודים רבי יהושע דאע"ג דאמר ר' יהושע אין ממזר מחייבי כריתות נהי דממזר לא הוי פגום מיהא הוי

13 Consequently it must mean 'in respect of the priesthood!' Now, again, in respect of what is 'her child disqualified'? If it be suggested, 'in respect of the priesthood' thus implying that he is permitted to enter the congregation, surely [it may be objected] R. Akiba stated that the child is a bastard!21 Obviously then 'in respect of entry into the congregation'.22

יד מק"ו מאלמנה ומה אלמנה לכ"ג שאין איסורה שוה בכל בנה פגום זו שאיסורה שוה בכל אינו דין שבנה פגום

14 And, as in the first clause the same term bears different interpretations in harmony with its respective subjects, so may the same term in the final clause bear different interpretations in agreement with its respective subjects.23 Also as to the expression,24

טו וכ"ת מה לאלמנה שכן היא עצמה מתחללת הכא נמי כיון שבעלה עשאה זונה

15 This is an abomination it [may be interpreted]: 'She is an abomination but her rival is no abomination'.25 Her children, however, are an abomination.26

טז אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים בעבד ועובד כוכבים הבא על בת ישראל שהולד ממזר

16 The objection. however, from the 'widow' [still remains, thus]: 'A widow's case may well be different27 because she herself becomes28

יז מאן הכל מודים שמעון התימני דאע"ג דאמר שמעון התימני אין ממזר מחייבי לאוין ה"מ

17 profaned'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which leads to the conclusion that no inference a minori ad majus may be drawn from the case of the widow. How, then, could R. Joseph state in the name of R. Simeon, supra, that all agree that the child is disqualified? ');">29 — But [the fact is that] if any statement was made30 it was as follows:31 R. Joseph stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Rabbi, 'All agree that where a man cohabited with any of those who are subject to the penalty of kareth32 the child33 is tainted'.34 Who [is referred to by] 'All agree'? — R. Joshua. For although R. Joshua stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of kareth is not a bastard, he agrees that, though he is no bastard, he is nevertheless tainted.35 This is deduced a minori ad majus from the case of a widow: If in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, the prohibition of whom is not applicable to all,36 her son37 is tainted,35 how much more should the son of this woman be tainted whose prohibition is equally applicable to all.38 And were you to object: A widow's case may be different39 because she herself becomes profaned,40 [it may be retorted that], here also, as soon as the man had any connubial relations with her he stamped her as a harlot.41 Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: All agree that where a slave or an idolater had intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite the child is a bastard. Who is meant by 'All agree'? — Simeon the Temanite. For although Simeon the Temanite stated that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of flogging is not a bastard, his statement applies only

Previous Chapter Next Chapter