|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 68a since he acquires her by the betrothal;1 and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was betrothed] to a priest, the betrothal cannot bestow the privilege upon her, owing to the ruling of 'Ulla.2 A DEAF-MUTE, for if [the woman] is the daughter of a priest [who was married] to [him3 who is] an Israelite, he deprives her of the privilege, since he4 acquired her by virtue of a Rabbinical enactment;5 and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to [him3 who is] a priest, he cannot bestow the privilege upon her, because the All Merciful said, The purchase of his money,6 while he3 is not eligible to execute any kinyan. AND A BOY WHO IS NINE YEARS etc. This was assumed7 to refer to the case of a yebamah who was awaiting the decision of a levir who was nine years and one day old.8 Now, in what respect?9 If in respect of depriving her10 of the privilege,11 a younger child would also equally deprive her of the privilege! And if in respect of bestowing the privilege,12 a grownup levir also cannot bestow this privilege!13 — Abaye replied: We are dealing here with a levir of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabited with his yebamah14 who, according to Pentateuchal law, becomes his kinyan. Since it might have been assumed that, as Pentateuchally she becomes his kinyan, and his cohabitation also is legal, he should be entitled to bestow the privilege upon her, hence we were taught that the cohabitation of a boy who is nine years and one day old has been given the same validity only as that of a ma'amar by an adult.15 Said Raba to him: If so,16 [why] is it stated in the final clause, [EVEN WHEN] IT IS A MATTER OF DOUBT WHETHER THE BOY IS NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD, OR NOT? If a boy who is certainly of the age of nine cannot bestow the privilege, is there any need to speak of a boy whose age is in doubt! — No, said Raba, [the Mishnah] deals with a boy of the age of nine years and one day belonging to one of the classes of disqualified persons who, by their cohabitation, deprive a woman17 of the privilege of eating terumah;18 as it was taught: An Ammonite,19 a Moabite,19 an Egyptian,20 or an Idumean20 proselyte, a Cuthean,21 a nathin,21 a halal21 or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priests of a Levite or of an Israelite, disqualifies her.22 But since it is stated in the final clause,23 'If they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel they render [a woman] unfit', it may be inferred that the first clause does not deal with such disqualified persons! — The first clause speaks of those who are disqualified to enter the assembly, while the latter clause speaks of those who are disqualified to marry the daughter of a priest.24 [To turn to] the main text:25 An Ammonite,26 a Moabite,26 an Egyptian or an Idumean27 proselyte, a Cuthean,28 a nathin,28 a halal28 or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priest, of a Levite or of an Israelite disqualifies her.29 R. Jose said: Anyone whose children are disqualified causes disqualification;30 he whose children are not disqualified does not cause disqualification.30 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whenever you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow,30 and whenever you may not marry his daughter you may not marry his widow.31 Whence are these rulings32 deduced? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture stated, And if a priest's daughter be married unto to a strange man,33 as soon as she has had connubial relations with a disqualified person34 the latter disqualified her. But the text cited is surely required [for another] purpose, viz., that the All Merciful ordained that the daughter of a priest who was married to a layman35 may not eat terumah! — That36 may be deduced from the text, And is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread.37 Since the All Merciful ordained, And is returned unto her father's house … she may eat,37 it follows that prior to that38 she was not permitted to eat. But if [deduction were to be made] from that text,37 [it may be objected] one might have assumed that as a negative precept39 which is derived from a positive one40 it has only the force of a positive precept,41 hence did the All Merciful write the other text42 to [indicate that it is] a negative precept! — [That it is] a negative precept may be deduced from, There shall no strange man43 eat44 of the holy things.45 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files And being, therefore, deemed to be his legal wife she is forbidden to eat terumah. V. Lev. XXII, 12. Though Pentateuchally a woman who is betrothed to a priest is entitled to the privilege of eating terumah, she has been forbidden to eat it during the period of betrothal, when she is still in her father's house, as a preventive measure against the possibility of her treating to it a brother or a sister of hers. V. Keth. 57b. The deaf-mute. Though mentally defective and, therefore, Pentateuchally ineligible to execute any kinyan. V. infra 112b. Lev. XXII, 11, emphasis on purchase (kinyan). By him who raised the following objection. And with whom no connubial intercourse had taken place. Is the age mentioned of any consequence. If she is the daughter of a priest, and the levir is an Israelite. Of the eating of terumah; the purpose of the ruling being to indicate that the levirate bond comes into force simultaneously with the levir's capability of cohabitation. When he is a priest and she is the daughter of an Israelite; the purpose being to indicate that, though he is capable of cohabitation, his levirate bond is not powerful enough to bestow upon his yebamah the privilege of eating terumah. As was explicitly stated earlier in out Mishnah. An act which in the case of a levir who is of age is valid. Which does not constitute complete kinyan (cf. supra 50a). The boy of the age of nine years and one day CANNOT consequently BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE any more than the others enumerated in our Mishnah. The ruling as to 'depriving a woman of the privilege' applies only to the cases of the EMBRYO, THE LEVIR, BETROTHAL AND THE DEAF-MUTE but not to that of the boy of the age mentioned. That the boy of the age of nine years and one day was included only because of the ruling that he CANNOT BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE, and that the ruling of 'depriving a woman of the privilege' does not apply to him, cf. supra n. 2. If she is the daughter of a priest. The boy of the age of nine years and one day accordingly deprives a woman of the privilege; and it is because of this ruling that the case of the boy was included in our Mishnah. The second ruling that certain persons CANNOT BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE is not, of course, necessary in his case and applies only to the others enumerated, vi., THE EMBRYO, THE LEVIR, BETROTHAL AND A DEAF-MUTE. Who is forbidden to enter the congregation of the Lord. Cf. Deut. XXIII, 4. Who, to the third generation, is forbidden to enter the congregation of the Lord. Cf. ibid. 9f. V. Glos. Kid. 74b. If the woman is the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite she is forbidden to marry a priest, and if she is the daughter of a priest she may neither marry a priest nor may she continue to eat terumah. In the continuation of our Mishnah infra 6. As e.g., a halal who is permitted to enter the assembly (i.e., to marry the daughter of an Israelite), but is forbidden to marry the daughter of a priest. (Cf. supra 37a). Though the expression 'not fit to enter the assembly of Israel' was used in the final clause also, it only implies marriage with the daughter of a priest, since otherwise this part of the Mishnah would have been a mere repetition of the first and, consequently, superfluous. The full text of the previous citation. V. supra p. 456, n. 6. V. loc. cit. n. 7. V. Glos. V. p. 456, n. 9. For explanation v. Gemara infra. Tosef. Nid. VI. Concerning the disqualifications enumerated in the cited Baraitha. So literally. (a) 'one who is not a priest'; (b) 'one strange to her', 'a disqualified person', E. V. a common man'. Lev. XXII, 12. 'Strange man' is taken in sense (b). Non-priest, an Israelite. V. supra n. 11. That a priest's daughter who was married to an Israelite loses the privilege of eating terumah. Lev. XXII, 13. Before she returned to her father's house, i.e., while she was still a married woman, 'living with her husband. Not to eat terumah. 'When she returned to her father's house she may eat terumah'. Which is not punishable by flogging. Lev. XXII, 12. Non-priest, an Israelite. V. supra p. 457. n. 11. It is now presumed that as the woman married a stranger she assumes his status and is consequently, like her husband, forbidden to eat terumah. Lev. XXII, 10. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 68b But that text is required for its own purpose!1 The expression, 'There shall no strange man', is written twice.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 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 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 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 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 deductions16 may, consequently be made. We have now deduced17 [the law relating to] a priest's daughter;18 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 — 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.25 [Thus the disqualification] in respect of terumah has been proved;26 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 Such eligibility surely occurs when [a mother]31 eats terumah 32 by virtue of the rights of her son!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 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 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 May a prohibition, however, be deduced by logical argument!41 This42 is a mere elucidation [of the law].43 Might it not be suggested [that the statement,] 'she had connubial relations with a disqualified person'44 [refers to persons cohabitation with whom is] subject to the penalty of kareth!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?51 — It was stated in, But if a priest's daughter be a widow or divorced etc.,52 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For the law concerning a non-priest. What proof then is there that a priest's daughter who married such a man is also subject to the same law? 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. The second text, Lev. XXII, 13. Infra 70b, 71a. [H] the mourning of an onan, v. Glos. The superfluous and serves the purpose of R. Jose's deduction, and the remainder of the clause, therefore, indicates the negative precept. The text of Lev. XXII, 12. Infra 87a. The daughter of a priest who was divorced or became a widow and had no child. To her father's house. Which are also among the priestly gifts. Cf. Ex. XXIX, 27. Lev. VII, 34. X, 14. In explanation of the Baraitha. Lev. XXII, 12. [H] [H] of the same rt. as [H]. V. supra n. 3. From the sacrifices, i.e., the breast and the shoulder. V. supra n. 1. That only one of the deductions mentioned is to be made from this text. 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. Lit., 'we found'. V. supra n. 7 (a). Infra 6a, 87a. The superfluous 'and' indicates a comparison between the daughter of the priest and the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite. Is the deduction made (v. n. 11). Plur. of waw 'and'. And not in accordance with the Rabbis who are in the majority? V. Sanh. 51b. The deduction from 'and a daughter'. Not only the jaw. 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. Since Scripture mentions it. Lit., 'we found'. If a disqualified person cohabited with her. V. supra 68a. In the prohibition. Lit., 'for if for terumah, are they subjects of eating terumah?' As they are never allowed to eat terumah there is obviously no need to forbid it to them. To eat terumah. Lit., 'why not'. The daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite. After the death of her husband who was a priest. 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! Lit., 'he (i.e., the disqualified man who cohabited with her) disqualifies her'. Hence no Scriptural text was needed to exclude her. The sacredness of the body of the priest's daughter. Why a priest's daughter only should be disqualified. Cf. supra notes 7 and 8 second clause. On the part of the daughter of a priest who cohabited with one of the disqualified persons mentioned. Cf. supra n. 13. A prohibition, which involves the penalty of flogging. must be derived from an explicit Scriptural text. V. Mak. 17b. The inference a fortiori mentioned. 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. Who, as has been inferred, supra 68a, from a Scriptural text, causes her disqualification. 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? Lev. XXII, 12. Cause disqualification. Hence there was no need for a Scriptural text to exclude them. The text consequently refers to those who are subject to the penalty of flogging. That Scripture refers only to those with whom marriage is valid. But, as stated infra 69b, a slave does cause disqualification. 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. Lev. XXII, 13 which concludes, and is returned unto her father's house … she may eat of her father's bread, i.e., terumah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |