|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 84a A hybrid, terefah,1 one that was extracted through the abdominal wall,2 the tumtum and the hermaphrodite can neither become sacred nor can they impart sanctity to others;3 and Samuel explained: They neither become sacred by means of exchange,4 nor do they impart sanctity [to any other beast]5 by causing it to become an exchange.6 This proves [what has been said]. R. ELIEZER STATED … THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. It was taught: Rabbi related, 'When I went to learn Torah at [the school of] R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, his disciples combined against me like the cocks of Beth Bukya7 and did not let me learn more than this single thing in our Mishnah: R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. ## CHAPTER IX MISHNAH. SOME WOMEN ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBLDDEN8 TO THEIR LEVIRS,9 OTHERS ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS, OTHERS ARE PERMITTED TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER, WHILE OTHERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO THE FORMER AS WELL AS TO THE LATTER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE WOMEN10 ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR LEVIRS: IF A COMMON PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST; IF A HALAL11 WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS12 HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS;13 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN7 TO THEIR LEVIRS. THE FOLLOWING10 ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW14 HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST; IF ONE OF LEGITIMATE STATUS13 WHO MARRIED A HALALAH11 HAD A BROTHER A HALAL;11 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR HUSBANDS. THE FOLLOWING15 ARE FORBIDDEN16 TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER;17 IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST, OR IF A COMMON PRIEST OF LEGITIMATE STATUS18 WHO MARRIED A HALALAH19 HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS,18 OR IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE FORBIDDEN16 BOTH TO THE FORMER AND THE LATTER.17 ALL OTHER WOMEN ARE PERMITTED16 TO BOTH THEIR HUSBANDS AND THEIR LEVIRS. [IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE, [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES,20 A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR,21 IS FORBIDDEN TO THE HUSBAND AND PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR; [A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND IS FORBIDDEN TO THE LEVIR AND PERMITTED TO THE HUSBAND; [WHILE ONE WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER. SHE CANNOT CLAIM EITHER KETHUBAH,19 OR USUFRUCT,22 OR ALIMONY, OR HER WORN CLOTHES.23 [SHOULD A] CHILD [BE BORN HE] IS ELIGIBLE [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]; BUT THE HUSBAND MUST BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. A WIDOW, HOWEVER, WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH24 WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN24 OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO HER KETHUBAH. GEMARA. What was the point in teaching MARRIED?25 He could have taught: 'Betrothed'!26 And were you to reply that the reason [for the prohibition27 is only] because he MARRIED, since [in that case]28 a positive29 as well as a negative30 precept is involved,31 but where betrothal only took place the positive precept27 does override the negative;32 but [it could be retorted] the whole of our section deals with a positive,33 versus a negative precept.34 and the positive nevertheless does not override the negative! — As it was desired to state in the final clause, A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, [who is forbidden]35 only where [the High Priest] MARRIED her, since in that case he caused her to be a halalah, but [not where he only] betrothed [her in which case] she is permitted [to his brother],36 he taught in the first clause also: MARRIED. But why should the expression37 be determined by38 the final clause? Let it be determined by39 the middle clause: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST!40 — The determining factor,41 rather, is the case immediately following in the same context.42 As it was desired to teach, IF A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS, where the reason [for her prohibition43 is] because [the halal] MARRIED her and thus caused her to become a halalah, but where he had only betrothed her she would have been permitted to him; MARRIED was, therefore, taught [here also].44 What point, however, was there in teaching, A widow? He should have taught: 'A virgin'!45 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files V. Glos. By means of the 'Caesarean operation'. Tem. 17a. V. also op. cit. 11a and Bek. 42a. If any of these was exchanged for a consecrated beast. (Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10). That these cannot be directly consecrated is obvious. Cf. Bek. 14a. If they themselves were sacred. In the case of the hybrid, tumtum and hermaphrodite their sanctity is possible only where they were born from a consecrated beast. In the case of the terefah and the one extracted by means of the Caesarean operation sanctity is possible if the former was consecrated before it became terefah and the latter while it was still in its embryonic state. Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10. A town in Upper Galilee notorious for its fierce cocks who do not allow the intrusion of a strange cock among them (Rashi). In marriage. If their husbands died without issue when, in ordinary cases, it is the duty of the levir to marry his deceased brother's widow. Lit., 'and these'. V. Glos. Eligible to marry a priest. Of pure priestly stock. But did not marry her. If marriage took place the woman would in consequence be ineligible to marry even a common priest. Lit., 'and these'. In marriage. Lit., 'to these and to these'. Of pure priestly stock. v. Glos. Cf. supra 201, 211. If, for instance, the woman was the husband's mother's mother and the levir was his paternal, but not his maternal brother. Which the husband had consumed. The reason is given infra 89a. Which she brought to her husband at their marriage. She has no claim upon such clothes even if they were still available (Rashi). According to Tosaf. (infra 85a, s.v. [H]) she is entitled to such clothes, and the ruling here applies to compensation for clothes which have been completely worn out. Cf Keth. 201a. V. Glos. In the first section of our Mishnah. Even if only betrothal had taken place the woman would be permitted to her husband and forbidden to the levir. Of the levirate marriage. Where the levir is a High Priest. A virgin … shall (positive) he take (Lev. XXI, 14) but not a widow (negative). A negative derived from a positive has only the force of a positive. A widow … shall he not (negative) take (ibid.). Were the levirate marriage to take place two precepts would have been overridden by the single positive precept of the levirate marriage. V. supra n. 7. The positive precept. A virgin … shall he take (v. supra note 6) is not in this case infringed, since a widow after a betrothal is still in her virginity. Of the levirate marriage. A bastard, for instance, to an Israelite. To his brother who is a common priest. Lit., 'to him'. In the first section of our Mishnah. Lit., 'and instead of teaching on account of'. Lit., 'let him teach on account of'. Where the expression used was BETROTHED, and not 'married'. In the use of the expression of MARRIED. Lit., 'but because of the daughter of the (same) valley'. To his brother. In the first case, that of the common priest who married a widow. Who, becoming a widow after her husband's death, is, like one who was married as a widow, forbidden to a High Priest. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 84b And should you reply that this Tanna holds the opinion that the original marriage1 causes the subjection;2 behold, [it may be pointed out, the case of] the HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS3 where it is not said that 'the original marriage causes the subjection'!4 — This5 is certainly due to the final clause. As it was desired to teach in the final clause, IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST OR A COMMON PRIEST, where [the prohibition6 applies to] a WIDOW only7 but [not to] a virgin who is eligible to marry him,8 therefore, WIDOW was taught [here also].9 R. Papa demurred: If the law is in agreement with the following ruling10 which R. Dimi, when he came,11 reported in the name of R. Johanan, viz., that if an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian woman of the first generation her son is regarded as belonging to the second generation,12 [our Mishnah] should also have taught: If an Egyptian of the second generatlon married two Egyptian women, one of the first, and the other of the second generation, and he had sons from the first and from the second, [the wives of these sons], if they13 married in the proper manner,14 are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs,15 and if they married in the reverse order16 [the wives] are permitted to their levirs17 and forbidden to their husbands;18 proselyte women19 are permitted to the one as well as to the other,20 and women who are incapable of procreation are forbidden to the one as well as the other!21 — He taught some cases and omitted others. What else did he omit that he should have omitted this also? — He omitted [the case of the man] wounded in the stones.22 If this is all that can be pointed out,23 the case of the man wounded in the stones cannot be regarded as an instance of an omission, since those that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts were [already] mentioned!24 — Were not several specific cases mentioned25 of those that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts? Surely it was stated, IF A COMMON PRIEST MARRIED A WIDOW and then again IF A HALAL MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS!26 That case27 was required [for the specific purpose] of informing us [that the law is] in agreement with [the ruling] Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth.28 But, surely, he taught regarding A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS and then again regarding AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE AND HE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD!29 — This also is not a repetition of what was already taught, since thereby he taught us [first] regarding a negative precept which is not applicable to all30 and then he taught us regarding a negative precept which is applicable to all. But did he not teach31 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE!32 Con sequently33 it must be concluded that he taught some cases while others he omitted. This proves it. [Reverting to] the main text, 'Rab Judah reported in the name Of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth'. Might it be suggested that the following provides support for his view? [It was stated], A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS; does not [this refer to] a priestess (who was fitting unto him);34 and is not the meaning of35 LEGITIMATE STATUS eligible for priesthood!36 — No; [it might refer to] the daughter of an Israelite, and LEGITIMATE STATUS means35 eligible for the assembly.37 If so, HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS would also [mean] 'eligible for the assembly', from which it would follow that he himself is ineligible for the assembly!38 Consequently it must refer to a priest; and since he is a priest she also must be a priestess.39 What an argument! Each phrase may bear its own peculiar interpretation.40 Rabin b. Nahman raised an objection: They shall not take … they shall not take41 teaches42 that the prohibition was addressed to the woman through the man!43 — Raba replied, [This is the meaning]: Where the prohibition is applicable to him it is also applicable to her, but where it is not applicable to him it is also inapplicable to her.44 Is this,45 however, deduced from this text? Surely it was deduced from a text which Rab Judah expounded in the name of Rab! For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab and so it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit;46 Scripture compared the woman to the man in respect of all the punishments in the Torah!47 — If deduction had been made from that [text]46 it might have been assumed [to apply only to] a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, but not to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all.48 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Of the deceased brother. Of the woman to the levirate marriage, i.e., the widow's status at the time of her husband's death is determined by the status in which she found herself when he married her, not by that in which his death placed her, consequently if at the time of the marriage she was a virgin she would not have been regarded as a widow and would, therefore, have been permitted to marry a priest. Who becomes, thereby. disqualified from marrying his brother. Had this been the case, his brother should have been permitted to marry her, owing to the fact that at the time of her marriage with the deceased (when she presumably became subject to the levirate marriage) she was no halalah. The mention of WIDOW rather than 'virgin'. To her husband who was a High Priest. and to the levir who was a common priest. Who becomes a halalah through such a forbidden marriage. The High Priest, (her first husband) and, after his death, also his brother if he was a common priest. In the first case, that of the common priest who married a widow. Lit., 'if there is that'. From Palestine to Babylon. Supra 78a. The sons. I.e., if the son of the Egyptian of the second generation, who thus belongs to the third and is permitted to enter the assembly (v. Deut. XXIII, 9), married the daughter of an Israelite; while the other who belongs to the second generation married an Egyptian of the second generation. Should one of the brothers die without issue. The son of the third generation is forbidden to marry the Egyptian of the second generation, while the son of the second generation is forbidden to marry the daughter of an Israelite. I.e., if the son of the second generation married the daughter of an Israelite, while the son of the third generation married an Egyptian of the second generation. Cf. supra n. 5 mutandis mutandis. Cf. supra. 6 mutatis mutandis. Who are not included in the term 'assembly of the Lord' (v. Deut. XXIII, 9). Both the Israelite and (for the reason indicated in n. 10) the Egyptian of the second generation may marry a proselyte. The son of the second generation may not marry her because she is the daughter of an Israelite, while after his death she is forbidden to his brother because a woman who is incapable of procreation is not subject to the levirate marriage and is consequently forbidden to him as his brother's wife. In respect of such a maimed person, prohibition and permission similar to those in our Mishnah could be stated: If he is maimed and his brother is fit the woman is forbidden to him (v. Deut. XXIII, 2) and permitted to his brother; if he is fit and his brother maimed she is permitted to him and forbidden to his brother; if both are maimed etc. proselyte women are permitted to both. Lit., 'if because of'. And among these, this case also is included. What proof, then, is there that any cases other than that of R. Dimi were omitted? Lit., 'did be not teach and then taught again'. Which proves that the Mishnah did not avoid giving more than one example of the same type of prohibition. Of a halal who married a woman of legitimate status. Kid. 731, 76a, infra 85a. The purpose of our Mishnah in giving the law of the halal was not to teach the prohibition of the woman to the levir (which, of course, as pointed out supra, was unnecessary) but her permission to marry a husband though he is a halal and she is of legitimate status or of pure priestly stock. The prohibition to marry one of impure stock is incumbent upon the man and not upon the woman. Which shews that the Mishnah did not avoid giving more than one example of the same type of prohibition. The case of the halal is applicable to priests only, not to Israelites. Lit., 'surely he taught'. Also a case of a negative precept! (cf. n. 7). Cur. edd. insert In parenthesis 'and a bastard who married a bastard and he has a brother an Israelite', which Rashal omits. Lit., 'but not'? Though he may marry the daughter of an Israelite he should preferably marry the daughter of a priest. Cf. Pes. 49a. [The bracketed words are rightly omitted in MS.M]. Lit., 'and what'. To marry a priest. Which is in agreement with the opinion of Rab. I.e., to marry an Israelite. Surely not! I.e., since the term 'legitimate status in the case of the man has reference to a priest, so the reference in the case of the woman must be to a priestess which shews that a priestess may marry one of tainted birth. Lit., 'that as it is and that as it is'. Lev. XXI, 7. Since the expression was repeated. This is now assumed to mean that as the untainted priest may not marry a halalah so may not the untainted priestess marry a halal. An objection against the opinion of Rab. The halalah whom an untainted priest is forbidden to marry is herself forbidden to marry such a priest. The untainted priestess however, whom a halal is not forbidden to marry, may also marry the halal. The equality of men and women in respect of prohibitions Num. v, 6. Whether flogging or kareth. That of the priesthood does not apply to Israelites. Hence it was necessary to have the text of Lev. XXI, 7. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |