|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 69a 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 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 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 is a superfluous text.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 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 she may eat terumah even if she13 has children?16 — If so,17 what need was there to include the daughter of a Levite and of an Israelite!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 to a strange man21 is 'if she cohabits',22 what need was there23 [for] 'widow or divorced'?24 — The widow was stated25 in order to restrict her privilege;26 and the divorced woman, in order to relax her restrictions.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. 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!30 — The All Merciful said, To a strange man, only one who was formerly a stranger to her.31 Her former husband32 is excluded since he was not formerly a stranger to her. If so, a halal,33 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 'his seed'37 is compared to himself, as he disqualifies38 so does his seed disqualify.39 Might it be suggested [that the disqualification40 is effected] from the moment of betrothal?41 — [His case42 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. 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 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.47 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. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Viz., a legitimate Israelite. Only in such a case does the widow or divorced woman regain her right of eating terumah. Their betrothal and marriage having no validity. That intercourse with a slave or an idolater causes her disqualification. Supra 68b, infra 87b. Supra 68b, p. 459, n. 11. Was the deduction made. V. supra p 459, O. 13. The deduction from 'And a daughter.' Lev. XXII, 13. 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.' A legitimate Israelite or Levite. A priest's daughter after she had been divorced by her husband or become a widow. Cf. Rashi, Cur. edd., 'to him'. From that husband. V. supra n. 8. An idolater, for instance, or a slave. The cohabitation with such a person having no legal effect whatsoever. 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. 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. Lit., 'and what'. [H], lit., 'shall be'. Lev. XXII, 12. Since no legal marriage with any of the disqualified persons is at all possible. When cohabitation with an idolater or a slave had taken place. 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! Not for the purpose of the deduction made by R. Ishmael. 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. 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. Widow and divorcee. Who, as deduced from a Scriptural text, supra 68a, causes the disqualification of the woman with whom he cohabited. 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). Who was never allowed to marry her. Lit., that'. V. Glos. V. Rash and BaH. Cut. edd. insert, 'formerly'. He may marry' a priest's daughter. Lev. XXI, 15, referring to a High Priest. I.e., a halal A widow whom he married from the eating of terumah (v. Kid. 77a). Any woman he marries. Of a woman by marrying a 'strange man', a disqualified person. [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. That of the disqualified person, deduced from the text mentioned. Since the text specifically mentions his seed (Lev. XXI, 15). V. also supra 56b. The disqualified person, V. supra n. 10. Since the disqualification is effected even if there was no betrothal. V. supra note 10. 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. R. Jose and the first Tanna. An Ammonite or a Moabite proselyte of the second generation, cohabitation with whom is forbidden. Cf. p. 464, n. 15. Deut. XXIII, 9. According to R. Jose such a proselyte causes disqualification; according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel he does not. V. Gemara infra. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Jose. Daughters as well as sons. Their daughters being permitted to marry into the congregation. Shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord. Deut. XXIII, 4. Infra 76b, Kid. 67b, Keth. 7b, Hul. 62b. Even if betrothal took place. The action of an imbecile has no legal force. If she is a priest's daughter entitled to eat terumah. If they are priests and she is the daughter of an Israelite. Those, e.g., who are enumerated in Deut. XXIII, 2ff. Since she becomes profaned through their intercourse with her. Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis, 'he was'. BaH reads instead, 'behold'. Against her will or with her consent, but with no matrimonial intention. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 69b IF SHE BECOMES PREGNANT SHE MAY NO LONGER EAT TERUMAH.1 IF THE EMBRYO WAS CUT IN HER WOMB SHE MAY EAT.2 IF3 A PRIEST HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. [EVEN IF] SHE BECOMES PREGNANT SHE MAY NOT EAT.4 IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD SHE MAY EAT.5 THE POWER OF THE SON IS THUS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE FATHER.6 A SLAVE, BY HIS COHABITATION, DEPRIVES A WOMAN7 OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH 8 BUT NOT AS HER OFFSPRING.9 HOW? — IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST OR THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, AND SHE BORE A SON BY HIM, AND THE SON WENT AND VIOLATED A BONDWOMAN WHO BORE A SON BY HIM, SUCH A SON IS A SLAVE;10 AND IF HIS FATHER'S MOTHER WAS AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH;11 BUT IF SHE WAS A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER AND MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH.12 A BASTARD DEPRIVES A WOMAN13 OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH AND ALSO BESTOWS THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER.14 HOW? IF AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST OR A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, AND SHE BORE A DAUGHTER BY HIM, AND THE DAUGHTER WENT AND MARRIED A SLAVE OR AN IDOLATER AND BORE A SON BY HIM, SUCH A SON IS A BASTARD; AND IF HIS MOTHER'S MOTHER WAS AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH; BUT IF SHE WAS A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. A HIGH PRIEST SOMETIMES DEPRIVES A WOMAN13 OF HER RIGHT TO EAT TERUMAH. HOW? IF A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE AND SHE BORE A DAUGHTER BY HIM, AND THE DAUGHTER WENT AND MARRIED A PRIEST AND BORE A SON BY HIM, SUCH A SON IS FIT TO BE A HIGH PRIEST, TO STAND AND MINISTER AT THE ALTAR. HE ALSO BESTOWS UPON HIS MOTHER,15 THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH, BUT DEPRIVES16 HIS MOTHER'S MOTHER17 OF THIS PRIVILEGE. THE LATTER18 CAN RIGHTLY SAY, '[MAY THERE] NOT [BE ANOTHER] LIKE MY GRANDSON THE HIGH PRIEST WHO DEPRIVES ME OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH. GEMARA. [Here]19 we learn what the Rabbis taught: If an imbecile or a minor married and died, their wives are exempt from halizah and from levirate marriage.20 IF AN ISRAELITE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST SHE MAY STILL CONTINUE TO EAT TERUMAH. IF SHE BECOMES PREGNANT SHE MAY NO LONGER EAT. Since she may not eat when she is definitely with child, precaution should be taken against the possibility that she might be with child!21 Did we not learn, 'They22 must be kept apart23 for three months, since it is possible that they are pregnant'?24 Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: In respect of genealogy25 precautions were taken;26 in respect of terumah no such precautions were considered necessary. But was no such precaution considered necessary in respect of terumah? Surely, it was taught: [If a priest said]27 'Here is your letter of divorce [which shall become effective] one hour before my death', she is forbidden to eat terumah at once!28 — In fact,29 said Rabbah son of R. Huna, precautions were taken in respect of legitimate marriage,30 but in respect of illegitimate intercourse31 no such precaution was considered necessary.32 But was such precaution, taken in respect of legitimate marriage? Surely, it was taught: If a priest's daughter was married to an Israelite who died,33 she may perform her ritual immersion34 and eat terumah the same evening!35 — R. Hisda replied: She performs the immersion but may eat terumah only until the fortieth day. For if she is not found pregnant36 she never was pregnant;37 and if she is found pregnant,38 the semen, until the fortieth day, is only a mere fluid.39 Said Abaye to him: If so,40 read the final clause: If the embryo in her womb can be distinguished she is considered to have committed an offence41 retrospectively!42 — The meaning is that43 she is considered to have committed an offence41 retrospectively44 to the fortieth day.45 It was stated: Where a man cohabited with his betrothed in the house of his [future] father-in-law, Rab said: The child is a bastard; and Samuel said: The child is a shethuki.46 Raba said: Rab's view is reasonable in the case where the betrothed woman was suspected of illicit relations with strangers.47 Where, however, she is not suspected of illicit relations with strangers the child is ascribed to him.48 Said Raba: Whence do I infer this? From the statement, IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD SHE MAY EAT. For how is this to be understood? If it be suggested to refer to a woman who is suspected of illicit relations with strangers, why should she be allowed to eat terumah when she bore a child!49 Consequently it must refer to a woman50 who was suspected of illicit relations with him only but not with strangers. Now, if there51 where she is forbidden to the one as well as to the other,52 the child is regarded as his53 how much more so54 here55 where she is forbidden to all other men and permitted to him. Said Abaye to him: It may still be maintained that Rab is of the opinion that wherever she is suspected of illicit relations with him,56 the child is deemed to be a bastard even where she is not suspected of such relations with others. What is the reason? Because it is assumed that as she exposed herself to the man who betrothed her so she exposed herself to others also; but our Mishnah57 deals with the case where both of them58 were imprisoned in the same gaol.59 Others say: Where he56 cohabited with her, no one disputes that the child is regarded as his; but the statement made was in the following form. Where a betrothed woman became pregnant, Rab ruled: Such a child is a bastard; and Samuel ruled: The child is a shethuki.60 Raba said: Rab's view is reasonable where the woman was not suspected of illicit relations with him,56 but was suspected of such relations with others,61 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The embryo causes its mother's disqualification. V. supra 67b. Immediately. And the same law applies where the embryo was born dead. Cur. edd., 'he was'; BaH, 'behold'. An embryo in the womb cannot confer upon its mother the privilege of eating terumah, as deduced from born in his house (Lev. XXII. 11). V. supra 67b. By virtue of the existence of a son, though he is illegitimate. While the latter, as a violator or seducer, cannot confer the privilege, the son can. If she is a priest's daughter entitled to eat terumah. As explained supra 68b. If the slave is the offspring of a priest's daughter who was married to an Israelite now dead, he does not deprive her of the right of returning to the house of her father again to eat terumah. V. infra for further explanation. The child of a bondwoman, though of an Israelite father, is deemed a slave, as deduced from Ex. XXI, 4. If her husband and her son (the father of the slave) are dead. Though the son of a son (like a son) confers upon his grandmother the right of eating terumah (v. infra 70a), the offspring of a union between an Israelite and a bondwoman is not regarded as the legitimate son of his father but as the child of his mother. The slave not being regarded as legitimate offspring (cf. supra n. 2) to deprive her of the privilege. If she is a priest's daughter entitled to eat terumah. If she was the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest now dead. Even after the death of his father. As the living offspring of an Israelite. Though his own mother is dead. Were it not for his existence, his grandmother would have regained her original right of eating terumah on the death of her daughter. V. infra 87a. Lit., 'this'. In the statement that an imbecile's betrothal neither confers upon a woman, nor deprives her of the right of eating terumah (v. our Mishnah), thus affirming that an imbecile's kinyan has no validity. Tosef. Yeb. XI, infra 96b, 2b; because there is no validity whatsoever in the kinyan of his marriage. And should, in consequence. be forbidden to eat terumah immediately after intercourse had taken place. Why then was it stated, IF AN ISRAELITE HAD INTERCOURSE … SHE MAY STILL CONTINUE TO EAT TERUMAH? Women who have been exchanged for one another. (V. the Mishnah, supra 33b). I.e., they are forbidden to cohabit with their husbands. Supra 33b. Similar precaution, then, should have been taken here also! The Mishnah cited is concerned with safeguarding the status of a legitimate child by taking the necessary precautions to distinguish him from the illegitimate. In the interests of the purity of family life special precautions were necessary. To his wife, the daughter of an Israelite. Suk. 23b, Git. 28a, Ned. 3b; since the priest might die at any moment while the woman was indulging in the consumption of terumah. This proves that in respect of terumah also precautions were taken. Withdrawing from his first reply. Of which the Mishnah (supra 33a) cited speaks. The subject of the section of our Mishnah under consideration. V. supra 35a. On the same day, after one act of cohabitation. Prescribed in Lev. XV, 18. No precaution being taken against the possibility that the woman may have conceived and thereby remained forbidden to eat terumah. On the fortieth day. And is allowed to eat terumah after that day also. On the fortieth day. And cannot be regarded as a child. That prior to the fortieth day the woman is not regarded as pregnant. Lit., 'injured'. She pays compensation for any terumah she may have consumed by returning to the priest the principal plus a fifth. V. Lev. XXII, 14. Lit., 'what'. If she ate terumah at any time after the fortieth day. But not earlier. She pays no compensation for any terumah she may have consumed prior to the fortieth day. Only a doubtful bastard. V. Glos. and Kid. 6. Lit., 'when she is spoken of in a low voice from (by) the world'. The man who betrothed her. There is no proof that the priest was the child's father. Lit., 'but no'. In our Mishnah. To the violator and seducer as well as to any other man, for it is forbidden to have intercourse with a woman without betrothal. The violator's or seducer's. Should the child be regarded as the son of the man who betrothed her. The case where the man cohabited with his betrothed. The man who betrothed her. Which regards the child as the son of the violator or seducer. The man and the woman. Where no intercourse with any other man was possible. Only a doubtful bastard. V. Glos. and Kid. 6. These being in the majority, the child is deemed to be the son of one of the strangers. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |