Yevamot 44b — the Talmud in English

All agree in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that the child

from her

is blemished with regard to priesthood.

For if she bore a daughter, she is disqualified from marrying a priest, like a chalala.

And we raised it:

Who is “all agree”?

Who is the one who agrees in this matter?

And we answered:

Shimon the Yemenite

is the one who agrees.

For although Shimon the Yemenite says: There is no mamzer from those liable for negative prohibitions—

Behold,

even so,

despite the fact

that he does not become a mamzer—

but

blemished

with regard to priesthood,

at least,

in any event,

he does become.

And this matter is to be learned

by a kal va-chomer from a widow,

who has intercourse with a High Priest:

And if a widow to a High Priest, whose prohibition is not equal for all

priests, but she is forbidden only to a High Priest, nevertheless, if a High Priest has intercourse with her,

her son is blemished

with regard to priesthood, by the law of a chalal.

This one,

one who remarries his divorced wife after she has married,

whose prohibition is equal for all—

is it not logical that her son is blemished

with regard to priesthood?

And we challenge this:

There is room to refute

the kal va-chomer:

What can be said concerning a widow, for she herself becomes profaned

through her intercourse with a High Priest, and becomes a chalala, and from then on is forbidden to all priests.

And likewise, if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified by this intercourse from eating teruma, by the law of a chalala, who does not eat teruma.

Therefore it is fitting that her offspring too should be blemished and become a chalal.

Can you say this concerning one who remarries his divorced wife after she has married, that the woman who has intercourse with him herself is not blemished with regard to priesthood because she is forbidden to him to remarry after she has married another, but rather she has been forbidden to a priest from the time she was divorced, by the law of a divorcee?

And if she is the daughter of a priest, she does not lose her right to eat teruma if her husband dies without sons from her and she returns to her father’s house, for intercourse with a woman who returned to her husband after he divorced her and she married another does not disqualify her from eating teruma, as will be explained below [69a].

And if so, from where is it known that her offspring should be blemished with regard to priesthood?

Furthermore,

in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife there is a special exclusion of “she”!

“She is an abomination,” is written

concerning her. This is to say: only she herself is an abomination, to return her to him after she has married another man,

but her sons

from him

are not abominations!

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty: is it not

taught in a beraita: One who remarries his divorced wife, one who marries his halutza, and one who marries the relative of his halutza—

Rabbi Akiva says: He has no betrothal with her,

for betrothal does not take effect with those liable for negative prohibitions, just as betrothal does not take effect with those liable for karet.

And

therefore

she does not require a bill of divorce from him.

And she is disqualified

with regard to priesthood by the law of a prostitute, for every woman who has intercourse with one with whom betrothal does not take effect is forbidden to a priest by the law of a “prostitute.” ["

A “chalala” is only a woman who has intercourse in violation of a priestly prohibition, such as a widow who has intercourse with a High Priest, or a divorcee who has intercourse with an ordinary priest"].

And her offspring is disqualified,

a mamzer. Since betrothal does not take effect with her [according to Rabbi Akiva’s view], the child is a mamzer.

And they compel him to divorce her.

And the Sages say: He has betrothal with her, and she requires a bill of divorce from him.

And she is fit, and her offspring is fit.

And we raised it: this that the Sages said, that the offspring of one who remarries his divorced wife is a fit offspring—

for whom,

for whom is her offspring fit?

Is it not

to marry

into priesthood!

And it is thereby demonstrated that the offspring of one who remarries his divorced wife, according to the Sages, is not a chalal!

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

He is not fit for priesthood, but only

for the community,

to marry any Israelite, except priests.

If so,

if his fitness is only for the community, concerning what the beraita said about the woman herself, that

“she is fit”—

for whom,

for whom is she fit to marry?

If you say

that she is fit to marry

into the community—

it is obvious

that this is so!

And is it the case that

because she committed adultery—

she is disqualified from the community!?

Rather, is it not that she is fit

to marry

into priesthood.

And from the fact that she

is fit

for priesthood—

behold, the fitness stated in the beraita concerning

her offspring as well

is fitness

for priesthood

!

And it is thereby demonstrated that the offspring of one who remarries his divorced wife is not a chalal! And the Gemara rejects the proof from the wording of this beraita, that the offspring of one who remarries his divorced wife is fit for priesthood, against Rav Yosef, who cited in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi that her offspring is blemished with regard to priesthood:

Is it necessarily so,

that the beraita said that the fitness of the offspring is like the fitness of the mother?

For it is possible to say:

this,

the fitness of the mother,

as it is found,

in what applies to her.

For she is fit even for priesthood [to eat teruma].

And this,

the fitness of the offspring,

as it is found,

in what applies to him.

For he is fit to enter the community, but he is blemished with regard to priesthood.

And the Gemara proves that this indeed is the explanation of the beraita:

This too is reasonably inferred,

that this is according to what applies to it, and this is according to what applies to it:

For it teaches at the beginning

in the words of Rabbi Akiva, that one who remarries his divorced wife,

she is disqualified, and her offspring is disqualified.

She is disqualified—

for whom?

If you say, from the community,

and is it the case that

because she committed adultery she is disqualified from the community?

Rather, obviously, from priesthood,

for she is disqualified by the law of a prostitute, like every woman who has intercourse with one with whom betrothal does not take effect!

And

if what Rabbi Akiva said is that

her offspring is disqualified—

for whom,

with regard to whom did Rabbi Akiva say that the offspring is “disqualified”?

If you say

disqualified

with regard to

the

priesthood,

and from this we should infer:

but for the community—

he is fit.

It is impossible to say this. For

behold,

indeed

Rabbi Akiva said

in our Mishna, that one who remarries his divorced wife—

the offspring is a mamzer!

Rather, it is obvious

that Rabbi Akiva’s intention is to disqualify him even

from the community

by the law of a mamzer.

And from the beginning,

in the words of Rabbi Akiva, we must distinguish between the disqualification of the mother and the disqualification of the offspring, and say that they are speaking of different disqualifications: she is forbidden only to priesthood, whereas the offspring is forbidden even to the community, and this is:

this is according to what applies to it, and this is according to what applies to it.

The end likewise,

in the words of the Sages, we should say:

this is according to what applies to it, and this is according to what applies to it.

And the fitness of the mother is both for the community and for priesthood, whereas the fitness of the offspring is only for the community, and not for priesthood!

And now the Gemara comes to resolve the second difficulty that it raised against Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi, for in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife the wording of the exclusion “she is an abomination” is stated, teaching that only she is an abomination, to return her after she has married another, but her sons from him are not abominations, meaning that they are not blemished with regard to priesthood:

And

what you challenged from the verse

“she is an abomination,”

and learned from it that her sons from one who remarries his divorced wife are not an abomination—

also

this is not difficult. For the exclusion “she” did not come to teach this. Rather, one should exclude from it her rival wife who falls together with her to yibum, and thus you should expound the exclusion from “she”:

Only

she

herself, she is

an abomination

to the yavam,

and

her rival is not an abomination

to the yavam, and she may perform yibum with him.

But her sons

from him—

are abominations

they!

And in this way the Gemara has so far resolved the last two difficulties against Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi.

Rather,

only Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi’s kal va-chomer from

a widow

to a High Priest still

is difficult.

And this is the first difficulty, that the kal va-chomer can be refuted, for

what can be said concerning a widow

to a High Priest, whose offspring is blemished with regard to priesthood,

for she herself becomes profaned,

whereas in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife, she herself does not become profaned by his returning her to him!

And on the basis of this difficulty, for which there is no answer, the Gemara says that Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi’s words must be established differently:

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it was stated:

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi: All agree in the case of one who has intercourse with those liable for karet—

that the offspring is blemished

with regard to priesthood!

And the Gemara explains:

Who are “all agree”?—

It is Rabbi Yehoshua

who is meant!

For although Rabbi Yehoshua says that there is no mamzer from those liable for karet

but only from those liable to death by a court—

Even though he does not become a mamzer—

blemished

with regard to priesthood,

at least he does become.

And this is to be learned

by a kal va-chomer from a widow:

And if a widow to a High Priest, whose prohibition is not equal for all—

her son is blemished

with regard to priesthood, and he is a chalal.

This one, whose prohibition is equal for all—

is it not logical that her son is blemished

with regard to priesthood!

And if you would say

to refute:

What can be said concerning a widow, for she herself becomes profaned

with regard to priesthood, becoming a chalala from then on!

Your answer is:

Here too,

in the case of intercourse with those liable for karet,

since her husband—

made her a “prostitute,”

and this disqualification too is a blemish with regard to priesthood, like a chalala from a High Priest who married a widow.

But when we made the kal va-chomer concerning one who remarries his divorced wife, we could not answer that she too becomes a prostitute through his intercourse with her, because a woman becomes a prostitute only when she has intercourse with one who is “a stranger to her from the outset,” whereas this woman, who was divorced and married another and he returned her to him, is not a stranger to him “from the outset” [the wording of the Gemara at 69a, and this principle will be explained in its place. Rashi].

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: All agree, in the case of a slave or an idolater who has intercourse with a daughter of Israel, that the offspring is a mamzer.

And we raised it:

Who are “all agree”?

And we answered:

Shimon the Yemenite

is the one meant.

For although Shimon the Yemenite says

that

there is no mamzer from those liable for negative prohibitions—