Yevamot 44b (מד:) — the Talmud in English

Everyone agrees with regard to one who remarries his divorced wife—

that the child

born from her

is of flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood.

For if she gave birth to a daughter, she is unfit to marry a priest, like a ḥalala.

And we raise this objection:

Who are “everyone agrees”?

Who is the one who agrees in this matter?

And we answer:

Shimon the Timnite

is the one who agrees.

Although Shimon the Timnite says: A mamzer does not result from a relationship with a woman who is forbidden by a negative commandment—

Indeed,

granted,

even though

he is not a mamzer—

but

he is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood,

at least,

in any event,

he is.

And this can be learned

by means of a kal va-chomer from a widow,

who has relations with a High Priest:

And if in the case of a widow who has relations with a High Priest, whose prohibition is not equally applicable to all

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

her son is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood, by virtue of being a ḥalal.

This woman,

one who remarries her divorced wife after she married another man,

whose prohibition is equally applicable to all—

is it not logical that her son is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood?

And we challenge this:

There is a basis for refuting

the kal va-chomer:

What is different about a widow is that she herself becomes profaned

when she has relations with a High Priest, becoming a ḥalala and henceforth forbidden to all priests.

Likewise, if she is the daughter of a priest, through this act she becomes disqualified from eating teruma, like a ḥalala, who may not eat teruma.

Therefore, it is appropriate that her offspring, too, should be of flawed lineage and be a ḥalal.

Can you say the same with regard to one who remarries his divorced wife after she married another man? The woman who has relations with him herself does not become disqualified with regard to the priesthood because she is forbidden to him in consequence of remarrying her after she married another; rather, from the moment she was divorced, she was already forbidden to a priest, by virtue of being 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, since relations with a woman who returned to her husband after he divorced her and she married another man do not disqualify her from eating teruma, as will be explained below [69a].

If so, from where do we know that her offspring will be of flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood?

Furthermore,

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

“She is an abomination,” it is written

about her, teaching that only she herself is an abomination, to be returned to him after she married another man,

but her sons

from him

are not abominations!

Furthermore,

one may challenge this:

It was taught in a beraita: One who remarries his divorced wife, one who marries his ḥalutza, or one who marries the relative of his ḥalutza—

Rabbi Akiva says: He does not acquire her through kiddushin,

because kiddushin does not take effect with women forbidden by negative commandments, just as kiddushin does not take effect with women forbidden by karet.

And

therefore

she does not require a bill of divorce from him.

And she is disqualified

with regard to the priesthood by the status of a zona, since every woman who has relations with one with whom kiddushin cannot take effect is forbidden to a priest as a zona. ["

A ḥalala is only a woman who has relations in violation of a prohibition applying to the priesthood, such as a widow who has relations with a High Priest or a divorcee who has relations with an ordinary priest.].

And her offspring is disqualified,

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

And they compel him to divorce her.

And the Sages say: He acquires her through kiddushin, and she requires a bill of divorce from him.

And she is fit, and her offspring is fit.

And we raise this objection: The statement of the Sages that the child of one who remarries his divorced wife is a fit child—

for whom,

for whom is her offspring fit?

Is it not

fit

to marry into the priesthood?

And it follows that, according to the Sages, the child of one who remarries his divorced wife is not a ḥalal!

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

He is not fit for the priesthood; rather, he is fit only

for the community,

to marry any Israelite except priests.

If so,

if his fitness applies only to the community, when the beraita says with regard to the woman herself that

“she is fit,”

for whom

is she fit to marry?

If you say

that she is fit to marry

into the community—

it is obvious

!

And is it so that

because she engaged in licentious relations—

she is disqualified from the community!?

Rather, is it not that she is fit

to marry

into the priesthood?

And since she

is fit

for the priesthood—

the fitness stated in the beraita with regard to

her offspring, too

is fitness

for the priesthood

as well!

And it follows that the child of one who remarries his divorced wife is not a ḥalal! The Gemara rejects the proof from the wording of this beraita, which indicates that the child of one who remarries his divorced wife is fit for the priesthood, contrary to Rav Yosef, who cited Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi, as saying that her child is of flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood:

Does that necessarily follow?

Did the beraita say that the fitness of the child is the same as the fitness of the mother?

It can be said:

This,

the fitness of the mother,

is as it is,

in the area relevant to her.

She is fit even for the priesthood [to eat teruma].

And this,

the fitness of the child,

is as it is,

in the area relevant to him.

He is fit to enter the community, but he is of flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood.

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

This is also logically compelling,

that this one is as it is and that one is as it is:

As it teaches at the beginning

with regard to 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,

is it the case that

because she engaged in licentious relations she disqualified him from the community?

Rather, obviously, from the priesthood,

as she is disqualified by the status of a zona, like any woman who has relations with one with whom kiddushin cannot 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 child is “disqualified”?

If you say that he is disqualified

with regard

to

the

priesthood,

and we may infer from this:

then, with regard to the community, he is

fit.

This cannot be said. For

he

indeed

Rabbi Akiva said

in our Mishna that one who remarries his divorced wife—

the child is a mamzer!

Rather, it is obvious

that Rabbi Akiva intends to disqualify him even

from the community,

by the status of a mamzer.

And from the beginning,

in Rabbi Akiva’s statement, we must distinguish between the disqualification of the mother and the disqualification of the child, and say that they refer to different disqualifications: she is forbidden only to the priesthood, whereas the child is forbidden even to the community. This is the meaning of

this one is as it is and that one is as it is.

So too, at the end,

in the statement of the Sages, we must say:

this one is as it is and that one is as it is.

The fitness of the mother applies both to the community and to the priesthood, whereas the fitness of the child applies only to the community, and not to the priesthood!

The Gemara now resolves the second difficulty raised against Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi: In the case of one who remarries his divorced wife, the verse uses the exclusionary expression “she is an abomination,” teaching that only she is an abomination, because he returns her after she married another man, but that her sons from him are not abominations, meaning that they are not of flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood:

And

as for what you challenged from the verse

“she is an abomination,”

and derived from it that her sons from the one who remarries her are not an abomination—

that too

is not difficult. For the exclusion conveyed by “she” does not come to teach this. Rather, it excludes her rival wife who falls with her to yibbum. Thus you should expound the exclusion conveyed by “she”:

Only

she

herself, she is

an abomination

to the brother-in-law,

but her rival wife is not

an abomination

to the brother-in-law, and she may perform yibbum with him.

But her sons

from him—

they are abominations

indeed!

With this, the Gemara has resolved the two latter difficulties raised against Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi.

Rather, only Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi’s derivation by means of a kal va-chomer from

a

widow

to a High Priest still remains

difficult.

This is the first difficulty: The kal va-chomer can be refuted, because

what is different about a widow

to a High Priest, whose child is of flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood,

is that she herself becomes profaned,

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

On the basis of this difficulty, which has no answer, the Gemara says that Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi’s statement must be presented differently:

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows:

Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi, said: Everyone agrees with regard to one who has relations with a woman forbidden by karet—

that the child is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood!

And the Gemara explains:

Who are “everyone agrees”?—

Rabbi Yehoshua

is the one meant!

Although Rabbi Yehoshua says that a mamzer does not result from a relationship with a woman forbidden by karet,

but only from a relationship punishable by execution by a court—

granted, he is not a mamzer—

he is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood

at least.

And this can be learned

by means of a kal va-chomer from a widow:

And if in the case of a widow to a High Priest, whose prohibition is not equally applicable to all—

her son is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood, and he is a ḥalal.

This woman, whose prohibition is equally applicable to all—

is it not logical that her son is of flawed lineage

with regard to the priesthood?

And if you would say

to refute the inference:

What is different about a widow is that she herself becomes profaned

with regard to the priesthood, becoming a ḥalala from that point onward!

Your answer is:

Here too,

in the case of relations with a woman forbidden by karet,

since her husband

made her a “zona,”

and this disqualification, too, constitutes flawed lineage with regard to the priesthood, like a ḥalala resulting from a High Priest who married a widow.

But when we formulated the kal va-chomer with regard to one who remarries his divorced wife, we could not answer that she, too, becomes a zona through his relations with her, because a woman becomes a zona only when she has relations with one who was initially a stranger to her, whereas this woman, who was divorced, married another man, and was then taken back by her former husband, was not initially a stranger to him [the wording of the Gemara at 69a; this principle will be explained there. Rashi].

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees, with regard to a slave or an idolater who has relations with a Jewish woman, that the child is a mamzer.

And we raise this objection:

Who are “everyone agrees”?

And we answer:

Shimon the Timnite

is meant.

Although Shimon the Timnite says

that

a mamzer does not result from a relationship with a woman who is forbidden by a negative commandment—