Yevamot 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

Our Mishna teaches:

he performed halitza, performed a maamar, and gave a get.

And so on.

We raised a difficulty:

Granted, with regard to “he performed halitza and performed a maamar”

with one yavam and one yevama, it is well that it was necessary

to state

that it has no effect—

For

it might enter your mind that we should decree

even according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that betrothal does not take effect with a woman who underwent halitza, with regard to

a maamar performed after halitza,

in order to be stringent and require her to receive a get,

lest

because of

a maamar performed before halitza,

which requires her to receive a get for his maamar, in addition to the halitza, and

this teaches us that we do not issue such a decree.

Rather, “he performed halitza and gave a get”—

why do I need

the Mishna to state this?

What benefit does this get provide? She is permitted to marry someone else even without it, and he is forbidden to her relatives even without it.

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

that you raised this difficulty,

say the latter clause:

“He had intercourse and performed a maamar; he had intercourse and gave a get”—

Why did the tanna state this?

Granted, “he had intercourse and gave a get”—

it was necessary,

for

it might enter your mind that we should decree a get given after intercourse because of a get given before intercourse; this teaches us that we do not issue such a decree.

But “he had intercourse and performed a maamar”—

why do I need

this to be stated? The maamar adds nothing after the intercourse!

Rather,

what can you answer?

Since

it was the case

that he taught “he performed halitza and performed a maamar,” he also taught

in parallel

“he had intercourse and performed a maamar

”, although it is unnecessary.

If so, let us also answer your question as follows:

Since he needed to teach “he had intercourse and gave a get,” he also taught

in parallel

“he performed halitza and gave a get

”, although it is unnecessary.

Our Mishna teaches:

“When she was, and so on.”

The Mishna is not in accordance with this tanna—

as it was taught in a beraita: Abba Yosei ben Yohanan, a man of Jerusalem, says in the name of Rabbi Meir: One intercourse and one halitza—

at the beginning—

nothing that follows it has any effect.

In the middle or at the end—

something that follows it does have an effect.

And there are three opinions in this matter—

1.

The first tanna holds: In the case of intercourse, where there is reason to issue a decree—

we issue the decree.

In the case of halitza, where there is no reason to issue a decree—

we do not issue the decree.

2.

And Rabbi Nehemya,

who said that in both this case and that case nothing that follows it has any effect,

holds: There is also no reason to issue a decree in the case of intercourse.

And as for your saying that we should decree with regard to intercourse after a get, because of intercourse after halitza—

Since halitza is mandated by Torah—

people know this.

And as for your saying that we should decree with regard to intercourse after a maamar, because of intercourse after intercourse—

Since intercourse is mandated by Torah—

this too is known.

3.

And Abba Yosei ben Yohanan holds in accordance with the Rabbis, who issue a decree in the case of intercourse.

And they issued a decree with regard to halitza because of intercourse.

We shall return to you, Chapter “Rabban Gamliel.”

Introduction

The chapter before us deals for the most part with women who are disqualified from marrying kohanim, and with women who are disqualified from eating teruma.

The main points of these matters, according to Rashi’s approach, are presented below:

A.

Women disqualified from marrying kohanim –

A Kohen Gadol is forbidden to marry a widow or a woman who has had intercourse.

As it is stated concerning the Kohen Gadol: “A widow, a divorced woman, a profaned woman, or a prostitute—these he shall not take; but only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.”

All kohanim are likewise forbidden to marry a divorcee [and, by rabbinic decree, a woman released through ḥalitza], or a prostitute or a ḥalala.

As it is stated: “They shall not take a prostitute or a profaned woman; and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband.”

The prostitute

referred to by the Torah is a woman who had intercourse with one whom she is forbidden to marry [according to Rashi’s view and this is the established halakha. The tannaim disagree about this matter, below, on page 61].

The ḥalala

referred to by the Torah is a woman who had intercourse with one who is forbidden to her because of his priestly status [those disqualified from marrying a kohen], or the offspring resulting from this intercourse.

A ḥalal disqualifies his wife and his offspring, and they too become ḥalalim.

B.

Those who eat teruma despite not being kohanim –

A kohen’s daughter

eats teruma [and this is called “teruma debei nasa,” meaning, the teruma of her father’s household]. Some say that this is because she too is a kohenet, and eats by virtue of her own sanctity, under the law applicable to a kohenet; others say that she eats by virtue of her father, and that her father is considered to “feed her” teruma.

Once a kohen’s daughter becomes betrothed to an Israelite, she is disqualified from the teruma of her father’s household.

The Israelite wife of a kohen is

permitted to eat teruma. Some say that her husband is the one who “feeds her” teruma; others say that a distinct law of eating was established with regard to the woman herself because she is a kohen’s wife. This uncertainty has several practical ramifications.

A kohen’s Canaanite male and female slaves

eat teruma, because their master “feeds them” teruma; however, they do not possess the sanctity of the priesthood.

An Israelite woman who married a kohen and has a living son from him

or a grandson, even if he is a zar or otherwise disqualified, enables his mother [or his maternal grandmother] to eat teruma.

As it is stated: “And if a kohen acquires a person … and those born in his household—they shall eat of his bread.”

The Sages interpreted this to mean: they shall “enable others to eat” of his bread. Even if she has a living son from the kohen without having married him, he enables her to eat teruma.

C.

Women disqualified from eating teruma:

Any woman who becomes a ḥalala through intercourse with one disqualified from the priesthood may not eat either from her father’s teruma, if she is a kohenet, or from her husband’s teruma, if she is an Israelite married to a kohen.

Later authorities were uncertain whether a ḥalala can eat teruma on account of her son from a kohen.

Tosafot were uncertain whether a “prostitute” is disqualified from teruma, since she is equated with a ḥalala [see their comments on 35a and 42b]. However, with regard to Rashi’s view, they demonstrated that the designation “prostitute” in itself is not sufficient to disqualify her from teruma.

The Torah further states: “But if a kohen’s daughter becomes the wife of a foreign man, she may not eat of the sacred offerings.” The verse teaches that any woman who had intercourse with a man who is a zar and disqualified to her is forbidden to eat teruma, provided that he was originally a zar with regard to her, and that he is a “foreign man,” not a “foreign woman.”

Just as she is disqualified from her father’s teruma, so too she is disqualified from teruma that she eats on account of her son from a kohen; the Sages derived this from an extension of the verse [see below, 67b].

The Torah further states: “And if a kohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee [from her husband, and when she married him she became disqualified from eating the teruma of her father’s household], and she has no offspring, and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread.”

The Sages derived from this verse that a woman eats teruma only if she had intercourse with one with whom she can have betrothal and divorce. But if the woman had intercourse [even mere intercourse without his taking her as a wife] with one with whom betrothal does not take effect for her [such as a close relative, or a gentile or a slave, with whom betrothal to an Israelite woman is ineffective], she may no longer eat from her father’s teruma.

Just as she is disqualified from her father’s teruma, so too she is disqualified from teruma that she eats on account of her son from a kohen; the Sages derived this from an extension of the verse [see below, 69a].

A kohen’s daughter who has a son or grandson from an Israelite, whether through marriage or through illicit intercourse, is disqualified from eating her father’s teruma, for the Torah states: “And if a kohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee, and has no offspring, she shall return to her father’s house as in her youth.”

The verse implies that if she has offspring from an Israelite, she does not return to her father’s house and may not eat teruma.

Just as she is disqualified from eating her father’s teruma because of her offspring from an Israelite, so too she is disqualified because of him from eating teruma on account of her son from a kohen.

However, there are distinctions in the laws governing this matter [see the Mishna below, 86a; and for the source of this law, see Rashi on 69a, s.v. “Ken,” and Rashi on 86b, s.v. “Met”].

Later authorities were uncertain whether a son from an Israelite born to her through illicit intercourse also disqualifies her from eating teruma that she eats on account of her son from a kohen.

Mishna:

One who has intercourse with his yevama

who is obligated to him for yibbum:

1.

Whether

he has intercourse with her

unintentionally,

meaning that at the time of intercourse he thought he was having intercourse with his wife or another woman, and did not know that she was his yevama;

whether

he has intercourse with her

intentionally,

meaning that his intention was for illicit intercourse and not for the mitzva;

whether

he has intercourse with her

under duress,

as the Gemara will explain in what manner the duress occurred;

whether willingly,

meaning that he knew she was his yevama and intended to acquire her as his wife.

And

even

if

he was unintentional and she was intentional.

Or

he was intentional and she was unintentional,

so that neither of them intended it for the mitzva;

or

he was under duress and she was not under duress,

but was unintentional or intentional;

or

she was under duress and he was not under duress,

but was unintentional or intentional, so that neither of them intended it for the mitzva.

Whether one who begins [

in an incomplete act of intercourse] with his yevama,

or one who completes

his intercourse with his yevama—

In all the situations mentioned, he has

acquired

his yevama as his wife—

And the verse did not distinguish

between

one act of intercourse and another.

From this you learn that whether one has intercourse with his yevama in the usual manner, or whether he has intercourse with her in an atypical manner, he has acquired his yevama as his wife [Tosafot in the name of Rashi, and Rashi in the Gemara].

And

just as these acts of intercourse effect acquisition with regard to a yevama,

so

these acts of intercourse disqualify women who are disqualified by intercourse from marrying a kohen or from eating teruma. Therefore:

2.

One who has intercourse with any of the forbidden relations stated in the Torah,

and through his intercourse makes her a prostitute, so that she is forbidden to a kohen, and disqualifies her from teruma.

Or

a kohen has intercourse with one of the

women disqualified

from marrying a kohen, and through his intercourse makes her a ḥalala,

such as:

a widow

with whom he has intercourse

if he is a Kohen Gadol,

or with whom he has intercourse

a divorcee

if he is an ordinary kohen,

or with whom he has intercourse

a woman released through ḥalitza with an ordinary kohen

who is rabbinically forbidden to her,

and all these become ḥalalot, by Torah law or by rabbinic law.

In all these cases, if he has intercourse with her through one of the acts of intercourse mentioned, he disqualifies her, as we learned at the end of the Mishna: “He disqualified her.”

Likewise,

a mamzeret

who has intercourse with an Israelite through these acts of intercourse,

and

likewise

a netina [

the Gibeonites who converted deceitfully in the days of Joshua, and whom he made slaves, woodcutters and water-drawers; they are forbidden to enter the congregation, ] who has intercourse

with an Israelite

through these acts of intercourse, is punished for it. [

This passage does not belong to the expression “he disqualified her” stated at the end of the Mishna, since they are not disqualified through their intercourse, according to Rashi. The Rashba wrote that this passage does not appear at all in accurate versions, since it is unrelated to the issue of disqualification discussed in our Mishna.]

3. And likewise, if

an Israelite woman has intercourse with a mamzer or a netin,

they disqualify her on the basis of “if a kohen’s daughter becomes the wife of a foreign man, she may not eat of the sacred offerings.”

In all these cases,

he disqualified her,

the man who had intercourse with the woman, through all the forms of intercourse mentioned.

And he did not distinguish

in these cases

between one act of intercourse and another,

for even if he did not complete the intercourse but only initiated it, he disqualified her [Tosafot in the name of Rashi].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who has intercourse with his yevama, whether unintentionally or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly, even if he was unintentional and she was intentional, he was intentional and she was unintentional, he was under duress and she was not under duress, or she was under duress and he was not under duress—he has acquired her:

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What is the significance of “even”?

And we answer:

It states a “needless to say”.

It is not necessary

when

he was unintentional and she intended it for the mitzva; alternatively, he was intentional and she intended it for the mitzva,

that he acquired his yevama.

Rather, even if he was unintentional and she was intentional,

or

he was intentional and she was unintentional

[according to the reading of the Bach],

both of them

[the yavam and his yevama]

did not intend it for the mitzva; even so, he acquired her.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Even if

they were

both,

the yavam and the yevama,

unintentional,

or

both of them were intentional,

or

both of them were under duress,

in all these cases he has acquired her.

The Gemara first explains our Mishna and then what Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:

The “under duress” of the Mishna—

what are the circumstances?

How and in what way was he forced?

If you say,

if we explain it as follows:

When gentiles forced him,

and brought him upon his yevama, and pressed him against her when his organ was not erect, and it became erect,

and he had intercourse with her

[as explained according to Tosafot].

This cannot be the explanation, because:

But Rava said: There is no

claim of

duress for

one who has intercourse with a

forbidden relation!

1. We have established that in matters of forbidden sexual relations, even if one was threatened with death in order to perform the act, he must allow himself to be killed and not transgress.

2. If a man became erect in his sleep, or became erect because of his wife, and gentiles press him against a forbidden woman, and he can extricate himself from them, but if he extricates himself he will be killed, he is not required to extricate himself and die. Since he is not performing an action, but they are performing the action upon him, and he is merely like an inanimate object, he is not required to extricate himself and die.

3. If he was not erect, and gentiles press him against a forbidden woman, and he knows that if he does not extricate himself from them he will become erect, he is required to extricate himself even if he will be killed, since he cannot say, “I am under duress,” and claim that he is merely like an inanimate object.

The reason is:

because erection is

of the organ

only intentional,

and it follows that he is the one performing the intercourse, rather than the other person who pressed him against her. Therefore, he must allow himself to be killed and not have intercourse with her [as explained according to Tosafot].

Since erection is intentional, this is not considered duress, and our Mishna need not teach us that he acquired her.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that our Mishna is discussing

one who was asleep

when he had intercourse with his yevama.

This too cannot be said, since he would not acquire his yevama, for:

Did Rabbi Yehuda not say: