Yevamot 53b — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna:

he performed chalitza and performed a maamar and gave a get.

And so forth.

And we raised it:

Granted, he performed chalitza and performed a maamar

with one yavam and one yevama, this is well;

it was necessary

to say that it is nothing—

For

it might enter your mind to say: let us decree

even according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that betrothal does not take effect with a woman who performed chalitza, regarding

a maamar after chalitza,

to be stringent and require her to receive a get,

is it because

of

a maamar before chalitza,

for which she requires a get because of his maamar, in addition to his chalitza, and

it teaches us that we do not decree.

But he performed chalitza and gave a get—

why do I need

to have this taught in the Mishna?

For what benefit does this get provide? She is permitted to the marketplace even without it, and he is forbidden to her relatives even without it.

And we answer:

As for you,

who 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 teach this?

Granted, he had intercourse and gave a get—

it was necessary,

for

it might enter your mind to say: let us decree a get after intercourse on account of a get before intercourse; it teaches us that we do not decree.

But he had intercourse and performed a maamar—

why do I need

to say this? Has the maamar not added anything after the intercourse?!

Rather,

what can you answer?

Since

it was the case

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

in parallel with it

“he had intercourse and performed a maamar”

, even though there is no need for it.

If so, let us answer your question in the same way:

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

in parallel with this

“he performed chalitza and gave a get”

, even though there is no need for it.

We learned in our Mishna:

When she is, and so forth.

The Mishna is not in accordance with this tanna—

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

At the beginning—

nothing follows it.

In the middle and at the end—

something follows it.

And there are three disputes concerning the matter—

a.

The first tanna holds: intercourse, regarding which there is reason to decree—

we decree.

Chalitza, regarding which there is no reason to decree—

we do not decree.

b.

And Rabbi Nehemiah,

who said that with this one and with that one nothing follows it,

holds: with intercourse, too, there is no reason to decree.

And as for your saying: let us decree intercourse after the get on account of intercourse after chalitza—

Since chalitza is of Torah origin—

it is known.

And as for your saying: let us decree intercourse after a maamar on account of intercourse after intercourse—

Since intercourse is of Torah origin—

this, too, is known.

c.

And Abba Yose ben Hanan holds in accordance with the Rabbis, who decree with regard to intercourse.

And he decreed chalitza on account of intercourse.

We have returned to you, chapter “Rabban Gamliel.”

Introduction

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

Below are the principal points concerning these matters, according to Rashi's method:

A.

Women disqualified from marrying kohanim -

A High Priest is forbidden to marry a widow and a woman who has had intercourse.

For it is stated concerning the High Priest: “A widow, a divorced woman, a profaned woman, and a harlot—these he shall not take. For only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.”

Likewise, all kohanim were forbidden to marry a divorced woman [and a halutza, by rabbinic decree], and a harlot or a profaned woman.

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

The harlot

mentioned in the Torah is a woman who had intercourse with one with whom she is forbidden to have intercourse [according to Rashi], and this is the established ruling. The tannaim disputed this matter, below, page 61.

The profaned woman

mentioned in the Torah is one who had intercourse with one who is forbidden to her because of his priestly status [one of the disqualified from the priesthood], or the offspring that came from this intercourse.

The profaned man disqualifies his wife and his offspring, and they too become profaned.

B.

Those who eat teruma, even though they are not kohanim -

The daughter of a kohen

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

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

The Israelite wife of a kohen,

is permitted to eat teruma. Some say that her husband is the one who “feeds her” teruma, and some say that a law of eating was newly established for the woman herself because she is the wife of a kohen; and there are several practical differences resulting from this uncertainty.

The Canaanite male and female slaves of a kohen,

eat teruma, because the master “feeds them” teruma, but 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 son's son, even if he was an ordinary Israelite or disqualified, her mother [or her mother's mother] eats teruma.

For it is stated: “And when a kohen acquires ... and one born in his household—they shall eat of his bread.”

And the Sages expounded: They shall “feed” from his bread; and even if she has a living son from the kohen without marriage, he makes her eat teruma.

C.

Women disqualified from eating teruma:

Any woman who became profaned through intercourse with one of the disqualified from the priesthood does not eat either from her father's household's teruma, if she is a kohenet, or from her husband's teruma, if she is an Israelite woman married to a kohen.

The later authorities were uncertain whether a profaned woman eats teruma on account of her son from a kohen.

Tosafot were uncertain whether a “harlot” is disqualified from teruma, since she was compared to a profaned woman [see their words on pages 35a and 44b]. However, concerning Rashi's view they proved that the name “harlot” in itself is not sufficient to disqualify her from teruma.

The Torah further says: “And the daughter of a kohen, if she becomes the wife of an ordinary non-kohen—she shall not eat of the sacred offerings.” The verse teaches that every woman who had intercourse with a man who is an ordinary non-kohen and disqualified for her is forbidden to eat teruma, provided that he was “originally an ordinary non-kohen” for her, and that he be a “man who is an ordinary non-kohen,” and not “a woman who is an ordinary non-kohen.”

And just as she is disqualified from her father's household's teruma, so she is disqualified from the teruma that she eats on account of her son whom she has from a kohen, and the Sages derived this from an amplification of the verse [see below, 67b].

The Torah further says: “And the daughter of a kohen, if she becomes a widow or a divorced woman [from her husband, and when she married him she became disqualified from eating her father's household's teruma], and she returns to her father's house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread.”

And the Sages derived from this verse that a woman eats teruma only if she had intercourse with one who is subject to betrothal and divorce with respect to her. But if the woman had intercourse [even mere intercourse, without his taking her as a wife] with one for whom betrothal does not take effect with her [such as a close relative, or a gentile or a slave, for whom betrothal with an Israelite woman does not exist], she no longer eats her father's household's teruma.

And just as she is disqualified from her father's household's teruma, so she is disqualified from the teruma that she eats on account of her son from a kohen, and the Sages derived this from an amplification of the verse, [see below, 69a].

A kohen's daughter who has a son or a son's son from an Israelite, whether through marriage or through harlotry, is disqualified from eating her father's household's teruma, for the Torah says: “And the daughter of a kohen, if she becomes a widow or a divorced woman and has no offspring, and she returns to her father's house as in her youth.”

And it is implied by the verse that if she has offspring from an Israelite, she does not return to her father's house, and she does not eat teruma.

And just as she is disqualified from eating her father's household's teruma because of her offspring from an Israelite, so she is disqualified because of him from eating teruma on account of her son from a kohen.

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

The later authorities were uncertain whether a son from an Israelite who was born to her through harlotry also disqualifies her from eating the teruma that she eats on account of her son from a kohen. Page 53b

Mishna:

One who has intercourse with his yevama

who is bound to him for yibum:

A.

Whether

he had intercourse with her

unintentionally,

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

whether

he had intercourse with her

intentionally,

for his intention was for harlotry and not for the sake of the mitzva;

whether

he had intercourse with her

under compulsion,

and the Gemara will explain in what manner the compulsion occurred;

whether with consent,

for he knew that she was his yevama and intended to acquire her.

And

even

if

he was unintentional and she was intentional.

Or

he was intentional and she was unintentional,

for neither of them intended for the sake of the mitzva.

Or

he was under compulsion and she was not under compulsion,

but was unintentional or intentional.

Or

she was under compulsion and he was not under compulsion,

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

Whether one who begins [

an incomplete intercourse] with his yevama

or one who completes

his intercourse with his yevama.

In all the cases mentioned, he has

acquired

his yevama as a wife—

and the verse did not distinguish

between

one intercourse and another.

And 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 unusual manner, he has acquired his yevama as a wife [Tosafot in the name of Rashi, and Rashi in the Gemara].

And

just as these acts of intercourse acquire the yevama,

so

these acts of intercourse disqualify women who are disqualified through intercourse from the priesthood and from teruma, and therefore:

B.

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

and through his intercourse she becomes a harlot, to be forbidden to a kohen, and is disqualified through his intercourse with regard to teruma.

Or

a kohen had intercourse with one of the

women disqualified

from the priesthood, and through his intercourse she becomes profaned,

such as:

a widow

who had intercourse

with a High Priest,

or a

divorced woman who had intercourse

with an ordinary kohen,

or a

halutza with an ordinary kohen

who is forbidden to her by rabbinic law,

and all these become profaned by Torah law or by rabbinic law.

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

Likewise,

a mamzeret

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

and

likewise

a netina [

Gibeonites who converted by deception in the days of Joshua, and he appointed them as slaves for chopping wood and drawing water, and they are forbidden to enter the congregation], who had intercourse

with an Israelite through these acts of intercourse, they are punished on account of it.

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, Rashi; and the Rashba wrote that in precise versions this passage does not appear at all, since it does not belong to the matter of disqualification that is discussed in our Mishna.]

C. And likewise, if

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

they disqualify her on account of “And the daughter of a kohen, if she becomes the wife of an ordinary non-kohen, she shall 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 intercourse and another,

for even if he did not complete his intercourse but only began it with her, 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 compulsion or with consent, even if he was unintentional and she was intentional, he was intentional and she was unintentional, he was under compulsion and she was not under compulsion, she was under compulsion and he was not under compulsion—he has acquired her:

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

What is the meaning of “even”?

And we answer:

It states, “It is not necessary.”

It is not necessary

when

he was unintentional and she intended for the sake of the mitzva, or, alternatively, he was intentional and she intended for the sake of 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 [

the Bach],

for both of them [

the yavam and his yevama]

did not intend for the sake of the mitzva, even so he acquired her.

Rabbi Hiyya taught: Even if

they were

both,

the yavam and the yevama,

unintentional,

or they were

both intentional,

or they were

both under compulsion, in all these cases he has acquired her.

in all these cases he has acquired her.

The Gemara first explains our Mishna, and afterward what Rabbi Hiyya taught:

“Under compulsion” in the Mishna—

what are the circumstances?

How and in what manner was he compelled?

If you say,

if we explain it:

when gentiles compelled 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].

It is impossible to explain it this way, because:

But Rava said: There is no

claim of

compulsion for

one who has intercourse with a

forbidden relation!

A. We hold that in the revelation of forbidden relations, even if they threatened him with the punishment of death in order to make him perform the act, he must let himself be killed and not transgress.

B. If a man became erect in his sleep, or with his wife, and gentiles press him against a forbidden relation, and he can withdraw from them, if by withdrawing from them he will be killed, he is not obligated to withdraw from them and die, because since he is not performing an act, but they are performing the act upon him, and he is merely like inert ground, he is not obligated to withdraw and die.

C. If he was not erect, and gentiles press him against a forbidden relation, and he knows himself that if he does not withdraw from them he will become erect, he is obligated to withdraw from them even if he will be killed, because he cannot say, “I am under compulsion,” and claim that he is merely like inert ground.

And the reason is:

because erection is not

of the organ

except through conscious intention,

and it follows that he is the one performing the intercourse, and not the other person who pressed him against her; therefore he is obligated to die and not have intercourse with her [as explained according to Tosafot].

And since erection is through conscious intention, if so this is not compulsion, 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

and had intercourse with his yevama.

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

For Rav Yehuda said: