Yevamot 56a — the Talmud in English

From here onward,

from the insertion of the crown and outward,

it is only a kiss, and he is exempt on account of it

And

he certainly

disagrees with Shmuel.

We learned in the Mishna: One who has intercourse with his yevama, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly—

whether one who begins intercourse or one who completes it, he acquires her.

Introduction:

a. There are several distinctions in law between a betrothed woman and a married woman:

The husband inherits his wife only if she dies after he married her, but not if she dies while she is betrothed.

And if the husband was a

kohen, he does not become impure for her when she dies while she is betrothed, but only if she dies after she was married to him.

While she is betrothed, he does not alone annul her vows [as he does during her marriage], but does so in partnership with her father.

b. A daughter of Israel betrothed to a kohen does not eat teruma on account of her kohen husband, unless she marries him.

And although according to Torah law she is permitted to eat teruma from the time of her betrothal to the kohen, for the Torah said, “And when a kohen acquires a person, an acquisition of his money—he shall eat of it,” and the betrothed woman, since she was consecrated to him with money or with other kiddushin, is his “acquisition,” and according to Torah law she is fit to eat teruma—

rather, the Sages decreed that a daughter of Israel should not eat teruma until she marries a kohen, but not during her betrothal.

And concerning the reason for their decree, the amoraim disagreed [in Ketubot 57b]:

According to Ulla, they decreed that she should not eat teruma because of the concern that a cup of teruma wine might be mixed for her while she was in her father’s house [the Israelite house], and she would mistakenly give her brother and sister to drink from the teruma wine, since she was still in her father’s house and her family members were Israelites.

Whereas according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, the Sages decreed that the woman betrothed to a kohen should not eat teruma because of the concern that a “simpon” [defect] might be found in her that retroactively nullifies the kiddushin, and it would be found that she is a non-kohen woman eating teruma.

c. A yavam who has complete intercourse with his yevama acquires her with a complete acquisition, both with regard to matters stated explicitly in the passage of yibbum and with regard to matters not stated explicitly there: “

The matters explicitly stated in the passage”

of yibbum are:

First, the yavam’s acquisition of his yevama in order to inherit his brother’s property.

For it is written in the passage of yibbum, “And it shall be that the firstborn son whom she bears shall arise in the name of his brother,” and they learned from here that the yavam arises in his brother’s name for inheritance.

Second, to exempt his yevama from yibbum [for if the yavam subsequently dies and has sons from another wife, she does not require yibbum on his account, and she is permitted to the general public; or if he released her with a bill of divorce, she does not require halitza, because through his intercourse her bond to his brother was removed], as it is stated, “And she shall be his wife,” and we expound: “his wife”—only for this brother who performs yibbum with her first will she be his wife, but not “his brother’s wife.” The verse teaches that from the moment she becomes his [the yavam’s] wife, she will no longer be his other brother’s wife [except if the brother who performed yibbum dies without children, in which case she falls from him for yibbum].

The matter “

not explicitly stated in the passage”

is:

All matters that apply to every woman. For the yavam acquires her so that she is like his married wife in every respect, as it is stated, “And he shall take her as his wife.” The verse teaches that once he has taken her, she becomes like his married wife in every respect, so that he acquires her—

to inherit her, to become impure for her [if he is a kohen], to annul her vows, and to feed her teruma.

d. There is a distinction between matters stated explicitly by the Torah in the passage and matters not stated explicitly in it, with regard to the yavam’s acquisition of her through an “inferior intercourse,” which does not acquire her for the yavam with a complete acquisition, as will be explained.

With regard to matters written explicitly in the passage, the yavam’s acquisition is effective even through inferior intercourse [although it does not acquire her with a complete acquisition like marriage].

For matters explicitly written in the Torah involve only placing the yavam in the place of the husband; they do not strengthen the yavam’s power with regard to his yevama beyond the power of the deceased husband with regard to his wife. Therefore, they apply also through inferior intercourse, which does not effect a complete acquisition.

But matters not written explicitly in the Torah do not apply through inferior intercourse, which does not acquire her with a complete acquisition, since matters not explicitly stated are included in the verse, “And he shall take her as his wife,” which refers to a complete acquisition through marriage.

Therefore, if the yavam performed inferior intercourse with her, which does not make her his married wife but at most makes her like a betrothed woman, he will not treat her according to the law of a married woman. Therefore, he will not become impure for her if he is a kohen, he will not annul her vows except in partnership with her father, and he will not feed her teruma if she is a daughter of Israel married to a kohen.

For if the yevama had not been married to her deceased husband but had only been betrothed to him, he would not have power over his betrothed with regard to these matters. And if these matters applied to the yavam even through inferior intercourse, which does not effect a complete acquisition, it would turn out that you were granting the yavam greater power over her than the husband, from whose power the yavam derives.

e. Our sugya concerns the inferior acts of intercourse that the Mishna said are effective to acquire her, and it now discusses with regard to which matters he acquires her even through inferior intercourse.

And we raised the matter:

What does “he acquires”

mean? With regard to what does he acquire her through inferior intercourse?

Rav said: He acquires

through inferior intercourse

for everything,

both for those matters that the Torah wrote in the passage of yibbum [in which the Torah expanded the scope with “he shall have intercourse with his yevama,” to include inferior intercourse] and for matters not written explicitly in that passage.

And Shmuel said:

Since the Torah expanded the scope to include inferior intercourse specifically in the passage of yibbum,

he does not acquire

through complete intercourse

except

only

for

those

matters stated

explicitly

in

that

passage

of yibbum, and these are:

To inherit his brother’s property and to exempt her from yibbum,

and likewise to exempt her rival wife from yibbum.

And the Gemara brings two formulations in explaining the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel, and explains the distinctions between Rav and Shmuel according to the two formulations with regard to eating teruma, which is not written explicitly in the passage [and teruma is merely one detail that teaches about the entire principle].

a. According to the first formulation:

Rav’s view: Even if the yavam had inferior intercourse with her, she becomes his complete wife in every respect, as though he had performed yibbum with her through complete intercourse.

Shmuel’s view: Although the Torah expanded the scope only for matters explicitly written in the passage, nevertheless, all matters similar to them in their nature, which do not grant the yavam greater power than the husband, are learned from the matters stated in the passage, so that they are like them. He acquires her with regard to these matters even through inferior intercourse.

Therefore, with regard to eating teruma, which is not written in the passage, the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel will be as follows:

If she fell to him for yibbum

from the marriage

of his kohen brother,

according to everyone—

including Shmuel—

she eats

teruma, for there is no granting the yavam greater power than her deceased husband, from whose power he derives,

for she was eating it initially

[since she ate teruma even while she was with her deceased husband], and she is therefore learned from the matters written in the passage.

They disagree

—Rav and Shmuel—when she fell to him for yibbum

from the betrothal

before his brother married her, and she was not eating teruma under the authority of her husband, for a betrothed woman does not eat teruma by rabbinic decree:

Rav said: She eats

teruma,

for the Merciful One expanded the scope,

for the Torah expanded the scope to include

unwitting intercourse like intentional intercourse

[that is, unwitting and intentional intercourse] , and she is acquired to him in every respect, and she eats teruma like other married women.

And Shmuel said: When the Merciful One expanded the scope

so that the yavam acquires his yevama even through inferior intercourse, this is only

to place him

as the yavam

in the place of

the

husband

who died.

But

to strengthen him,

to strengthen him and grant the yavam greater power

than

the

husband

who died—

not

did the Torah say that he acquires her.

For when she was with the husband, she was not eating teruma.

And the same is true with regard to other matters not written in the passage: Rav and Shmuel disagree about them only when she fell to him for yibbum from the betrothal, but when she fell to him from the marriage, his power is equal to the husband’s power with regard to her in every respect, even according to Shmuel.

And Shmuel proceeded

and proceeded

according to his own reasoning.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

Whenever the husband

the kohen

feeds

[his wife] teruma, the

yavam

also

feeds

her, even when he had inferior intercourse.

And whenever the husband does not feed,

even a

yavam

who had inferior intercourse

does not feed her.

a. A deaf-mute [a person who neither hears nor speaks, and lacks understanding] who consecrated a woman—the kiddushin is not kiddushin according to Torah law, since he lacks understanding. However, the Sages instituted betrothal and marriage for him.

b. A deaf-mute kohen who consecrated a daughter of Israel: the woman does not eat teruma, since according to Torah law his kiddushin is not kiddushin, and she is forbidden to eat teruma, and the Sages did not institute kiddushin for a deaf-mute in order to be lenient against Torah law.

c. Intercourse by a deaf-mute who lacks understanding with his yevama acquires her, since in yibbum understanding is not required, and even under duress he acquires her.

However, the intercourse of the deaf-mute cannot be superior to the other inferior acts of intercourse, concerning the effectiveness of whose acquisition Rav and Shmuel disagree. Therefore, the deaf-mute’s acquisition of his yevama depends on the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel.

It was challenged

from a beraita, in which we learned:

A mentally competent daughter of Israel who was betrothed to a mentally competent kohen

—according to Torah law she is permitted to eat teruma, but by rabbinic decree she does not eat—

and he did not have time

the kohen

to marry her before he became a deaf-mute,

and afterward he married her, she

does not eat

teruma.

And although according to Torah law she was already fit to eat from the time of her betrothal, when he was mentally competent, and now that he married her the rabbinic decree that prohibited a betrothed woman from eating teruma because perhaps she would give her brother and sister to drink no longer applies, for he brought her into the marriage canopy and we should have permitted her—

nevertheless, she does not eat teruma.

For the Sages decreed concerning the marriage of a deaf-mute—who consecrated her while he was mentally competent—not to feed her teruma, because of a deaf-mute who consecrated her while he was a deaf-mute and married her while he was a deaf-mute, for this kiddushin does not enable the woman to eat teruma.

And if

the deaf-mute dies

after he married her

and she falls before a deaf-mute yavam,

and the deaf-mute has intercourse with her, she

eats

teruma by virtue of her kohen yavam, for the intercourse of a deaf-mute with his yevama is no less than inferior intercourse that effects acquisition, and she becomes a married woman.

And in this case, the yavam’s power is greater than the husband’s power,

for the husband does not have the power to feed her because of his deaf-muteness, whereas the yavam—a deaf-mute like him—feeds her teruma.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, according to Rav,

who holds that inferior intercourse with a yevama acquires her in every respect, it is

satisfactory

that she eats in the household of the yavam through inferior intercourse, although in the household of the husband she would not eat.

But according to Shmuel,

who holds that inferior intercourse does not enable her to eat teruma when she did not eat in the household of the husband, it is

difficult

from this beraita: In the household of the husband—who married her while he was a deaf-mute—she did not eat teruma, so how can the deaf-mute yavam feed her through his inferior intercourse, granting her more than the husband, from whose power he derives?

Shmuel could say to you: Say it this way [like: “something is missing, and this is what it teaches”]

as in the expression: something is missing from the text, and this is what it teaches ]:

A mentally competent daughter of Israel who was betrothed to a mentally competent kohen,

and he did not have time to marry her before he became a deaf-mute, she does not eat teruma,

as explained.

If

the mentally competent man

married her and afterward became a deaf-mute—

she

eats.

The deaf-mute dies,

that deaf-mute who became deaf-mute after his marriage,

and she falls before a deaf-mute yavam,

she

eats,

since she also ate in the household of her husband, and therefore the inferior intercourse of the deaf-mute yavam is effective to enable her to eat teruma.

And

if you say: Since she also ate in the household of the husband,

what is “in this case

the yavam’s power is greater than the husband’s power” that they said in the beraita, when she also ate in the household of the husband?!

It is not difficult, for indeed his power is greater than the husband’s power.

For

if

with a

deaf-mute husband from the outset

[from the beginning, before he married her]

she would not eat, whereas the yavam

even when he is

a deaf-mute from the outset, she eats.

b. According to the second formulation:

And there are those who say

in explaining the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel, and the practical difference between them is with regard to teruma, which is not written in the passage:

According to Shmuel, inferior intercourse acquires her only with regard to matters stated in the passage, not because these matters constitute placing the husband in the place of the yavam, but rather even matters similar to them that do not grant the yavam greater power than the husband: whenever they are not written in the passage, inferior intercourse is not effective to acquire her with regard to that matter.

On the contrary, even Rav, who disagrees with Shmuel and says, “he acquires her for everything,” concedes that inferior intercourse is not effective to grant the yavam greater power than the husband. Rather, he does not agree with Shmuel concerning those matters not written in the passage that do not grant the husband greater power over his yevama.

Therefore, with regard to teruma, which is not written in the passage, their disagreement will be as follows:

When the woman fell for yibbum

from the betrothal, the words of

everyone—

including Rav—are: she

does not eat.

For she did not eat during the husband’s lifetime,

and it would turn out that you were granting the yavam greater power than the husband; therefore, even according to Rav, he does not acquire her.

And likewise, according to Rav, he will not acquire her with regard to all other matters not stated in the passage—that is, to inherit her, to become impure for her, and to annul her vows—for all these grant the yavam greater power than the husband.

They disagree—

when she fell

from the marriage:

Rav said: She eats.

Since

she was eating it initially!

And even though it is not written explicitly in the passage, he acquires her also with regard to this, since we are not coming to give him an advantage over the husband.

And Shmuel said: She does not eat.

Since

when the Merciful One included intercourse performed unintentionally as [intercourse performed] intentionally—

for the matters stated in the passage

specifically.

But for all matters—

even in a matter in which the yavam is not superior to the husband—

not

did the Torah say that the yavam acquires her through inferior intercourse.

And we challenge this from that statement that was brought as support for the first formulation:

But Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said:

Whatever causes the husband to feed [her teruma], the yavam feeds [her teruma], and according to your words, even when the husband causes her to eat, the yavam does not cause her to eat through inferior intercourse.

whereas according to your statement, even when the husband enables her to eat teruma, the levir does not enable her to do so through inferior intercourse?

Say [instead]: Any intercourse through which the husband causes her to eat, that is to say: proper intercourse through which he is fit to acquire her, since it is with her consent and for the purpose of acquisition,

then

the yavam causes her to eat through it,

and that is intercourse performed willingly.

And any intercourse through which the husband does not cause her to eat,

which was not with his consent and through which he does not acquire her,

the yavam also does not cause her to eat through it,

and that is inferior intercourse.

He raised an objection

from that beraita mentioned above:

An intelligent Israelite woman who became betrothed to an intelligent priest, and he did not manage to marry her before he became deaf-mute, does not eat

teruma as his wife.

The deaf-mute married her and

died and she fell before a deaf-mute yavam,

she

eats; and in this the power of the yavam is superior to the power of the husband.

According to the plain meaning of the beraita, it is difficult from it both for Rav and for Shmuel, for it is made clear in it that the yavam causes his yevama to eat teruma even when the husband did not cause her to eat; we are found giving the yavam an advantage over the husband, and in this even Rav concedes that inferior intercourse does not effect acquisition.

Granted, according to Rav,

it is not difficult, because he

explains

according to his position in the latter formulation,

as Shmuel explained

this beraita

initially

[according to the first formulation].

That is, a passage is missing, and this is what it teaches:

An intelligent Israelite woman who became betrothed to an intelligent priest, and he did not manage to marry her before he became deaf-mute, does not eat teruma.

If the intelligent man married her and afterward became deaf-mute, she eats.

And if that deaf-mute, who became deaf-mute after his marriage, died and she fell before a deaf-mute yavam, she eats, since she had also been eating with her husband; therefore the inferior intercourse of the deaf-mute yavam is effective in causing her to eat teruma.

And what the beraita said, “In this the power of the yavam is superior to the power of the husband,” it intended to say that if the husband had been deaf-mute from the outset, she would not eat, whereas if the yavam had been deaf-mute from the outset, she would eat.

But according to Shmuel,

who holds that the yavam never causes his wife to eat teruma if he had intercourse with her through inferior intercourse,

it is difficult

from this beraita.

For in any event, it is made clear in it that there are instances in which the deaf-mute causes his yevama to eat teruma.

And we conclude: Indeed, it

is difficult

from this beraita for Shmuel, according to the second interpretation of his words.

a. An Israelite woman who married a priest, and her priest-husband died, returns to her previous status as an Israelite woman and no longer eats teruma.

b. The Torah said: “And when a priest acquires a person, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it. And those born in his household, they may eat of his bread.” And the Sages expounded that the verse is as though it had said: “Those born in his household—they cause [her] to eat of his bread.” From here they learned that an Israelite woman who has a son from a priest, even if the son was born from the priest through illicit intercourse [and even if the son was disqualified and is not a priest], eats teruma because of the priest’s offspring from her.

c. And if the son dies, she returns to her status as an Israelite woman and is forbidden to eat teruma.

The Sages taught: An intelligent Israelite woman who became betrothed to an intelligent priest, and he did not manage to marry her before he became deaf-mute—

she does not eat

teruma.

And as the reason was explained above, that the Sages decreed concerning the marriages of a deaf-mute that they should not cause [the woman] to eat teruma, because of the betrothals of a deaf-mute.

And if

a son was born to her

from her priest-husband, she

eats,

for the sake of her son.

And if

the son dies,

and the father is alive—

Rabbi Natan says: She

is

eating

teruma from now onward [despite the son’s death], for the sake of her husband.

And the Sages say: She does not eat,

for her son whom she bore from the priest died, and her deaf-mute husband cannot cause her to eat teruma.

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Natan,

who says that she continues to eat teruma even after the death of her son? For once the son has died, and she can no longer eat for his sake, why should she now eat for the sake of her deaf-mute husband, who cannot cause her to eat?

Rabba said: Since she has already eaten

previously for the sake of her son, she now continues to eat because of her priestly deaf-mute husband.

Abaye said to him: But if that is so,

that you say, “Since she has already eaten,” she continues eating because of her deaf-mute husband, despite the fact that the deaf-mute does not cause his wife to eat teruma—

And will you also say that

an Israelite woman who married an intelligent priest

and

and he died,

[and the priest died], she too

may eat

teruma, since

she has already eaten

when she was previously the wife of a priest?

Rather,

necessarily,

once he dies

the husband,

his sanctity is removed from her

[the sanctity of her priest-husband is removed from his wife].

Here too, once he dies

the son—

his sanctity is removed from her,

and she again does not eat.

Rather, Rav Yosef said,

to explain Rabbi Natan’s reason:

Rabbi Natan holds: The marriages of a deaf-mute cause [the woman] to eat teruma.

And we do not decree that the marriages of a deaf-mute are [forbidden] on account of the betrothals of a deaf-mute,

and therefore she eats even after the son has died, while the father is alive.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Abaye,

to Rav Yosef:

If that is so,

that she eats by virtue of her husband:

“A son was born to her”—

why do I need this?

For in the middle clause we say, “A son was born to her, she eats,” implying that if a son was not born to her, she does not eat, and Rabbi Natan too concedes this, and says only that if the son dies, she also eats. And according to your words, why do I need all this?!

And we answer: In fact, according to Rabbi Natan she eats even without a son having been born to him. And what they said in the beraita, “A son was born to her, she eats”—

because of the Sages

they said this, for according to their view, before a son was born to her she does not eat.

And we ask:

Let Rabbi Natan disagree with them at the outset

[let Rabbi Natan disagree already in the first clause], concerning what they said: An Israelite woman who married a deaf-mute does not eat!

And we answer:

He left

he waited

for them

Rabbi Natan waited for the Sages

until they finished their statement.

And afterward, he disagreed with them

[Rabbi Natan waited for the Sages until they finished their words, and then made his view known that he disagreed with them concerning all their words].

And we challenge this:

If that is so—

according to your words, that Rabbi Natan disagrees with all the words of the Sages from their beginning—

let the tanna teach

the words of Rabbi Natan at the end of the beraita, and this is what he should have said:

An intelligent Israelite woman who became betrothed to an intelligent priest, and he did not manage to marry her before he became deaf-mute, does not eat, and if a son was born to her, she eats

; if the son dies, she does not eat,

the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Natan says: She

is

eating,

and Rabbi Natan’s words should be understood as applying to everything stated in the beraita.

And we conclude: Indeed, it

is difficult.

Rav Amram said: This matter

the following matter

Rav Sheshet told us.