Yevamot 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

From this point onward,

from the insertion of the crown and outward,

it is only a kiss, and he is exempt for it

And

he certainly

disagrees with Shmuel.

We learned in the Mishna: If one engaged in intercourse with his yevama, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly—

whether he performed only initial penetration or completed intercourse, he acquires her.

Introduction:

A. There are several legal distinctions 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 koen, he does not become impure for her when she dies while she is betrothed; rather, he does so only if she dies after she has married him.

While she is betrothed, he cannot annul her vows alone [as he can while she is married], but only in partnership with her father.

B. A daughter of an Israelite who is betrothed to a koen does not eat teruma by virtue of her koen husband unless she marries him.

Although by Torah law she is permitted to eat teruma from the time of her betrothal to a koen—for the Torah states, “And when a koen acquires a person, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it”; and since the betrothed woman was consecrated to him with money or another form of betrothal, she is his “acquisition” and is fit by Torah law to eat teruma—

the Sages nevertheless decreed that a daughter of an Israelite may not eat teruma until she marries a koen, but not while she is betrothed.

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

According to Ulla, they decreed that she may not eat teruma because of the concern that a cup of teruma wine might be mixed for her while she is in her father’s house [which is the house of an Israelite], and she might mistakenly give her siblings to drink from the teruma wine, since she is still in her father’s house and her family members are Israelites.

But according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, the Sages decreed that a woman betrothed to a koen may not eat teruma because of the concern that a “defect” (simpon) might be found in her that retroactively nullifies the betrothal, with the result that she is a non-koen woman eating teruma.

C. When the yavam engages in complete intercourse with his yevama, he acquires her through a complete acquisition, both with regard to matters explicitly stated in the passage concerning yibbum and with regard to matters not explicitly stated there: “

The matters explicitly stated in the passage”

concerning yibbum are:

First, the yavam’s acquisition of his yevama, enabling him to inherit his brother’s property.

As it is written in the passage concerning yibbum, “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall arise in the name of his brother,” and they learned from here that the yavam assumes his brother’s place with regard to inheritance.

Second, to exempt his yevama from yibbum [so that if the yavam subsequently dies and has sons from another wife, she does not require yibbum because of him, and she is permitted to marry outside the family; or, if he divorced her with a get, she does not require halitza, since through his intercourse with her the bond to his brother was removed], as it is stated, “And she shall be his wife,” and we expound: “to him as a wife”—only this brother who performs yibbum with her first shall have her as a wife, and not “to his brother as a wife.” The verse teaches that from the moment she became his [the yavam’s] wife, she will no longer be his other brother’s wife [unclear: the source text is corrupted at this point; it appears to refer to the case in which the yavam dies childless, causing her to fall before the other brother for yibbum].

Third, to exempt her rival wife from yibbum, as it is written, “And his yevama shall approach him and say: So shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house.” And we expound: He builds one house, but he does not build two houses.

The matters “

that are not explicitly stated in the passage”

are:

All matters that apply to every wife. 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 to himself as a wife.” The verse teaches that once he takes her, she becomes like his married wife in every respect, through his acquisition of her—

to inherit her, to become impure for her [if he is a koen], to annul her vows, and to enable her to eat teruma.

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

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

For the matters explicitly written in the Torah merely place the yavam in the husband’s position; they do not strengthen the yavam’s power with regard to his yevama beyond the power that the deceased husband had with regard to his wife. Therefore, they apply even through inferior intercourse, which does not effect a complete acquisition.

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

Therefore, if the yavam engaged in inferior intercourse with her, which does not make her his married wife but at most renders her like a betrothed woman, he does not treat her as a married woman. Thus, he does not become impure for her if he is a koen, he does not annul her vows except in partnership with her father, and he does not enable her to eat teruma if she is a daughter of an Israelite married to a koen.

For if the yevama had not been married to her deceased husband but had only been betrothed to him, the betrothed husband would have no power 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 emerge that the yavam’s power with regard to her was greater than the power that the husband had, although the yavam derives his authority from him.

E. Our sugya deals with the inferior forms of intercourse that the Mishna states are effective for acquiring her, and it now discusses with regard to which matters he acquires her even through inferior intercourse.

We raised the matter:

What does “he acquires her” mean—

with regard to which matter does he acquire her through inferior intercourse?

Rav said: He acquires her

through inferior intercourse

for everything,

both for matters that the Torah wrote in the passage concerning yibbum [for which the Torah included inferior intercourse through the phrase “the yevama shall come to him”] and for matters not explicitly written in that passage.

And Shmuel said:

Since the Torah included inferior intercourse specifically in the passage concerning yibbum,

he does not acquire her

through complete intercourse

except

only

for

those

matters stated

explicitly

in

that

passage

concerning 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.

The Gemara presents two formulations in explaining the dispute 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 explicitly written in the passage [and teruma is merely one detail that teaches about the general category].

A. According to the first formulation:

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

Shmuel’s opinion: Although the Torah included only the matters explicitly written in the passage, nevertheless, all matters that are similar to them in their nature, and which do not give the yavam greater power than the husband, are learned from the matters stated in the passage and are treated like them. He acquires her with regard to these matters even through inferior intercourse.

Accordingly, with regard to eating teruma, which is not written in the passage, the dispute between Rav and Shmuel is as follows:

If she fell before him for yibbum

from marriage

to his koen brother,

everyone agrees—

including Shmuel—

she eats

teruma as a yevama, since here the yavam is not being given greater power than her deceased husband, from whom he derives his authority,

as she had been eating it initially

[since she had eaten teruma 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 before him for yibbum

from betrothal

before her brother-in-law married her, and she had not been eating teruma while under her husband’s authority, since a betrothed woman does not eat teruma by rabbinic decree:

Rav said: She eats

teruma,

as the Merciful One included

for the Torah included

unwitting intercourse like intentional intercourse [

that is, unwitting and intentional intercourse ], and she is acquired by him for every purpose and eats teruma like other married women.

And Shmuel said: When the Merciful One included

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

to place him

in the position of

the

h deceased

husband.

who died.

But

to strengthen him,

to give the yavam greater power

than

the deceased

husband

had—

the Torah did not

say that he acquires her.

For while she was with the husband, she did not eat teruma.

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

And Shmuel proceeds

along

according to his own reasoning.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

Whenever the husband

the koen

enables her to eat

teruma, the

yavam

also

enables her to eat,

even when he had inferior intercourse with her.

And whenever the husband does not enable her to eat,

even a

yavam

who had inferior intercourse with her

does not enable her to eat.

A. A deaf-mute [a person who neither hears nor speaks and lacks mental capacity] who consecrated a woman: his betrothal is not a betrothal by Torah law, since he lacks mental capacity. However, the Sages instituted betrothal and marriage for him.

B. A deaf-mute koen who consecrated a daughter of an Israelite: the woman does not eat teruma, since by Torah law his betrothal is not a betrothal and she is forbidden to eat teruma; and the Sages did not institute betrothal for a deaf-mute in order to be lenient against Torah law.

C. Intercourse by a deaf-mute who lacks mental capacity with his yevama acquires her, since yibbum does not require intent, and even when he acts under duress he acquires her.

Nevertheless, the intercourse of a deaf-mute should not be more effective than the other inferior forms of intercourse, concerning whose acquisition-effect the opinions of Rav and Shmuel differ. Therefore, the deaf-mute’s acquisition of his yevama depends on the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

The beraita raises an objection

from a beraita in which we learned:

A competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent koen—

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

and he did not have time

the koen

to marry her before he became a deaf-mute,

and he subsequently married her,

she does not eat

teruma.

Although by Torah law she was already fit to eat from the time of her betrothal, when he was still competent, and now that he married her the rabbinic decree prohibiting a betrothed woman from eating teruma because she might give it to her siblings no longer applies, since he brought her under the wedding canopy and we should therefore have permitted her—

nevertheless, she does not eat teruma.

For the Sages decreed that the wives of deaf-mutes—who consecrated them while they were still competent—may not be enabled to eat teruma, because of a deaf-mute who consecrated a woman while he was already a deaf-mute and married her while he was a deaf-mute, whose betrothal does not enable the woman to eat teruma.

And if

the deaf-mute dies

after marrying her

and she falls before a deaf-mute yavam,

and the deaf-mute has intercourse with her,

she eats

teruma by virtue of her koen yavam, since the intercourse of a deaf-mute with his yevama is no less effective than an inferior form of intercourse that effects an acquisition, and she becomes married.

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

for the husband lacks the power to enable her to eat because he is a deaf-mute, whereas the yavam—who is likewise a deaf-mute—does enable her to eat teruma.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to Rav,

who maintains that inferior intercourse with a yevama acquires her for every purpose,

it is understandable

that she eats with the yavam by virtue of inferior intercourse, although she did not eat with the husband.

But according to Shmuel,

who maintains that inferior intercourse does not enable her to eat teruma when she did not eat with the husband,

it is difficult

from this beraita. With the husband—who married her while he was a deaf-mute—she did not eat teruma; how, then, can the deaf-mute yavam enable her to eat through his inferior intercourse, thereby giving him greater power than the husband from whom he derives his authority?

Shmuel could say to you: Say it this way [

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

A competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent koen

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

as explained.

He married

her while he was competent,

and afterward became a deaf-mute—

she

eats.

The deaf-mute dies,

the one who became a deaf-mute after his marriage,

and she falls before a deaf-mute yavam;

she

eats,

since she had also eaten while with 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 while with the husband,

what is meant by “in this case

the power of the yavam is greater than the power of the husband,” as stated in the beraita? After all, she also ate while with the husband?!

This is not difficult, for indeed his power is greater than that of the husband.

For

if

with

a husband who was a deaf-mute from the outset [

from the beginning, before he married her]

she would not eat, whereas with a yavam,

even when he is

a deaf-mute from the outset, she eats.

B. According to the second formulation:

Some say

that the dispute between Rav and Shmuel is explained as follows, and the practical difference between them concerns teruma, which is not written in the passage:

According to Shmuel, inferior intercourse effects an acquisition only with regard to the matters stated in the passage—not because those matters merely place the yavam in the husband’s position, but even matters similar to them, which do not give the yavam greater power than the husband; as long as they are not written in the passage, inferior intercourse is not effective to acquire her with regard to them.

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

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

When the woman fell before him for yibbum

from betrothal, the words of

everyone—

including Rav—are that she

does not eat.

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

and it would emerge that the yavam is being given greater power than the husband; even according to Rav, he does not acquire her in this regard.

Likewise, according to Rav he does not acquire her with regard to all the other matters not stated in the passage: namely, to inherit her, to become impure for her, and to annul her vows, since all of these give the yavam greater power than the husband.

They disagree—

when she fell

from marriage:

Rav said: She eats.

Since

she had indeed been eating initially!

Although it is not written explicitly in the passage, he acquires her also with regard to this, since we are not granting him an advantage over the husband.

And Shmuel said: She does not eat

since

when the Merciful One included intercourse performed unwittingly as equivalent to intercourse performed intentionally—

with regard to the matters stated in the passage

only.

But with regard to every matter—

even in a matter in which the yavam does not have an advantage over the husband—

not

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

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

But did Rav Naḥman say in the name of Shmuel:

Anyone whom the husband enables to eat, the yavam enables to eat, and according to your words, even when the husband enables her to eat, the yavam does not enable her to eat through inferior intercourse.

Perhaps say:

Any intercourse through which the husband enables her to eat—

that is, valid intercourse through which he is fit to acquire her, since it is performed with her consent and for the purpose of acquisition—

the yavam enables her to eat through it,

and that is intercourse performed willingly.

And any intercourse through which the husband does not enable her to eat—

because it was not performed with his consent and he does not acquire her through this intercourse—also

the yavam does not enable her to eat through it,

and that is inferior intercourse.

The Gemara raises an objection

from the same beraita mentioned above:

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

teruma as his wife.

If the deaf-mute married her and

he died and she fell before a deaf-mute yavam,

she

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

According to the straightforward reading of the beraita, this is difficult both for Rav and for Shmuel. For it is stated explicitly in it that the yavam enables his yevama to eat teruma even when the husband did not enable her to eat. Thus, we are granting the yavam an advantage over the husband, and in such a case even Rav concedes that inferior intercourse does not effect acquisition.

Granted, according to Rav,

this is not difficult, because he

explains

it in accordance with his position in the latter formulation,

as Shmuel explained

this beraita

initially [according to

the first formulation].

That is, the text is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

An intelligent Israelite woman who became betrothed to an intelligent kohen, 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 man, who became deaf-mute after his marriage, died and she fell before a deaf-mute yavam, she eats, since she had also eaten while married to her husband; therefore, the inferior intercourse of the deaf-mute yavam is effective in enabling her to eat teruma.

And when the beraita says, “In this case the power of the yavam is superior to the power of the husband,” it means 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 maintains that the yavam never enables his wife to eat teruma if he had intercourse with her through inferior intercourse, this

is difficult—

this beraita.

For in any event, it is stated explicitly in it that there are circumstances in which the deaf-mute enables his yevama to eat teruma.

And we conclude: Indeed, this

is difficult

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

a. An Israelite woman who married a kohen, and her kohen husband died, returns to her previous status as an Israelite woman, and she may no longer eat teruma.

b. The Torah says: “And when a kohen 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.” The Sages interpreted the verse as though it said: “Those born in his household—they enable others to eat of his bread.” From here they derived that an Israelite woman who has a son by a kohen, even if the son was born to the kohen through an illicit relationship [and even if the son was disqualified and is not a kohen], may eat teruma on account of the kohen’s offspring by 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 kohen, 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, the Sages decreed that the marriages of a deaf-mute do not enable a woman to eat teruma, due to the betrothals of a deaf-mute.

And if

a son was born to her

from her kohen husband, she

eats,

on account of her son.

And if

the son dies,

while the father is alive—

Rabbi Natan says:

She

eats

teruma from now on [despite the son’s death], on account of her husband.

And the Sages say: She does not eat,

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

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Natan,

who says that she continues to eat teruma even after her son’s death? Since the son has died and she can no longer eat on his account, why should she now eat on account of her deaf-mute husband, who cannot enable her to eat?

Rabba said: Since she has already eaten,

previously on account of her son, she now continues to eat because of her deaf-mute kohen husband.

Abaye said to him: If so,

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

Would you also say that

an Israelite woman who married an intelligent kohen

intelligent,

and he dies [that is, the kohen dies], she too

should

eat

teruma, since

she has already eaten

when she was previously the wife of a kohen?

Rather,

necessarily,

since he dies,

the husband,

his sanctity is removed from her [that is, her kohen husband’s sanctity is removed from his wife].

[the sanctity of her kohen husband ceases to apply to his wife].

Here too, since he dies,

the son,

his sanctity is removed from her,

and she no longer eats.

Rather, Rav Yosef said,

to explain the reason of Rabbi Natan:

Rabbi Natan maintains: The marriage of a deaf-mute enables a woman to eat teruma.

And we do not decree that the marriage of a deaf-mute is prohibited due to the betrothal 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 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 no son was born to her, she does not eat, and Rabbi Natan also agrees with this and only says that if the son dies she also eats. But according to your words, why is all this necessary?!

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

it was stated on account of the Rabbis,

because according to their view, before a son was born to her she does not eat.

And we question:

But let Rabbi Natan disagree with them at the beginning [that is, let Rabbi Natan disagree with them already at the beginning], concerning what they said: An Israelite woman who married a deaf-mute does not eat!

And we answer:

He

left

and waited for

them,

the Rabbis,

until they completed their statement.

And afterward, he disagreed with them [Rabbi Natan waited for the Sages until they completed their statement, and then indicated that he disagreed with them concerning all of it].

And we challenge this:

If so—

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

the tanna of the beraita should

teach

Rabbi Natan’s statement at the end of the beraita, and it should have said as follows:

An intelligent Israelite woman who became betrothed to an intelligent kohen, 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 statement of the Sages.

Rabbi Natan says:

She

eats,

and Rabbi Natan’s statement would apply to everything stated in the beraita.

And we conclude: Indeed, this

is difficult.

Rav Amram said: This matter

the following matter

was told to us by Rav Sheshet.