Yevamot 57a — the Talmud in English

This one also eats.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

From what

does Rabbi Oshaya know to say that even a priest who is a petzu'a daka, who is a disqualified priest, nevertheless enables his wife to eat, according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon?!

Perhaps

perhaps

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon said only there

that even a widow or divorcee who marries a priest is enabled by her husband to eat teruma—

but

because

he has

—her husband, who is a fit priest—power

to enable [someone] to eat elsewhere,

if he were marrying a fit woman.

But here,

in the case of a petzu'a daka,

for

he is a disqualified priest, and

he does not have power to enable [someone] to eat elsewhere,

since any woman whom he marries will have a forbidden marriage, one may say that he

does not

enable her to eat teruma!

And if you would say

perhaps you would say that

here too—

in the case of a priest who is a petzu'a daka—

he has power to enable [someone] to eat in

another place, such as if he marries

the daughter of converts,

for a petzu'a daka is permitted to her, since “the congregation of converts is not called a congregation,” and they are not included in “A petzu'a daka shall not enter the congregation of the Lord” —

It is impossible to say this. For:

This matter was in fact asked by Rabbi Yohanan of Rabbi Oshaya—

who is the master of our teaching—whether indeed a priest who is a petzu'a daka enables the daughter of converts to eat teruma.

And one may say that although the congregation of converts is not called a congregation, nevertheless, if he has intercourse with her, he disqualifies her, because a priest is forbidden to [marry] the daughter of converts [and later the Gemara elaborates on the explanation of the doubt].

And he did not resolve it for him

—Rabbi Oshaya did not resolve Rabbi Yohanan’s doubt, because he did not know how to resolve it [as explained later in the discussion].

It follows that a priest who is a petzu'a daka and betrothed the daughter of converts has a doubtful forbidden marriage. It is therefore again difficult: from where did Rabbi Oshaya himself know to state plainly that when a priest who is a petzu'a daka betrothed a daughter of Israel, she eats teruma according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, when it is doubtful whether this priest enables [someone] to eat elsewhere?!

It was stated

to explain the reason that a priest who is a petzu'a daka enables a daughter of Israel to eat teruma, according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon:

Abaye said: Since

a priest who is a petzu'a daka

enables her

to eat teruma even when she is a daughter of Israel, when he married her before he became a petzu'a daka and began enabling her to eat, and afterward became a petzu'a daka,

in

a situation in which he

did not know her,

that is, he did not have intercourse with her after becoming a petzu'a daka [as in “a virgin, and no man had known her,” Genesis 24:16].

For if he had intercourse with her, he would have made her a chalala, and she could not eat teruma.

For in this situation, we explicitly learned at the beginning of the chapter “The arel” that he enables her to eat teruma.

But

Rava said: Since

a petzu'a daka

enables her

to eat teruma

through his Canaanite male and female slaves!

For this priest enables [someone] to eat teruma elsewhere, not by means of marriage, but he enables his Canaanite male and female slaves to eat.

And any priest who enables [someone] to eat in any manner cannot be learned from an Israelite, who does not enable [anyone] to eat at all.

And now the Gemara explains in what Abaye and Rava disagree:

Abaye did not say like Rava,

who explained that since he enables [someone] to eat elsewhere by enabling his slaves to eat, he therefore enables his wife to eat as well, because:

Only

an acquisition through marriage from an acquisition through marriage—

do we derive.

But we do not derive an acquisition through marriage,

by which a person enables his wife to eat,

from an acquisition of slaves.

But

Rava did not say like Abaye,

who explained the reason as being that he enables her to eat teruma elsewhere when he became a petzu'a daka after marrying her, and she had already been eating teruma, because:

There it is different, since she had already eaten,

the woman having eaten teruma before he was injured; and the continuation of her eating teruma does not have the significance of “enabling [someone] to eat elsewhere,” so that even a petzu'a daka could thereby enable his wife to eat.

And the Gemara explains that Abaye does not accept Rava’s distinction:

And Abaye

held that the distinction “there it is different

since she had already eaten”—

we do not say.

And Abaye proves his statement:

For if you do not say so,

if you do not say in accordance with my words, but in accordance with Rava’s words—that there is no significance of “enabling [someone] to eat elsewhere” concerning the continuation of the wife of a priest who is a petzu'a daka eating after he was injured, since she “had already eaten,” because the fact that she “had already eaten” requires the continuation of her eating even if, with regard to beginning the eating, it is of no avail [and therefore he is not considered to be “enabling her to eat elsewhere”]—it is difficult for Rava:

Is it so that

a daughter of Israel who married a priest, and he died

[her priest-husband died],

may eat,

continue to eat teruma since

“she had already eaten”!?

The Gemara now explains Rava’s reason:

And Rava,

who argued concerning Abaye’s statement, “There it is different, since she had already eaten,” would say to you:

There,

when the husband died,

his acquisition

of his wife had already ceased, and therefore the fact that she had already eaten while he had an acquisition in her is of no avail.

But

here,

in the case of a priest who became a petzu'a daka,

his acquisition had not ceased,

and she continues to eat because she is the acquisition of a priest, who began enabling her to eat before he became a petzu'a daka.

Therefore, his enabling his wife to eat teruma is not to be considered as though he enables [someone] to eat elsewhere, for here it is different, since she had already eaten by his power beforehand!

The essential matter: Rabbi Yohanan asked Rabbi Oshaya:

A priest who is a petzu'a daka and married the daughter of converts—

what is the law: may he enable her to eat teruma?

He was silent,

Rabbi Oshaya,

and did not say anything to him

[he did not answer him anything].

And it was initially understood that Rabbi Oshaya did not wish to address Rabbi Yohanan’s question.

Ultimately

[afterward],

another great man came and asked him

of Rabbi Oshaya

another matter, and he resolved it for him

Rabbi Oshaya [another great man came and asked Rabbi Oshaya another question, and Rabbi Oshaya resolved his question for him].

And who was he

[who was that great man]?

Resh Lakish!

He said,

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia wondered

to Rabbi Oshaya: Is it that

is

Rabbi Yohanan not a great man

himself

[is he not a great man]? And why did you not address his question as you addressed Resh Lakish’s question?!

He said to him,

Rabbi Oshaya to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The fact that I did not answer Rabbi Yohanan does not mean that I did not wish to address him.

Rather, because

he asked me a matter that has no solution

[he asked me a question to which I have no answer], and therefore I was silent.

And although Rabbi Oshaya did not resolve Rabbi Yohanan’s question, the Gemara resolves Rabbi Yohanan’s doubt.

And first the Gemara explains Rabbi Yohanan’s doubt:

Introduction:

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose disagreed concerning two matters. The first is whether those disqualified from entering the congregation—such as a petzu'a daka or a mamzer, whom the Torah forbade from entering “the congregation of the Lord”—are forbidden [to marry] converts.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, the congregation of converts is called a congregation, and those disqualified from the congregation are forbidden [to marry] them.

Rabbi Yose, however, holds that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation, and they are permitted to those disqualified from the congregation.

The second matter is whether the daughter of a male convert is permitted to a priest.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male chalal [and is derived by a kal va-chomer from a chalala, in Kiddushin 78a], and she is forbidden to the priesthood as she is.

According to Rabbi Yose, however, the daughter of a male convert is permitted to the priesthood.

The position of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is an intermediate position between them:

The congregation of converts is not called a congregation, in accordance with Rabbi Yose.

But the daughter of converts is forbidden to the priesthood, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

A priest who is a petzu'a daka who comes to marry the daughter of converts

should be considered forbidden for two reasons:

The first is that he is a petzu'a daka, who is forbidden to enter the congregation. On this point we arrive at the dispute of the tannaim whether “the congregation of converts is called a congregation.”

The second is that he is a priest who comes to marry the daughter of converts. On this point we arrive at the second dispute of the tannaim, whether the daughter of converts is permitted to a priest.

A priest who is a petzu'a daka who married the daughter of converts and had intercourse with her:

If the congregation of converts is called a congregation, and he is forbidden to enter the congregation because he is a petzu'a daka, she is disqualified from the priesthood through his intercourse with her, because thereby she becomes a zona, since every woman who has intercourse with one forbidden to her becomes forbidden to a priest under the law of zona, as explained in the verse, “And the daughter of a priest, when she belongs to a foreign man, she shall not eat of the sacred offerings.”

And if she is forbidden to a priest because she is the daughter of converts, she is thereby profaned through his intercourse with her, since every woman who has intercourse with one forbidden to her on account of the priesthood thereby becomes a chalala.

And this statement, that in the case of a priest who is a petzu'a daka we arrive at the dispute of the tannaim as to whether he is permitted to the daughter of converts, depends upon the doubt raised by the Gemara below, on 76a, whether a priest who is a petzu'a daka “remains in the sanctity of a priest.” That is, although he is certainly a complete priest in every respect, it is nevertheless doubtful whether his sanctity remains upon him even with regard to forbidding him to marry the daughter of converts, or whether, with regard to this matter, “he does not remain in the sanctity of a priest.”

And we inquire concerning it:

For whom,

according to whose position—Rabbi Yehuda’s or Rabbi Yose’s—did Rabbi Yohanan raise the doubt concerning a priest who married the daughter of converts, whether he enables her to eat teruma?!

If it is according to

the position of

Rabbi Yehuda,

this cannot be said, for the doubt is resolved by itself to stringency. For:

Whether

you say that a priest who is a petzu'a daka still

remains in the sanctity of a priest,

he remains in his priestly sanctity, and all women disqualified to the priesthood are forbidden to him.

And

whether

you say that he

does not remain in the sanctity of a priest,

and he is permitted to a woman blemished with regard to the priesthood, like this woman who is blemished with regard to the priesthood as the daughter of a male chalal—

According to both sides,

she does not eat

the teruma of the daughter of converts who is married to him, according to Rabbi Yehuda, for whichever way you look at it:

If he remains in the sanctity of a priest—

she does not eat,

since

the Master said

[Rabbi Yehuda]:

The daughter of a male convert

is

like the daughter of a male chalal

and is forbidden to the priesthood; and once a priest who is forbidden to her on account of his priesthood has intercourse with her, she becomes a chalala and is disqualified from eating the teruma of her husband.

And

if he does not retain his sanctity ,

and the daughter of a convert is not forbidden to him on account of his priesthood, nevertheless

she does not eat

teruma after she had relations with him, since she is forbidden to him by virtue of “A man with crushed genitals shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” And although she is the daughter of converts, she is—

since

for we say [that is, Rabbi Judah holds so, and some versions read:

that is, Rabbi Yehuda holds this, and some versions read

he said ]

that

“an assembly of converts is called an assembly”!

And once she had relations with him, she became disqualified from teruma on account of “And the daughter of a priest, if she becomes a man who is a stranger, she shall not eat of the sacred teruma.”

It follows that, according to Rabbi Judah, she is certainly forbidden to eat teruma, by the law of a zona, since she certainly had relations with one with crushed genitals, who is “a man who is a stranger”; and it is possible that she also became a ḥalala on account of the relations of a priest with the daughter of converts.

And if [the statement is] according to Rabbi Yosei —

who disagrees with Rabbi Judah both concerning the law that “the daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male ḥalal,” and concerning the law that “an assembly of converts is called an assembly”—then even according to his view there is no room for uncertainty, since she is certainly permitted to eat teruma, whichever way you look at it:

Whether

we say that a priest with crushed genitals

retains his sanctity

and he is forbidden to the daughter of converts, or

whether

you say that a priest with crushed genitals

does not retain his sanctity

and he is permitted to the daughter of converts—in both cases she

eats

of the teruma belonging to her husband, the priest with crushed genitals.

And the Gemara explains the reason for this:

If he

retains his sanctity —

and you come to disqualify her from teruma because she is the daughter of a convert, who is forbidden to the priest, and if she has relations with a priest with crushed genitals [who retains his sanctity], she should become disqualified—

she is not disqualified thereby; rather, she does

eat

teruma, since

for Rabbi Yosei said :

:

even a convert

who married a female convert —

his daughter is fit for the priesthood [and he disagrees with those who hold that the daughter of converts is forbidden to the priesthood].

It follows that, according to Rabbi Yosei, he did not transgress a prohibition of the priesthood through his relations, and she did not become a ḥalala so as to disqualify her from teruma.

And

if he does not retain his sanctity ,

and he is merely an Israelite—then certainly

she eats!

For you cannot disqualify her on account of “A man with crushed genitals shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,”

for Rabbi Yosei said :

:

an assembly of converts is not called an assembly ,

and one with crushed genitals is permitted to a female convert.

If so, according to whose view did Rabbi Yoḥanan entertain his uncertainty?! The Gemara’s answer is explained according to Rashi’s first interpretation.

Rather ,

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was uncertain concerning a priest who married the daughter of converts, whether he enables her to eat teruma, was not uncertain concerning the daughter of a convert and a female convert, but concerning the daughter of a convert who married an Israelite woman.

And

according to this tanna ,

who holds that since her mother is an Israelite, she is permitted to the priesthood.

For we learned: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A woman who is the daughter of converts may not marry into the priesthood until her mother is an Israelite.

And likewise he holds that an assembly of converts is not called an assembly.

And therefore we should have permitted her, since her mother is an Israelite, and an assembly of converts is not called an assembly.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan was uncertain: perhaps since her mother is an Israelite, this is not “an assembly of converts,” and one with crushed genitals is forbidden to her—

and this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan was asking

:

Is only

fitness

for the priesthood

added to her [through her mother, who is an Israelite], but the designation of convert still applies to her, and she is not included in “the assembly”—

through her mother, who is an Israelite, while she is still called the daughter of a convert and is not included in the “assembly”?

and

therefore

she eats

of her husband’s teruma, since the one with crushed genitals did not transgress any prohibition through his relations.

Or perhaps

through her mother being an Israelite, even

sanctity

of “the assembly”

is added to her ,

and she is not included among the assembly of converts.

And

therefore

she does not eat ,

since there is a transgression in his relations: “A man with crushed genitals shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,” and she became disqualified from eating teruma on account of “And the daughter of a priest, if she becomes a man who is a stranger, she shall not eat of the sacred teruma.”

And once Rabbi Yoḥanan’s uncertainty has been clarified, the Gemara resolves the uncertainty:

Come and hear: When Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the south

[from the south],

he came and brought a baraita with him

[he came and brought a baraita with him]:

From where is it derived that a priest with crushed genitals who married the daughter of converts enables her to eat teruma?

As it is stated: “And when a priest acquires a person, the acquisition of his money

he

shall eat of it.”

”

It is necessarily the case that this baraita speaks of one whose mother is an Israelite, and according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and it teaches us that there is no prohibition concerning her even on account of “A man with crushed genitals shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.”

For if not,

according to whom ,

according to whose view are we including a priest with crushed genitals who enables the daughter of converts to eat teruma?

If you say, according to Rabbi Judah—

he said

[as was explained according to his view] that

whether

the one with crushed genitals

retains the

priest’s

sanctity ,

and

whether

if

he does not retain the priest’s sanctity

of the priest

he does not enable her to eat.

.

And if [it is] according to Rabbi Yosei, why do I need a verse?

He said

[as was explained according to his view] that

whether

the one with crushed genitals

retains the

priest’s

sanctity ,

and

whether

if

he does not retain the priest’s sanctity

of the priest

he retains it —

she eats!

Rather, is it not according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

And infer from it: fitness

for the priesthood alone is what

was added

was added

to her

in the case of the daughter of a convert whose mother is an Israelite, but the sanctity of “the assembly” was not added to her through her mother being an Israelite, and she is permitted to one with crushed genitals;

and

therefore

she eats

teruma.

And we conclude:

Infer from it!

The following teaching is explained according to Rashi’s method, as understood by most of the early and later authorities.

It was stated: Rav said:

Although the ḥuppa does not effect acquisition of a woman unless betrothal preceded it, and a ḥuppa without betrothal is nothing, nevertheless—