Yevamot 57b — the Talmud in English

There is huppa for disqualified women.

For example, a High Priest who brought a widow, the daughter of a kohen, into the huppa without kiddushin: the huppa disqualifies her [rabbinically, Arukh la-Ner] from eating the teruma of her father’s household [even according to the view that “one guarded for a forbidden intercourse” is not disqualified], although the huppa did not effect acquisition of her, or make her a married woman.

And the reason is that the huppa is considered, rabbinically, like “entry for intercourse,” and disqualifies, rabbinically, like intercourse.

And Shmuel said: There is no huppa for disqualified women,

and she is permitted to the teruma of her father’s household.

And just as they dispute concerning a huppa before kiddushin, so they dispute concerning the huppa of a disqualified woman after kiddushin: whether it disqualifies her from the teruma of her father’s household, according to the view that one guarded for intercourse by kiddushin alone is not disqualified [Gemara below, 58a].

And just as they dispute concerning a huppa after kiddushin, whether the huppa disqualifies her, so they dispute concerning the huppa of a disqualified woman after kiddushin, whether they take effect with regard to her.

According to Rav, a huppa is effective to acquire even with disqualified women.

And according to Shmuel, a huppa is not effective to acquire with disqualified women, because her intercourse is forbidden intercourse, and a huppa with one who is not fit for intercourse is not a huppa.

Shmuel said: And my father agrees with me

[Rav, who was my prince and teacher, since Rav was older than Shmuel],

with regard to a girl

who is disqualified, when she is

younger than three years and one day,

for if her father brought her into a huppa with a kohen, her huppa does not disqualify her.

For

since she has no intercourse

[the intercourse of a girl when she is younger than three years is not intercourse], therefore her intercourse does not disqualify her—and her huppa likewise does not disqualify her.

Rava said: We too have learned this

in the Mishna in tractate Nidda, that the intercourse of one younger than three years and one day is not intercourse that disqualifies.

And since her intercourse does not disqualify her, all the more so her huppa does not disqualify her. For the entire significance of huppa is only because it is close to intercourse, and with a girl whose intercourse is not considered intercourse, all the more so her huppa is not considered a huppa to disqualify her.

For we learned:

A girl of three years and one day,

from which age she becomes fit for intercourse:

She

is betrothed through intercourse

like other women.

And if a yavam has intercourse with her—

he acquires her,

for her intercourse is indeed intercourse.

And they are liable on her account because of a married woman,

if her father betrothed her and afterward another man had intercourse with her.

And

if she was a menstruant and a man had intercourse with her, she

renders the one who has intercourse with her impure

with seven-day impurity—

to render impure,

so that the man who has intercourse with her renders the

lying-place

the

lower

on which he lies

like

the impurity of

“the upper [garment]

of a gonorrheic” [a garment carried upon the gonorrheic].

A. A menstruant renders one who touches her impure with evening impurity [a first degree of impurity].

B. The menstruant and the gonorrheic render their lying-place impure with “impurity of pressure,” which is severe impurity, rendering a person impure so that he renders his garments impure.

The menstruant and the gonorrheic themselves are impure with seven-day impurity.

But one who touches their lying-place is impure with evening impurity.

C. “The upper [garment] of a gonorrheic,” and likewise “the upper [garment] of a menstruant,” is something carried upon the gonorrheic, such as his garments, and it does not convey severe impurity. For it does not render a person or vessels impure [as does the pressure of the gonorrheic], but only conveys evening impurity to food and drink.

D. With regard to a man who has intercourse with a menstruant, we do not consider his intercourse with her like ordinary contact, to be impure with evening impurity like anyone who touches a menstruant; rather, his intercourse with her renders him impure with seven-day impurity, like the impurity of the menstruant herself.

E. One who has intercourse with a menstruant renders his lying-place impure; however, his lying-place is not impure with the impurity of the lying-place of the gonorrheic and the menstruant [which render a person impure with evening impurity], but the law of his lying-place is like the law of “the upper [garment] of a gonorrheic,” which is carried upon him, and which is lightly impure, conveying evening impurity only to food and drink.

F. All that is stated concerning one who has intercourse with a menstruant applies only when she is three years and one day old, or older, for from then, if she becomes a menstruant, she renders the one who has intercourse with her impure through “intercourse.”

But if she was younger than three years and one day, her intercourse is only like ordinary contact, and “the one who has intercourse with her” is impure with evening impurity alone, and he does not render his lying-place impure at all.

And if she

was married to a kohen

by her father—she

eats teruma.

And if

one of all those disqualified

[for example, a halal, a netin, and a mamzer, or a widow with a High Priest] had intercourse with her, he

disqualified her

from the teruma of her father’s household.

And Rava analyzes:

It is only one of three years and one day who is disqualified through intercourse,

and therefore

she is disqualified through huppa.

But one younger than three years and one day, who is not disqualified through intercourse—

is likewise not disqualified through huppa.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it!

And now the Gemara brings the words of Rami bar Hama, who disagrees with Rav and Shmuel—both concerning what Rav said, that a huppa without kiddushin disqualifies even according to one who holds that “one guarded for forbidden intercourse” is not disqualified,

and concerning what Shmuel said, that a huppa without kiddushin does not disqualify one forbidden for intercourse, even according to the view that one guarded for forbidden intercourse is disqualified:

Rami bar Hama said:

Regarding the question whether

there is huppa for disqualified women

without kiddushin, to disqualify from teruma a woman forbidden for intercourse who enters the huppa—

We have arrived

at it

at the dispute of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Shimon,

who disputed in our Mishna concerning the law of one guarded for forbidden intercourse, whether she is disqualified from teruma.