Yevamot 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

There is ḥuppa for women disqualified from marrying a kohen.

For example, when a High Priest brings a widow who is the daughter of a kohen into the ḥuppa without kiddushin, the ḥuppa disqualifies her [by rabbinic decree, Arukh LaNer] from eating teruma belonging to her father’s household [even according to the opinion that one who is guarded for a forbidden intercourse is not disqualified]. This is so even though the ḥuppa was not effective in acquiring her or making her a married woman.

And the reason is that the ḥuppa is considered, by rabbinic enactment, as an “entry for intercourse,” and therefore disqualifies her by rabbinic law, just as intercourse does.

And Shmuel said: There is no ḥuppa for women disqualified from marrying a kohen,

and she is permitted to eat teruma belonging to her father’s household.

And just as they disagree with regard to a ḥuppa that precedes kiddushin, so too they disagree with regard to the ḥuppa of a woman disqualified from marrying a kohen after kiddushin: does it disqualify her from eating teruma belonging to her father’s household, according to the opinion that one who is guarded for forbidden intercourse by kiddushin alone is not disqualified [see the Gemara below, 58a

And just as they disagree with regard to a ḥuppa after kiddushin as to whether the ḥuppa disqualifies her, so too they disagree with regard to the ḥuppa of a woman disqualified from marrying a kohen after kiddushin, as to whether the kiddushin takes effect with regard to her.

According to Rav, ḥuppa is effective for acquiring even women disqualified from marrying a kohen.

And according to Shmuel, ḥuppa is not effective for acquiring women disqualified from marrying a kohen, because intercourse with her is forbidden intercourse, and ḥuppa with a woman who is unfit for intercourse is not considered ḥuppa.

Shmuel said: And my father, Rav, agrees with me

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

with regard to a girl

who is disqualified from marrying a kohen when she is

less than three years and one day old: if her father brings her into a ḥuppa with a kohen, her ḥuppa does not disqualify her.

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

Because

since she has no intercourse

[intercourse with a girl less than three years and one day old is not considered intercourse], and therefore intercourse with her does not disqualify her, her ḥuppa likewise does not disqualify her.

Rava said: We too have learned this

in a Mishna in tractate Nidda, that intercourse with a girl less than three years and one day old is not intercourse that disqualifies.

And since intercourse with her does not disqualify her, all the more so her ḥuppa does not disqualify her. For the entire significance of ḥuppa is only that it is close to intercourse; and with a girl whose intercourse is not considered intercourse, all the more so her ḥuppa is not considered ḥuppa for the purpose of disqualifying her.

As we learned:

A girl three years and one day old,

from which age she becomes fit for intercourse:

Such a girl

can be betrothed through intercourse

like other women.

And if a yavam has intercourse with her—

he acquires her,

since intercourse with her is indeed intercourse.

And one who has intercourse with her is liable on her account for the prohibition of a married woman,

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

And

if she was a menstruating woman and a man had intercourse with her, she

renders the man who has intercourse with her impure

with seven-day impurity—

to render impure

the man who has intercourse with her, so that he renders the

bedding

of the

lower

bed upon which he lies

with the

impurity of

the “upper garment

of a man with a flux” [a garment carried above a man with a flux].

a. A menstruating woman renders one who touches her impure with one-day impurity [a first degree of ritual impurity].

b. A menstruating woman and a man with a flux render their bedding impure with “the impurity of a seat,” which is a severe impurity that renders a person impure, so that the person in turn renders his garments impure.

The menstruating woman and the man with a flux themselves are impure with seven-day impurity.

However, one who touches their bedding is impure with one-day impurity.

c. “The upper garment of a man with a flux,” and likewise “the upper garment of a menstruating woman,” is an object carried above the man with a flux, such as his garments. It does not impart severe impurity: it does not render a person or vessels impure [as does the bedding of a man with a flux]; rather, it imparts only one-day impurity to food and drink.

d. With regard to a man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, we do not treat his intercourse with her as ordinary contact, which would make him impure with one-day impurity like anyone who touches a menstruating woman. Rather, his intercourse with her renders him impure with seven-day impurity, like the menstruating woman herself.

e. A man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman renders his bedding impure. However, his bedding is not impure with the impurity of the bedding of a man with a flux or of a menstruating woman [which renders a person impure with one-day impurity]. Rather, the status of his bedding is like that of “the upper garment of a man with a flux,” which is carried above him and is subject only to a lesser impurity, imparting one-day impurity to food and drink alone.

f. All that is stated with regard to a man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman applies only when she is three years and one day old or older, for from that age, if she becomes a menstruating woman, she renders the man who has intercourse with her impure through “intercourse.”

But if she was less than three years and one day old, intercourse with her is merely like ordinary contact, and “the man who has intercourse with her” is impure only with one-day impurity and does not render his bedding impure at all.

And if she

married a kohen

through her father, such a girl

may eat teruma.

And if

one of all those disqualified

[for example, a ḥalal, a netin, or a mamzer, or a widow with a High Priest]

had intercourse with her,

he disqualifies her from the teruma of her father’s household.

Rava infers:

It is specifically at three years and one day that she is disqualified through intercourse,

and therefore

she is disqualified through ḥuppa.

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

is likewise not disqualified through ḥuppa.

And we conclude: Indeed,

derive from it!

The Gemara now cites the statement of Rami bar Hama, who disagrees with both Rav and Shmuel—both with regard to Rav’s statement that a ḥuppa without kiddushin disqualifies her even according to the one who holds that a woman guarded for forbidden intercourse is not disqualified,

and with regard to Shmuel’s statement that a ḥuppa without kiddushin does not disqualify a woman unfit for intercourse, even according to the one who holds that a woman guarded for forbidden intercourse is disqualified:

Rami bar Hama said:

Regarding the question of whether

there is ḥuppa for women disqualified from marrying a kohen

without kiddushin, to disqualify from teruma a woman unfit for intercourse who enters the ḥuppa—

we have arrived

at it

as a dispute between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Shimon,

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