Yevamot 58a — the Talmud in English

According to Rabbi Meir, who says that betrothal disqualifies her,

since she is being guarded for an invalid intercourse, even

the bridal canopy also

without betrothal

disqualifies her.

For this one, too, is being guarded for an invalid intercourse, even though the canopy did not take effect to acquire her.

But

according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that betrothal does not disqualify her—

the canopy also does not disqualify her.

From where

that indeed they dispute even with regard to a canopy without betrothal?!

But

perhaps Rabbi Meir said only there

that a woman being guarded for an invalid intercourse is disqualified

but only with betrothal, for it acquires her [

the betrothal takes effect and acquires her].

But with regard to a canopy, which does not acquire her—

no,

she is not disqualified.

Alternatively: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon said only there

that a woman being guarded for an invalid intercourse is not disqualified from teruma,

but only with betrothal, which is not close [

close]

to intercourse.

But with regard to a canopy, which is close to intercourse—

indeed, it disqualifies her

even according to them.

Rather, if it can be said

that it is Tannaim who dispute this matter—

it is according to the dispute of these Tannaim

that you must say:

The following teaching is explained according to the Tosafot, following Rashi’s method.

For it was taught:

It was already explained above that Rav and Shmuel dispute even with regard to a canopy after betrothal: whether it takes effect, and whether it disqualifies her from teruma, according to the one who holds that betrothal, through her being guarded for an invalid intercourse, does not disqualify her from teruma.

And concerning this matter, the Gemara brings a dispute of Tannaim, who disputed it.

For it was taught: If

Israelite women married

a priest, through betrothal and the canopy that followed them—

both this and this,

the

fit

for the priesthood,

and

the

disqualified

for the priesthood,

or they entered

the fit and the disqualified

under the canopy, and

still

had not had intercourse—

they are:

eating

sustenance

from his

from the husband.

And eating teruma,

by virtue of their priest husbands.

But before the Gemara finishes bringing the words of the one who disagrees in that beraita, it explains the words of the beraita and proves from the words of the first Tanna that “there is no canopy for disqualified women”:

For the words of the beraita mention two matters: first the beraita said “they married,” and afterward, “or they entered under the canopy and had not had intercourse.”

And since the beraita continued and added, “or they

entered

under the canopy and had not had intercourse,” after it had already said “they married,”

by inference

you learn this,

that “they married” [

which was mentioned first in the beraita], that is,

they actually married,

that the disqualified women entered under the canopy and also had intercourse, and nevertheless they eat teruma!

But it is certainly impossible to say so!

For is there anyone who would say that women disqualified for the priesthood who had intercourse with a priest eat teruma? They were profaned through his intercourse with them!

Rather, is it not necessarily the case that the beraita does not deal with two forms of marriage, but everything is one matter: first the beraita says, “both this and this married,” the fit and the disqualified, and the beraita explains how it is that the disqualified married and eat teruma?

necessarily the case that the baraita is not discussing two forms of marriage, but that it is all one matter? At first the baraita says, “both this group and that group married,” the fit women and the disqualified women, and then the baraita explains how it is that the disqualified women married and eat teruma:

For example, they entered under the canopy and

still

had not had intercourse.

And it teaches

in the beraita, that the fit and the disqualified

eat from his, and eat teruma!

You learn from the words of the first Tanna that she is not disqualified from eating teruma, even though she entered under the canopy, in accordance with Shmuel’s view that there is no canopy for disqualified women; therefore, she is not disqualified when she entered under the canopy and had not had intercourse.

And now the Gemara continues and brings the words of the one who disagrees in that beraita, in order to learn from his words that there is a canopy for disqualified women:

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Every woman whom her intercourse enables to eat teruma—

her canopy

also

enables her to eat

teruma.

And every woman whom her intercourse does not enable to eat [

that is, if after she has intercourse she will not eat], likewise

her canopy does not enable her to eat

from her husband’s teruma.

And we learn from Rabbi Yishmael’s words, who compared the canopy to intercourse, that just as intercourse disqualifies her, even from the teruma of her father’s house, so the canopy disqualifies her, even from the teruma of her father’s house.

And from here you learn that there is a canopy for disqualified women. The Gemara rejects the necessity of this inference from Rabbi Yishmael’s words:

From where,

do you know that according to Rabbi Yishmael it is the canopy that disqualifies her, so that you can learn from his words that there is a canopy for disqualified women?!

Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka—

holds like Rabbi Meir, who says: From the time of

betrothal

she does not eat.

And the reason that she does not eat is because of the betrothal, since she is being guarded for an invalid intercourse, and according to Rabbi Meir she does not eat teruma.

The Gemara raises an objection to the rejection and upholds the proof from Rabbi Yishmael’s words.

For if Rabbi Yishmael’s intention is indeed to say like Rabbi Meir, that she was disqualified on account of the betrothal, by the law of being guarded for an invalid intercourse—

this,

why did he say

“Every woman whom her intercourse does not enable to eat—

her canopy does not enable her to eat”?

If it is as you say, that Rabbi Yishmael disqualified her because of the betrothal, how did he say in his wording, “her canopy does not enable her to eat”?

But

“Every woman whom her intercourse does not enable to eat—

her money [

the money of her betrothal]

should have been what enables her to eat,” he ought to have said

Rabbi Yishmael!

Nevertheless, the Gemara rejects the necessity of inferring from Rabbi Yishmael’s words that he holds, “there is a canopy for disqualified women”:

Perhaps, since the first Tanna said

in his words

“canopy,” he too said “canopy.”

But in fact his reason is not because of the canopy, but because of the betrothal.

Rav Amram said: This matter,

this thing,

Rav Sheshet told us. And he enlightened our eyes from the Mishna ...

He brought proof for his words from a Mishna, and Rav Sheshet [who was blind] enlightened our eyes in understanding the Mishna.

And thus Rav Sheshet said:

There is a canopy for disqualified women.

It was already explained above that Rav and Shmuel disputed concerning the canopy of disqualified women—both women disqualified for the priesthood and women disqualified for an Israelite—after betrothal, whether it is effective in making her a married woman. The Gemara brings support from the Mishna that the canopy takes effect even when she is disqualified for the husband.

And they dispute only with regard to a canopy that is not accompanied by intercourse. But a canopy accompanied by intercourse makes her married in every respect.

And the Tanna likewise taught this,

and so too the Tanna taught in the Mishna, in tractate Sota:

It is written in the section of Sota [Numbers 5]:

“If any man’s wife goes astray and betrays him, and a man lies with her with an emission of seed, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she concealed herself and became impure. And a spirit of jealousy passed over him [and it had already passed over him before she concealed herself], and he warned his wife” [he warned her: “Do not conceal yourself with so-and-so!”] “and the priest shall bring her and stand her before the Lord. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel. And the priest shall administer an oath to her, and the priest shall say to the woman: If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray into impurity under your husband, be immune from the bitter waters. But if you have gone astray under your husband, and if you have become impure, and a man has given his emission to you besides your husband.”

“And the priest shall administer to the woman the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman: May the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall. And the woman shall say: Amen, amen. And he shall give her the waters to drink.”

“And it shall be, if she has become impure, and has betrayed her husband, the waters that cause the curse shall enter her for bitterness, and her belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall.”

“And the man shall be immune from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity.”

And the Mishna explains the repetition in the wording of the verse, “Amen, amen”:

“Amen”—that I did not go astray

when I was

betrothed, and

not when I am

married. “

Amen”—that I did not go astray when I was

a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

and

not when I was

brought into the household

of the levir.

And it explains it progressively. And from this Mishna the Gemara comes to prove that a canopy is effective for a disqualified woman, to make her a married woman—

This “

that I did not go astray while I was

betrothed”—

what are the circumstances?

If you say

that it is speaking of a case

where he warned her,

that her husband warned her and admonished her not to conceal herself with a strange man,

when she was betrothed, and she concealed herself [

and was secluded, according to the Bach],

and he gives her the water to drink when she is betrothed—

Then the explanation of the Mishna is that the husband can administer an oath to her and give her the water to drink when she is betrothed or a woman awaiting levirate marriage, concerning her seclusion. And he can likewise administer an oath to her and give her the water to drink concerning seclusion after her marriage or after she entered the authority of her levir [Rashi, Kiddushin 27b].

It is impossible to explain it this way.

For is

a betrothed woman fit to be given the water to drink!?

Does she drink the water of a sota before she has married, concerning her seclusion at the time of her betrothal?!

But we learned: A betrothed woman and a woman awaiting levirate marriage,

whom their husbands warned, and who concealed themselves—

do not drink

before they marry.

For the Torah said, “But if you have gone astray into impurity under your husband”; the verse teaches that a man gives the water to drink only to a woman who, at the time of giving her the water to drink, is “under her husband.”

And

although a betrothed woman and a woman awaiting levirate marriage were excluded from drinking, they were nevertheless not excluded from warning and from the prohibition upon the husband.

And therefore

they do not receive a marriage settlement

when their husbands divorce them, for they are the ones who caused themselves to become prohibited to him.

Rather,

necessarily, this is how the words of the Mishna must be explained: it is speaking of a woman who has already married and had intercourse, and when the woman takes her oath, while he gives her the water to drink concerning a warning and seclusion after her marriage, she says, “Amen, amen,” and includes in her oath also previous adultery.

And for example,

he warned her

also

when she was betrothed, and she concealed herself [

she concealed herself and was secluded with that so-and-so] while she was still betrothed,

and he gives her the water to drink when she is married,

after she entered under the canopy and had intercourse, concerning both acts of seclusion.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: If she is a married woman who concealed herself after her marriage, and also earlier, while she was betrothed, then when he gives her the water to drink, he administers an oath to her also concerning the fact that she did not commit adultery during the seclusion in which she concealed herself while she was still betrothed. And the waters examine both cases.

And if she is a yevama who was brought into the household, who concealed herself after she underwent levirate marriage, and also earlier, while she was a woman awaiting levirate marriage, then when he gives her the water to drink after performing levirate marriage with her, he administers an oath to her also concerning the fact that she did not commit adultery during the seclusion in which she concealed herself while she was still a woman awaiting levirate marriage.

This too is impossible.

For:

Do the waters examine her!?

Can the waters examine a woman who had intercourse with her husband after she concealed herself and became prohibited to him?!

But it was taught:

It is written at the end of the section of Sota,

“And the man shall be immune from iniquity.”

The verse teaches that only

when the man is immune from iniquity,

that he did not have intercourse with her after she concealed herself and became prohibited to him , then

the waters examine his wife.

But if

the man is not immune from iniquity,

because he had intercourse with her after she concealed herself—

the waters do not examine his wife.

And this woman, with whom her husband had intercourse after she concealed herself, the waters will therefore not examine her concerning that seclusion.

Rather,

necessarily,

he warned her when she was betrothed, and she concealed herself

when she was betrothed,

and she entered under the canopy,

and her husband is fit to give her the water to drink, since

and

she still

had not had intercourse

with him as her husband, and he is immune from iniquity. At that time he again warned her, and she concealed herself. And when he gives her the water to drink, he administers an oath to her concerning both acts of seclusion together.

And learn from this

in accordance with Rav’s view, who holds:

There is a canopy for disqualified women,

and it makes them married women.

For if not, how does her husband give her the water to drink? If the canopy does not take effect with disqualified women, she is still betrothed, and a betrothed man does not give his betrothed woman the water to drink!

Rava said,

to reject the proof from our Mishna for Rav’s view that there is a canopy for disqualified women:

And can you understand it so?

Do you think

that this

Mishna

is well-established [

it is settled and not corrupted]

itself,

so that you bring proof from it?

For when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the south [

when Rabbi Ḥanina came from the south],

he came and brought a baraita with him [

he came and brought a baraita with him]:

It is written: “And a man has given his emission to you

besides your husband”—

The verse teaches:

The one whose husband’s intercourse preceded the intercourse of the adulterer

[before the seclusion, which gives us concern that the adulterer had intercourse with her], the waters examine his wife.

But not

one in whom

the intercourse of the adulterer preceded that of the husband.

Therefore, it is altogether impossible that the waters should examine her concerning seclusion that occurred while she was betrothed, since at that time the phrase “besides your husband” does not apply to her.

And since we have learned in that Mishna that she is made to swear concerning the time of betrothal, it is necessarily a faulty Mishna, and it must be emended and corrected; and it is impossible to derive from it anything concerning a huppa for disqualified women.

He said

he explained:

Rami bar Hama:

Indeed, this Mishna is properly settled.

For

you can find it

that the intercourse of the husband preceded the seclusion

for example, when her betrothed came upon her in her father's house

in promiscuity; and therefore he can make her swear after the marriage also concerning the time of betrothal.

The passage is explained according to Rashi's second wording.

But the Gemara raises an objection to his words, for nevertheless the Mishna is not properly settled with regard to a shomeret yavam:

For even concerning what we learned in it, that she is made to swear “that I have not gone astray as a shomeret yavam and as a married woman,” it is difficult for you as with a betrothed woman: how is this possible? For if he warned her then and she secluded herself, and he came to make her drink before he performed yibbum with her, we learned: A betrothed woman and a shomeret yavam neither drink nor collect their ketuba.

And it is necessarily necessary to say that she had already been “brought in” by him at the time of making her drink.

And it is difficult for you: if so, the husband is not free of iniquity!

For it is necessarily speaking of his making her swear only after he had intercourse with her, since it is impossible to say that she entered the huppa and had not had intercourse, because there is no huppa for a yevama.

But this is not difficult: The intercourse of the adulterer preceded that of the husband. In the case of a woman awaiting levirate marriage, it is sufficient for us that the intercourse of her deceased husband—which gives the levir the power to perform levirate marriage—preceded the intercourse of the adulterer.]

[But this is not difficult: for the intercourse of the adulterer preceded that of the husband, and because with a yevama it is sufficient for us that the intercourse of the dead husband preceded—the yavam performs yibbum by virtue of it—the intercourse of the adulterer]. And even if we wish to explain and establish

in the same manner,

as we established with regard to a betrothed woman, that it is speaking of the betrothed man having come upon her in her father's house.

And likewise

with regard to a shomeret yavam,

it is speaking of a case such as

he came upon her

the

yavam in his father-in-law's house

for the purpose of promiscuity, before she secluded herself with another man; and there is no iniquity on the part of the yavam, and afterward she secluded herself, while the designation “shomeret yavam” still applied to her, since the promiscuous intercourse of the yavam does not acquire her completely.

But the intercourse by which the yavam came upon her for the mere purpose of promiscuity benefited him with regard to this: that he can now bring her in to become his completely married wife by means of a huppa, without having intercourse with her in sin.

And once he brought her into the huppa, I call her “under your husband,” and he can make her drink also concerning that same seclusion in which she secluded herself when she was a shomeret yavam.

It is still difficult:

For it is impossible to say so. For: