Yevamot 59a — the Talmud in English

What is it

that he should be permitted to take her after she has become a bogeret?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Since it is stated, “And he shall take a woman in her virginity”—

whether

after

the taking through

betrothal we follow,

which is what determines the prohibition, and therefore, if he took her when she was a na'ara and she became a bogeret after the betrothal, he is permitted to marry her.

Or

perhaps

after

the taking through

marriage we follow,

and since she became a bogeret before the marriage, it is forbidden for him to marry her.

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef:

You have learned it,

we have learned the solution to your question in our Mishna, that she is permitted—for we learned: “A widow to a High Priest”—

if they were widowed or divorced from the marriages,

these are

disqualified

from eating teruma.

But if they were widowed or divorced

from the betrothals,

these are

fit.

And it is demonstrated from this that the Mishna did not disqualify from teruma a widow who had been betrothed to a High Priest, for with regard to priestly disqualification, one follows marriage and not betrothal.

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said to Shmuel:

To make her a halala—

I have no question about that, for intercourse is what makes her a halala

I am not uncertain about making her a halala: I know that she certainly becomes a halala only through intercourse.

When I have a question

only with regard to the prohibition of a bogeret to a High Priest.

And because I am uncertain about what the Torah said concerning a High Priest,

“And he shall take a woman in her virginity”—

what,

what is the Torah’s intention?!

Whether

we require the taking of betrothal,

so that her betrothal should take place when she is a virgin na'ara, and it does not matter if her marriage takes place when she is a bogeret, whose virginity has departed.

Or we require the taking of marriage

that it should take place when she is a virgin na'ara?

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Rabbi Hiyya:

This also,

the solution to this question as well,

you have learned,

we have learned it in our Mishna:

For we learned:

If a common priest betrothed

a widow

and

afterward

was appointed to be a High Priest,

this one

shall marry her!

Since the widow was already betrothed to him at the time when he was appointed High Priest.

And we should learn from here that the same is true if she matured after he betrothed her: the High Priest is permitted to marry her.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

There it is different,

with regard to a widow to a High Priest,

for it is written

concerning her, “For only a virgin from his people

shall he take as a wife.”

And the word “wife” is superfluous, for the verse could have said, “For only a virgin from his people shall he take.”

Rather, the superfluity of the verse comes to teach that if a common priest betrothed a widow and was appointed to be a High Priest, he shall marry her.

And since we learned this from the superfluity of the word “wife,” there is no proof from here concerning a High Priest who betrothed a na'ara and she became a bogeret while betrothed to him, that he is permitted to marry her.

And the Gemara is astonished at the rejection:

But

here too,

with regard to one who betrothed her when she was a na'ara and she became a bogeret while betrothed to him,

“wife” is written!

Indeed, from that same superfluity of the word “wife,” from which you learn permission for a High Priest who is not prohibited by his betrothed widow when he became a High Priest after the betrothal, from this very superfluity you should also learn concerning our matter, that if she became a bogeret after the betrothal, he is permitted to her?!

And we answer: “Wife”

one

you have the right to include from the verse,

but not two!

Therefore, we learn from the superfluity of the word “wife” only the case of a common priest who betrothed a widow and was appointed to be a High Priest, but not the case where he betrothed a na'ara and she became a bogeret before he married her.

And we inquire about this:

What did you see,

from where do you know to include from the superfluity of the word “wife” specifically the one whom he betrothed as a widow and afterward became a High Priest, and not the one who was a na'ara at the time of betrothal and became a bogeret before her marriage? And we answer:

This one—

a na'ara who became a bogeret—

her body changed

between betrothal and marriage, and therefore she is forbidden.

This one—

a High Priest who was appointed between betrothal and marriage—

her body did not change

between betrothal and marriage, and therefore he shall marry her.

Mishna:

A High Priest shall not marry

the

widow, whether

she was

a widow from betrothal,

and

whether

she was

a widow from marriage.

And he shall not marry a bogeret,

since her virginity has entirely departed [some of her virginity. Tosafot].

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem a bogeret fit.

And

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon further said:

He shall not marry

a High Priest

a woman whose virginity was broken by wood.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning a High Priest:

“A widow,

and a divorced woman, and a halala, and a prostitute—these

he shall not take.”

Whether a widow from betrothal

and

whether a widow from marriage

the verse is speaking.

And we object:

It is obvious,

for the Torah states simply “widow”?!

And we answer: There is a novel point in the words of the Mishna.

For

it might have entered your mind

that I would say that there is

to learn

by means of a gezerah shavah:

“widow”—

“widow” from Tamar,

[for concerning a High Priest it is stated, “He shall not take a widow,” and concerning Tamar, the widow of Er and Onan, sons of Judah, it is stated, “Remain a widow in your father’s house”]—

Just as there,

concerning Tamar, the verse speaks of a widow

from marriage,

so here,

concerning the prohibition of a widow to a High Priest, the verse speaks of a widow

from marriage.

But a widow from betrothal is not forbidden to him.

This comes to teach us

our Mishna: that even a widow from betrothal is forbidden to him, and we do not learn by means of a gezerah shavah from Tamar.

And we object:

But say so as well!?

From where do we know not to learn a gezerah shavah from Tamar? And we answer: Since there is a juxtaposition between widow and divorced woman, as it is stated concerning a High Priest, “A widow and a divorced woman, and a halala, and a prostitute—these he shall not take.”

Therefore, we must learn that the prohibition of a widow to a High Priest is

analogous to that of a divorced woman,

who is also forbidden to him:

Just as a divorced woman—

whether from betrothal or whether from marriage

she is forbidden to him, for no gezerah shavah can be learned concerning her—

so too a widow—

whether from betrothal or whether from marriage

she is forbidden to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he shall not marry a bogeret:

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a High Priest:

“And he shall take a woman in her virginity.”

Excluding a bogeret, whose

already

virginity has entirely departed, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem a bogeret fit.

And we inquire about this:

With what do they disagree,

what is the basis of their disagreement?

And we answer: They disagree concerning the exposition of the verse, “And he shall take a woman in her virginity.”

For it should have written, “And he shall take a virgin woman.”

And since the verse said “in her virginity,” there are two additions here:

A. “Her virginity,” and not “a virgin.”

If the verse had said “a virgin,” it would have implied that it is sufficient for her to have some virginity, and even then she is called “a virgin,” and the High Priest could marry her.

But since the verse said “her virginity,” it implies that all her virginity must be present. From here you learn that a bogeret, whose entire virginity is not present but only part of it, is forbidden to him.

B. “In her virginity,” and not “her virginity.”

From the addition of the letter bet we must learn.

And the plain meaning of the verse implies that every exposition derived from an addition in the verse comes to be stringent, and to say that she must be a complete virgin: that she must be a complete virgin, whose even partial virginity has not departed, thereby prohibiting a bogeret; and that all her virginity must be present, and she must not have had intercourse even in an unconventional manner.

Rather, these tannaim disagree concerning the interpretation of “a virgin” alone: how is it interpreted?

Whether even a bogeret, whose partial virginity has departed, is included in it, or whether a bogeret is not included in it; and this disagreement leads each of them to interpret the two expositions learned from the wording “in her virginity” differently:

Rabbi Meir holds:

If the verse had said, “And he shall take a

virgin

woman”—

even

a bogeret who has

some virginity would be implied

within the permission of the verse.

And when the verse said

“her virginity”

[and not “a virgin”], it came to teach:

until all the virginity is present,

and to prohibit a bogeret [whom we would have permitted had the verse said “a virgin”].

And since a bogeret is prohibited, you cannot say that the addition of the letter bet comes to teach that all her virginity must be present, even in the case of unconventional intercourse, since we would know this even without a verse, by means of a kal va-chomer from a bogeret, who is prohibited.

And necessarily, what the verse added, the letter bet at the beginning of the word, saying

“in her virginity,”

came to be lenient and not stringent. And it teaches that the verse was particular only concerning the place of virginity [Rashi, Ketubot 97b]:

And only

in

one who had intercourse

in the usual manner is there,

indeed, a prohibition to a High Priest.

But if she had intercourse

in an unconventional manner—

she is not

forbidden to the High Priest.

And

if

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold:

If the verse had said

“a virgin,” a complete virgin

would be

implied,

that only she is permitted, but not a bogeret whose virginity has departed.

And necessarily, what the verse said

“her virginity”—

came to be lenient and not stringent.

And

to teach that

even

a bogeret, who has only

some virginity,

the verse came to permit.

For if the verse came to prohibit a bogeret, we would already know this from the wording “a virgin.”

And when the verse said

“in her virginity,”

it came to teach:

until all her virginity is present, both through conventional intercourse and through unconventional intercourse.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who had intercourse in an unconventional manner

is

disqualified for priesthood,

for a High Priest, who is forbidden to one who has had intercourse.

One who rapes a virgin is liable for two things: to pay a fine and to take her as his wife, as the verse says: “She shall be his wife because he violated her; he may not send her away all his days.”

Rava objected

from what we learned in a beraita:

“She shall be his wife”—

a wife who is fit for him

the verse concerning the one who rapes speaks.

Excluding a widow to a High Priest,

for if a High Priest raped a virgin widow, he does not take her as his wife.

And excluding a

divorced woman and a woman released through halitza to a common priest,

for if a common priest raped a virgin divorced woman, he does not take her as his wife.

And Rava analyzes:

What are the circumstances

of what they said, excluding a widow from a High Priest? In what manner did the High Priest rape her?

If you say

that he raped a widow whom he had intercourse with

by

intercourse

in the usual manner,

in the place of sexual intercourse—

Why specifically

do you prohibit him from taking as a wife the woman whom he raped,

because

she

is a widow?!

But

it follows that she is

the raped woman

“one who has had intercourse

”, through his intercourse with her; and it is taught in a beraita below [on the next side] that a woman who has had intercourse is forbidden to a High Priest, even if she was raped by him himself or seduced by him himself!

That is, why do I need to exclude a High Priest who raped a widow through intercourse in the usual manner? After all, even if he raped a virgin through intercourse in the usual manner, once she has become forbidden to him because she has had intercourse, she is not fit to remain beneath him as a wife?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily, when he raped the widow,

not in the usual manner

that the verse excludes her.

And

Rava proves: only

because

she

is a widow, it does not [indeed, the verse excludes her], but

[indeed, the verse excludes her], but

because

she

has had intercourse

through him by intercourse not in the usual manner, she

is not

excluded by the verse.

And it is proved that a High Priest is permitted to have intercourse with a woman who has had intercourse not in the usual manner.