Yevamot 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

What is the ruling

that he is permitted to marry her after she has reached maturity?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

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

Do we say that

we follow

the taking through

betrothal,

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

Or

perhaps

we follow

the taking through

marriage,

and since she reached maturity before the marriage, he is prohibited from marrying her?

Shmuel said

to Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef:

You have learned it;

we have learned the solution to your question in our Mishna, which rules that she is permitted—for we learned: A widow to a kohen gadol—

if they became widows or were divorced after marriage,

they are

disqualified

from eating teruma.

But if they became widows or were divorced

after betrothal,

they are

fit.

This proves that, since the Mishna did not disqualify from teruma a widow who had been betrothed to a kohen gadol, with regard to a disqualification of kehunah we follow the marriage and not the betrothal.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said

to Shmuel:

To make her a halala—

I have no uncertainty about that, for it is intercourse that makes her a halala

I have no uncertainty about making her a halala, for certainly she becomes a halala only through intercourse.

What I am uncertain about

is only with regard to the prohibition against a bogeret marrying a kohen gadol.

I am uncertain about the meaning of what the Torah stated concerning a kohen gadol:

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

what

is the Torah’s intention?

Do we require

the taking through betrothal,

meaning that the taking of her in betrothal must take place while she is a virgin na'ara, but it does not matter if the marriage takes place while she is a bogeret, after her virginity has been lost?

Or do we require the taking through marriage

to take place while she is a virgin na'ara?

Shmuel said

to Rabbi Hiyya:

This too,

the answer to this question,

you have learned,

for we learned it in our Mishna:

For we learned:

If

a regular kohen

betrothed the widow, and

afterward

was appointed to be a kohen gadol,

he

shall marry her!

Since the widow had already been betrothed to him when he was appointed kohen gadol.

We should learn from here that the same law applies if she reached maturity after he betrothed her: the kohen gadol is permitted to marry her.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

There

with regard to a widow to a kohen gadol,

it is different, for

it is written concerning her: “But a virgin of his own people

shall he take as a wife.”

The word “wife” is superfluous, since the verse could have stated: “But a virgin of his own people shall he take.”

Rather, the extra word teaches that if a regular kohen betrothed a widow and was appointed to be a kohen gadol, he shall marry her.

Since we learned this from the extra word “wife,” there is no proof from here concerning a kohen gadol who betrothed a na'ara who then reached maturity while betrothed to him, that he is permitted to marry her.

The Gemara raises an objection to this rejection:

But

here too,

with regard to one who betrothed her while she was a na'ara and she reached maturity while betrothed to him,

“wife” is written!

From the same extra word “wife,” from which you derive that a kohen gadol is permitted to marry his widowed betrothed when he was appointed kohen gadol after the betrothal, you should likewise derive in our case that if she reached maturity after the betrothal, he is permitted to marry her!

And we answer: The word “wife”

adds one

woman to the scope of the verse,

but not two!

Therefore, we derive from the extra word “wife” only the case of a regular kohen who betrothed a widow and was appointed to be a kohen gadol, but not the case in which he betrothed a na'ara who reached maturity before he married her.

We inquire:

What did you see,

how do you know that the extra word “wife” specifically adds the woman whom he betrothed as a widow and afterward became a kohen gadol, and not the woman who was a na'ara at the time of betrothal and reached maturity before her marriage? And we answer:

This one—

the na'ara who reached maturity—

her body changed

between betrothal and marriage, and therefore she is prohibited.

This one—

the kohen gadol who was appointed between betrothal and marriage—

his body did not change

the woman’s body did not change between betrothal and marriage, and therefore he shall marry her.

Mishna:

A kohen gadol may not marry

the

widow, whether

she was

a widow from betrothal,

or

whether

she was

a widow from marriage.

And he may not marry a bogeret,

since her virginity has entirely—or partially—ended [Tosafot].

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a bogeret fit.

And

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon further stated:

He may not marry

a kohen gadol

a woman whose hymen was ruptured by an external object.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning a kohen gadol:

“A widow,

or a divorced woman, or a halala, or a zona—these

he shall not take.”

Whether a widow from betrothal,

or

whether a widow from marriage,

the verse is speaking.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

for the Torah simply says “a widow”?!

And we answer: There is a novel point in the Mishna’s statement.

For

lest you say:

I might have said that one should

derive,

learn through a gzera shava,

“widow”

“widow” from Tamar,

who was the widow of Er and Onan, Judah’s sons [as it is stated concerning a kohen gadol, “He shall not take a widow,” and it is stated concerning Tamar: “Remain a widow in your father’s house”]—

Just as there,

with regard to Tamar, the verse speaks of a widow

from marriage,

so too here,

with regard to the prohibition of a widow to a kohen gadol, the verse speaks of a widow

from marriage.

But a widow from betrothal is not prohibited to him.

This teaches us

our Mishna’s ruling: even a widow from betrothal is prohibited to him, and we do not derive the law through a gzera shava from Tamar.

And we raise an objection:

But why not say so as well!?

How do we know that we should not derive the law through a gzera shava from Tamar? And we answer: Since there is a hekesh, a juxtaposition, between a widow and a divorced woman, as it is stated concerning a kohen gadol: “A widow or a divorced woman, or a halala, or a zona—these he shall not take.”

Therefore, we should derive that the prohibition of a widow to a kohen gadol is

analogous to that of a divorced woman,

who is likewise prohibited to him:

Just as a divorced woman—

whether from betrothal or from marriage—

is prohibited to him, since no gzera shava can be derived concerning her,

so too a widow—

whether from betrothal or from marriage—

is prohibited to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he may not marry a bogeret:

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a kohen gadol:

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

Excluding a bogeret, whose

virginity has already

entirely ended, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a bogeret fit.

We inquire:

Over what do they disagree,

what is the basis of their dispute?

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

For the verse should have stated: “And he shall take a virgin woman.”

Since the verse says “in her virginity,” there are two additions here:

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

Had the verse said “a virgin,” it would have implied that it is sufficient for her to have some of her virginity remaining, since even then she is called a “virgin,” and the kohen gadol may marry her.

But since the verse says “her virginity,” it implies that all her virginity must remain. From here you learn that a bogeret, whose virginity does not entirely remain but only partially remains, is prohibited to him.

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

We derive a further point from the additional letter bet.

The plain implication of the verse is that each exposition based on an addition in the verse comes to impose a stringency, requiring her to be a complete virgin: she must be a complete virgin, with not even part of her virginity lost, thereby prohibiting a bogeret; and all her virginity must remain, meaning that she must not have had intercourse even in an unnatural manner.

Rather, these tannaim disagree over the interpretation of “virgin” by itself: how is it to be understood?

Does it include even a bogeret, whose virginity has partially ended, or is a bogeret not included in it? This dispute leads each of them to interpret the two teachings derived from the wording “in her virginity” differently:

Rabbi Meir holds:

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

virgin

woman”

—even

a bogeret who has

some virginity remaining would be implied

to be included in the verse’s permission.

When the verse says

“her virginity”

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

until all the virginity is present,

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

Since the bogeret is prohibited, you cannot say that the addition of the letter bet comes to teach that all her virginity must remain, even if intercourse was unnatural, since we would already know this without a verse, through a kal va-chomer from a bogeret, who is prohibited.

Necessarily, the letter bet that the verse added at the beginning of the word, saying

“in her virginity,”

comes to make the law lenient and not stringent, and to teach that the verse was particular only with regard to the place of virginity [Rashi, Ketubot 97b]:

Only if she had intercourse

in

the natural manner

is she not

indeed permitted to a kohen gadol.

But if she had intercourse

in an unnatural manner—

she is not

prohibited to the kohen gadol.

And

if

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold:

Had the verse stated

“a virgin,” a complete virgin,

it would have

implied

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

Necessarily, when the verse says

“her virginity,”

it comes to make the law lenient and not stringent,

and

to teach that

even

a bogeret who has only

some virginity remaining

is permitted by the verse.

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

When the verse says

“in her virginity,”

it comes to teach:

until all her virginity remains, whether through natural or unnatural intercourse.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: If she had intercourse in an unnatural manner,

she is

disqualified for kehunah,

for a kohen gadol, who is prohibited 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 states: “She shall be his wife, because he violated her; he may not send her away all his days.”

Rava raised an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

“She shall be his wife”—

a wife who is fit for him;

the verse is speaking of the woman he raped.

Excluding a widow to a kohen gadol,

for if a kohen gadol raped a virgin widow, he does not take her as a wife.

And excluding a

divorced woman or a halutza to a regular kohen,

for if a regular kohen raped a virgin divorcee, he does not take her as a wife.

And Rava analyzes:

What are the circumstances?

What is the case to which they referred when they excluded a widow from the prohibition against a high priest? In what manner did the high priest rape her?

If you say

that he raped a widow with whom he had intercourse

by

intercourse

in the usual manner,

in the place of 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 woman who was raped

“a woman who has had intercourse

,” as a result of his intercourse with her; and it is taught in a beraita below [folio 60b] that a woman who has had intercourse is forbidden to a high priest, even if she was raped by him or seduced by him!

That is: Why do I need to exclude a high priest who raped a widow by intercourse in the usual manner? Even if he raped a virgin by intercourse in the usual manner, once she becomes forbidden to him as a woman who has had intercourse, she is not fit to remain married to him as a wife?!

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that when he raped the widow

not in the usual manner,

the verse excludes her?

And

Rava proves: Only

because

she is

a widow, it does not

[indeed, the verse excludes her]; but

because

she is

a woman who has had intercourse

as a result of his intercourse with her not in the usual manner, she is

not

excluded by the verse.

And it follows that a high priest is permitted to a woman who has had intercourse not in the usual manner.