Yevamot 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

And you should raise an objection to Rav, who holds that a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is disqualified from marrying a High Priest! And we answer:

Who is the tanna—

this beraita, which holds that a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is permitted to a High Priest—

It is Rabbi Meir!

For he said in the beraita above: A mature woman is disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

And according to his opinion, it is proven from the exegeses of the verses [as explained earlier in the Gemara] that a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is permitted to a High Priest.

And

if

Rav—

who disqualifies a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה from marrying a High Priest—

was speaking in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

Rav intended to teach us that according to the method of Rabbi Elazar [who deems a mature woman fit to marry a High Priest], a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is disqualified from marrying a High Priest. For this is what is demonstrated by the exegeses of the verses, as explained earlier in the Gemara [according to Tosafot].

And we raise a difficulty:

If

Rav, who said that a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, stated his words

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

raise the following objection:

If so,

why specifically because of

the prohibition of

a woman who has had intercourse?

Why did Rav say that a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is disqualified only from marrying a High Priest and because of the prohibition of a woman who has had intercourse?

Let it follow that she becomes a zonah through that act of intercourse,

and is therefore prohibited even to an ordinary kohen?!

For Rabbi Elazar said: An unmarried man

who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage—

makes her a zonah.

Rabbi Yosef

answered:

Rav is speaking of

a case

such as when she had intercourse

with an animal.

For there,

when she had intercourse with an animal, there is only

the prohibition of a woman who has had intercourse

with regard to a High Priest

there is.

But the prohibition

on account of being a zonah

does not apply,

since intercourse with an animal does not constitute promiscuous intercourse.

And Rav came to teach us that according to Rabbi Elazar, a woman who has had intercourse שלא כדרכה is prohibited to a High Priest because she has had intercourse.

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

In either case!

If

a woman who had intercourse with an animal

has the status of a woman who has had intercourse—

and, as you say, you disqualify her from marrying a High Priest—then it is intercourse, and even

she also has the status of a zonah,

so the objection remains: Let it follow that she is prohibited on account of being a zonah.

And if she does not have the status of a zonah,

then it is not intercourse, and even

she does not have the status of a woman who has had intercourse.

And if you would say

that Rav’s words should be interpreted as meaning that Rav did not disqualify a woman who had intercourse שלא כדרכה with an animal, according to Rabbi Elazar, on account of having had intercourse, but rather

as is the case—

as the law is

with a woman whose hymen was ruptured by an external impact שלא כדרכה,

and you would say that this woman too is disqualified according to Rabbi Elazar, and likewise a woman who had intercourse שלא כדרכה with an animal.

It is impossible to interpret the matter in this way.

For

if so—

if even a woman whose hymen was ruptured by an external impact שלא כדרכה is disqualified—

there is no woman who is fit to marry into the priesthood [

to a High Priest]

who has not become a woman whose hymen was ruptured by an external impact through a pebble

that is used for wiping oneself in a privy; and you will not find any woman suitable for a High Priest.

It necessarily follows that a woman whose hymen was ruptured by an external impact שלא כדרכה is permitted to everyone.

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said,

this is how Rav’s words should be interpreted:

Rav is indeed speaking of a woman who had intercourse שלא כדרכה with a man.

And regarding your objection—that according to Rabbi Elazar she is a zonah and is thereby disqualified even from marrying an ordinary kohen—this is not difficult, because:

the case here is

a refusing minor.

She was a minor whom her brothers and mother married off, and she had intercourse with her husband שלא כדרכה; afterward she refused him and came to marry a High Priest. You cannot prohibit her to him except on account of having had intercourse, since she is not a zonah,

and, conversely, she is not disqualified from marrying him on account of being a divorcee or widow, since she refused her husband.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said:

A woman who

had intercourse with an animal,

even in the usual manner, is

fit to marry into the priesthood,

even a High Priest, according to the one who holds that a woman whose hymen was ruptured by an external impact is fit to marry a High Priest.

It was also taught in a beraita: A woman who had intercourse with one who is not a man,

that is, with an animal, is

even though

she is

liable to stoning,

she is

fit to marry into the priesthood.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an incident involving a certain young woman in Hitlu

—a place name—

who was sweeping the house, and a hunting dog had intercourse with her

—a large dog with which animals are hunted—

from behind,

and Rabbi deemed her fit to marry into the priesthood.

Shmuel said: And to a High Priest.

And we raise a difficulty:

And in the days of Rabbi,

did there exist a High Priest?!

How, then, is it relevant to say that Rabbi deemed her fit for a High Priest?!

Rather,

this is how Shmuel explained Rabbi’s words:

She is fit

to marry

a High Priest.

Rava of Parzekaya said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter that the Sages said:

There is no promiscuous intercourse with an animal?

For it is written: “You shall not bring the payment of a zonah

—a lamb given to a zonah as her payment—

or the price of a dog

—a lamb exchanged for a dog—into the House of the Lord your God for any vow [these are disqualified as offerings and it is prohibited to bring them], for both are an abomination to the Lord your God.””

And we learned

in tractate Temura [30a]:

Since the payment of a zonah and the price of a dog were juxtaposed to one another, one might have thought that just as the “payment of a zonah” is disqualified from the altar, so too the “payment of a dog” —a lamb given by a man to a zonah so that she will have intercourse with his dog—would be disqualified.

And just as the “price of a dog” is disqualified, so too the “price of a zonah” [a zonah who was sold as a maidservant in exchange for a lamb, Rashi, Temura] is disqualified.

It is not so. Rather:

The payment of a dog and the price of a zonah—

these are

permitted.

As it is stated: “Both of them”—

two, but not four [

as explained according to Tosafot].

You have therefore learned that intercourse with an animal does not constitute promiscuous intercourse.

For otherwise, even though the “payment of a dog” is not disqualified because it is associated with a dog and is not the same as the price of a dog, it should nevertheless be disqualified as the “payment of a zonah,” since she engages in promiscuous intercourse with the dog. It necessarily follows that intercourse with an animal does not constitute promiscuous intercourse.

The following passage is explained according to the method of Tosafot.

The Sages taught: A woman raped by a High Priest himself and a woman seduced by a High Priest himself—

he may not marry

a High Priest, by Torah law.

And

nevertheless,

if he married her, he is married to her,

and he need not divorce her, and the child is not disqualified [Tosafot].

However,

a woman raped by another man or seduced by another man, he may not marry her.

And if he married her,

he must divorce her.

And if she bore him a child—

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The child is a chalal.

And the Sages say: The child is fit.

And the Gemara explains the entire beraita:

We learned in a beraita: A woman whom he himself raped or seduced, he may not marry. And

if he married her—

the marriage stands: Rav Huna said that Rav:

Although by Torah law he need not divorce her if he married her, nevertheless the Sages said

And he divorces her with a get!

Because she is forbidden to him, and he is obligated to divorce her.

And we raise an objection:

But what of that which is taught: If he married her, the marriage stands,

which implies that he may keep her even according to rabbinic law?!

One who rapes a virgin maiden is liable to pay a fine, and is also obligated to marry her [if she wishes], as it is written in the portion of Ki Teitzei: “If a man finds a virgin maiden, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered. Then the man who lay with her shall give the maiden’s father fifty silver pieces, and she shall be his wife because he violated her; he may not send her away all his days.”

Thus we have learned that he pays a fine and takes her as his wife.

One who seduces a virgin maiden is liable to pay a fine. But if he takes her as his wife, he is exempt from the fine, as it is written in the portion of Mishpatim: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, he shall hasten to marry her. If her father adamantly refuses to give her to him [or if he did not wish to marry her, Rambam]—he shall weigh out money according to the bride-price of virgins.”

Thus you have learned: If he hastens to marry her, he does not pay money!

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

In any event, he is forbidden to keep her.

And when they said that his marriage is a marriage, it was only

to say: