Yevamot 59b — the Talmud in English

And you should raise a difficulty against Rav, who holds that a woman who had intercourse unnaturally is disqualified from marrying a High Priest?! And we answer:

Who is this? —

This baraita, which holds that a woman who had intercourse unnaturally is permitted to a High Priest,

is the opinion of Rabbi Meir!

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

And according to his words, it is demonstrated, on the basis of the expositions of the verses [as was explained in the Gemara above], that a woman who had intercourse unnaturally is permitted to a High Priest.

And

if

Rav —

who disqualifies a woman who had intercourse unnaturally from marrying a High Priest —

speaks in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.

Rav comes 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 had intercourse unnaturally is disqualified from marrying a High Priest. For this is what follows from the expositions of the verses, as explained in the Gemara above [according to Tosafot].

And we raise an objection:

If

Rav, who said that a woman who had intercourse unnaturally is disqualified from the priesthood, stated his words

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

raise this difficulty:

If so,

why specifically on account of

the prohibition of

a woman who had had intercourse?

Why did Rav say that a woman who had intercourse unnaturally is disqualified only from marrying a High Priest, and because of the prohibition of a woman who had had intercourse? After all,

it follows that she is a zona

through that intercourse, and is prohibited even to an ordinary koen?!

For Rabbi Elazar said: An unmarried man

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

makes her a zona.

Rav Yosef

answered:

He said:

Rav is speaking of

a case in which she had intercourse

unnaturally

with an animal.

For there,

when she had intercourse with an animal, there is only

the issue of a woman who had intercourse

with respect to a High Priest;

there is that issue.

But the prohibition

on account of being a zona —

there is none,

since there is no prostitution with an animal.

And Rav came to teach us that according to Rabbi Elazar, a woman who had intercourse unnaturally is prohibited on account of a woman who had intercourse with respect to a High Priest.

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

Either way!

If

a woman who had intercourse with an animal

is considered a woman who had intercourse —

and according to your words, that you disqualify her from marrying a High Priest — then it is intercourse, and even

she is also considered a zona,

and the difficulty returns: Let it follow that it is on account of being a zona.

And if she is not considered a zona,

then it is not intercourse, and even

she is not considered a woman who had intercourse.

And if you should say

to interpret Rav’s words as meaning that Rav did not disqualify a woman who had intercourse unnaturally with an animal according to Rabbi Elazar by the law of a “woman who had intercourse,” but

as is the case

as the law is

with a woman injured by wood unnaturally,

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

It is impossible to interpret it in this way.

For

if so —

that even a woman injured by wood unnaturally is disqualified —

you have no woman who is fit for the priesthood [

for a High Priest]

who has not been made a woman injured by wood by a pebble

with which one wipes oneself in the lavatory, and you will find no woman for a High Priest.

And necessarily, a woman injured by wood unnaturally is permitted according to everyone.

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said:

This is how Rav’s words should be interpreted:

Rav is, in fact, speaking of one who had intercourse unnaturally with a man.

And as for what you raised, that according to Rabbi Elazar she is a zona and is disqualified even from an ordinary koen — this is not difficult for you, because:

Here it is speaking

of a me'anet.

She is a minor, whom her brothers and mother married off, and she had intercourse with her husband unnaturally; afterward she exercised mi'un against him and came to marry a High Priest. You cannot prohibit her to him except on account of a woman who had intercourse, since she is not a zona,

and, on the other hand, she is not disqualified from him on account of being a divorcee or a widow, since she exercised mi'un against her husband.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said:

A woman who

had intercourse with an animal

even naturally, she is

fit for the priesthood,

even for a High Priest, according to the one who holds that a woman injured by wood is fit for a High Priest.

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

with an animal, is

even though

she

is subject to stoning,

she

is fit for the priesthood.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an incident involving a certain girl in Hitalu

[a place-name],

who was sweeping the house, and a Kofri dog mounted her

[a large dog with which animals are hunted ]

from behind

unnaturally,

and Rabbi deemed her fit for the priesthood.

Shmuel said: And for a High Priest.

And we raise an objection:

And in Rabbi’s days —

was there a High Priest?!

How can it be relevant to say that Rabbi deemed her fit for a High Priest?!

Rather,

this is how Shmuel said that Rabbi’s words should be explained:

She is fit

for

a High Priest.

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

There is no prostitution with an animal?

For it is written: “You shall not bring the fee of a zona

[a lamb given to a zona 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 [they are disqualified as offerings and it is prohibited to bring them], for both of them are an abomination of the Lord your God.”

And we learned

in tractate Temura [30a]:

Since the fee of a zona and the price of a dog were juxtaposed to one another, one might have thought: Just as “the fee of a zona” is disqualified for the altar, so too “the fee of a dog” [a lamb given by a man to a zona so that she will have intercourse with his dog ] is disqualified.

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

It is not so; rather:

The fee of a dog and the price of a zona —

they

are permitted.

As it is stated: “Both of them” —

two and not four

[explained according to Tosafot].

You have therefore learned that there is no prostitution with an animal.

For if this were not so, although “the fee of a dog” is not disqualified because it is a dog and is not like “the price of a dog,” nevertheless it would have to be disqualified on account of “the fee of a zona,” since she commits prostitution with the dog. Necessarily, there is no prostitution with an animal.

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

The Sages taught: One whom he himself raped and one whom he himself seduced —

he may not marry

a High Priest, by Torah law.

And

nevertheless,

if he married, he is married,

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

But

a woman violated by his fellow and a woman seduced by his fellow, he may not marry.

And if he married her,

behold, 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 violated by himself and a woman seduced by himself, he may not marry. And

if he married her—

he is married: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

although by Torah law he does not need to divorce her if he married her, nevertheless the Sages said

and he divorces her with a bill of divorce!

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

And we object:

But then, that which is taught: if he married her, he is married,

and it implies that he may retain her, even rabbinically?!

One who violates the virgin maiden is obligated to pay a fine, and is also obligated to marry her [if she desires it], as it is written in the portion of Ki Teitzei: “When a man finds a virgin maiden, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered. The man who lay with her shall give the maiden’s father fifty silver [shekels], and she shall be his wife in place of his afflicting her; he may not send her away all his days.”

Behold, we have learned that he gives a fine and takes her as a wife.

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

Behold, you have learned: if he surely takes her as a wife, he shall not weigh out money!

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

He is indeed always forbidden to retain her.

And they did not say that his marriage is a marriage, but

to say: