Yevamot 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

As, if he married her, his marriage was effective for him,

as one does not pay a fine for seducing

his own [betrothed] whom he seduced.

Rav Geviha from Bei Katil went

a place-name],

and related the teaching

of Rav [“and he removes her with a bill of divorce”]

before Rav Ashi

he went and stated Rav’s teaching before Rav Ashi:

Rav Ashi said to him

Rav Geviha:

But Rav and Rabbi Yohanan both say: A bogeret and one who was injured by wood—

he may not marry

a High Priest.

But if he married her—

the marriage is valid,

and he need not divorce her.

Apparently,

it is evident that he need not remove her because

she will ultimately become a bogeret while married to him,

and

she will ultimately be one who was injured by wood while married to him,

since she will have intercourse with him and lose her virginity.

Here, too,

when he has intercourse with a woman whom he himself raped or seduced, you should likewise permit him to retain her, since

she will ultimately become a be’ula while married to him.

And we conclude:

This is difficult!

We learned in a beraita:

A woman raped or seduced by another man—

he may not marry

a High Priest.

But if he married her—

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The child is a ḥalal

And the Sages say: The child is fit:

Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

for the child born from a High Priest’s intercourse with a be’ula is a ḥalal.

Some say

that this is what

Rav Huna said that Rav:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who says that the child is a ḥalal? Is not the prohibition of a be’ula not a prohibition specific to priesthood, but rather a prohibition of a positive commandment—“He shall take a woman in her virginity,” and not a be’ula; “He shall take a woman from his people,” and not a be’ula? A prohibition derived from a positive commandment is itself a prohibition of a positive commandment. And a ḥalal is only one born from women disqualified for the priesthood, who are prohibited to a priest by a prohibition?

Because

he holds

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

who holds that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman renders her a zona. It follows that when the High Priest has intercourse with a woman raped or seduced by another man, he has intercourse with a woman who is disqualified as a zona, and through this intercourse he also violates the prohibition against a zona. Therefore, the child is a ḥalal. ;

But according to the later authorities, it is possible for her to have become a be’ula through the priest himself, in which case she is also prohibited by Torah law, and yet she is not a zona with regard to him. And we ask:

But

does

he hold

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

in accordance with him,

Rabbi Elazar?!

But we have an established principle: The teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is measured

a small measure, meaning that he is mentioned in the Mishna or beraita only in a few places, Rashi above, 49b],

and pure

his teachings are “pure,” meaning that wherever he is mentioned, the halakha follows him].

But in this matter,

concerning an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman,

Rav Amram said

that

the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar!

It is therefore necessarily the case that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Elazar here.

And we conclude:

This is difficult.

Rav Ashi said:

This is how the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov should be explained—

The

question of whether

there is a ḥalal from

intercourse with

those liable for a positive commandment—

is the issue over which they disagree.

they disagree.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: There is a ḥalal

even

from those liable for a positive commandment

of priesthood.

And the Rabbis hold: There is no ḥalal from those liable for a positive commandment,

but only from those liable for prohibitions of priesthood.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Why does he hold that there is a ḥalal from a be’ula, who is one of those liable for a positive commandment?

As it is written

in the passage concerning the High Priest:

“A widow, a divorced woman, a ḥalala, and a zona—

these he shall not take. Rather,

a virgin

from his people shall he take as a wife.”

And it is written

immediately afterward, as a continuation of the matter:

“And he shall not profane his offspring among his people.”

This indicates that the profanation of his offspring applies

to all of them,

to all the types of disqualified women written in the preceding verse, including the disqualification of a be’ula for a High Priest.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that there is no ḥalala from a be’ula to a High Priest, since she is merely one of those liable for a positive commandment—their reason is that the verse “

these

he shall not take”

interrupts

the connection of

the matter

between those liable for prohibitions and those liable for a positive commandment.

And the verse teaches that “these,” who are those liable for prohibitions, are distinct in their law from those liable for a positive commandment, and the verse disqualified the offspring only on account of those liable for prohibitions. ; That is, since the preceding verse interrupted between these categories, one may say that “and he shall not profane his offspring among his people” refers only to one of the matters mentioned in the preceding verse, and it is logical to interpret it as referring only to those liable for prohibitions.

But

if

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said,

he would say to you:

“These”—

it does not come to interrupt the matter. Rather, it comes

to exclude

a priest who has intercourse with his wife when she is

a menstruating woman,

so that offspring born from her are not ḥalalim. ;

His intention is to explain why the Gemara mentioned a menstruating woman rather than other cases of those liable to karet. It follows from the Ra’avad’s words that when a priest has intercourse with a woman liable to karet other than a menstruating woman, although the child is a mamzer, the sanctity of the child is not profaned [and later authorities discussed at length whether it is possible for a mamzer to be a priest]. In his first interpretation there, the Ra’avad explains the Gemara differently from the other early authorities: A priest who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, although he is liable to karet, does not render her a zona through that intercourse; and if he subsequently has intercourse with her and fathers a son, he is not a ḥalal like one born from a zona [who is subject to a prohibition of priesthood, and whose child is a ḥalal]. And the Gemara explains:

In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in a beraita: From “these” you make a ḥalal, but you do not make a ḥalal from a menstruating woman?

In accordance with whose opinion?—

In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And we challenge: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who expounds “these” to exclude a menstruating woman, and does not interpret it as interrupting the matter, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages—if so,

the word “these” should have been written

at the end

of the verse!

And we conclude: Indeed,

this is difficult

for Rav Ashi, who explains the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov as dependent on their interpretation of these verses.

And here the Gemara returns to the matter discussed in our Mishna and in the beraita above, 59a, where Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon concerning a High Priest, whom the Torah permits to marry only a virgin, and whether he is therefore prohibited even to a bogeret and to one who was injured by wood.

And the Gemara cites a beraita that discusses the case of a priest’s virgin sister, whom the Torah permits a priest to render impure himself for, and the law of rendering himself impure for his sister when she is a bogeret or one who was injured by wood.

The Sages taught:

At the beginning of the passage of Emor it is written: “Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: He shall not render himself impure for a dead person among his people. For the kin who is close to him. And for his virgin sister, who is close to him, who has not been with a man—for her he shall render himself impure.”

If it happened that

his sister,

the priest’s, died, and she was

betrothed —

—

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He renders himself impure for her

and all the reasons for these laws are explained in the Gemara below].

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: He does not render himself impure for her.

And if his sister was

raped or seduced, everyone agrees—

he does not render himself impure for her.

And

if his sister was

one who was injured by wood—

he does not render himself impure for her; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon [

But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, as well as Rabbi Yosei, who was Rabbi Shimon’s counterpart in the preceding dispute concerning a betrothed woman, do not agree with him and permit him to render himself impure for his sister who was injured by wood.]

For Rabbi Shimon would say:

Only one who is

fit for a High Priest,

an ordinary priest

renders himself impure for her

when she is his sister.

But one

who is not fit for a High Priest—

such as one who was injured by wood, who according to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in our Mishna is not fit for a High Priest—

an ordinary priest does not

render himself impure

for her

when she is his sister.

And

if his sister was

a bogeret, he renders himself impure for her—

the statement of everyone.

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda,

who hold that a High Priest does not render himself impure for his sister who was raped or seduced, but does render himself impure for his betrothed sister, for one who was injured by wood, and for a bogeret?

And we answer: It is because

they expound the verse in this manner

concerning his sister:

“And for his virgin sister”—

to exclude one who was raped or seduced,

who are not virgins.

I might think that I also exclude one who was injured by wood,

who is likewise not a virgin.

The verse states: “Who has not been with a man.”

The one whose state of being

as a be’ula came about

through a man,

that is the one whom the Torah prohibited to her priestly brother as one for whom he may render himself impure.

This one is excluded,

one who was injured by wood,

whose state of being did not come about through a man.

“Who is close”—

to include a betrothed woman.

The verse had to include his betrothed sister, so that we would not exclude her from “who has not been with a man,” because without the inclusion, since “being” is an expression referring to betrothal, I would exclude a betrothed woman from the words “who has not been with a man.”

“To him”—

to include

his sister

who is a bogeret. ;

That is, since she married, she has had intercourse and is no longer a virgin. It appears from his words that with regard to a married sister, before she had intercourse, he does render himself impure for her according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, just as in the case of a betrothed woman [and according to this, “who has not been with a man” does not refer to betrothal and marriage to a man, but to intercourse]. The Rashba wrote: Nevertheless, it appears logical that if she entered the wedding canopy, even though she had not had intercourse, and died while in her husband’s domain, then even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda would not have the priest render himself impure for her. For a betrothed woman was included only because of “who is close.” But this woman, since she entered the husband’s domain, is not close. Moreover, since the verse says “who is close,” it indicates that there is one who is distant, even though she had not had intercourse—namely, one who entered the wedding canopy but had not had intercourse. But in the Ramban’s Nimmukei, it is written that according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, just as he renders himself impure for a betrothed woman, so too he renders himself impure for one who entered the wedding canopy but had not had intercourse. See further in the Ritva and the Arukh LaNer.

And the Gemara challenges Rabbi Meir, who expounds “to him” to include his sister who is a bogeret:

This one

a bogeret]—

why do I need a verse

to include that he is permitted to render himself impure for her?!

But Rabbi Meir said

[in the passage above, 59a], concerning a be’ula to a High Priest:

“Virgin”—

even partial virginity

[a woman who has reached majority, who retains only part of the signs of virginity]

a bogeret, who has only partial signs of virginity] is implied!

And since the verse concerning the law of impurity says, “and for his virgin sister,” his sister who is a bogeret is also included?!

And we answer:

It was necessary

for the verse to teach that he renders himself impure for his sister who is a bogeret.

For

it might enter your mind to say, let us derive

by a gzera shava

“virgin”

“virgin”

“and for his virgin sister”]

“virgin” from there

from the passage concerning rape, where it is written, “If a man finds a virgin girl”] . And I would say:

Just as there,

in the law of rape, the verse speaks of a

young woman

and not of a bogeret,

so too here,

with regard to a priest’s impurity for his virgin sister,

also the priest is speaking specifically of a

young woman

young woman

and not of a bogeret.

Therefore,

the verse teaches us

that he also renders himself impure for his sister who is a bogeret.

And

if

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon,

who hold that he does not render himself impure for his betrothed, raped, or seduced sister, but does render himself impure for a bogeret—

what is their reason?

They

expound the verse

as follows:

“And for his virgin sister”—

to exclude one who was raped, seduced, or injured by wood.

“Who has not been”—

to exclude a betrothed woman.

For “being” is an expression referring to betrothal. ;

This indicates that it is derived from there and not from “his virgin sister,” although one can explain “virgin, virgin, he derives” to mean that this is the source of the derivation from the passage concerning a High Priest, as Tosafot wrote there. “Who is close”—

to include a betrothed woman who was divorced.

“To him”—

to include a bogeret.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Rabbi Shimon’s derivation:

“Who is close”—

to include a betrothed woman who was divorced.