Yevamot 60a — the Talmud in English

For if he married her as a wife, his marriage was effective for him,

for he does not pay a fine for a seduced woman

of his own, for his seduction.

Rav Gevihah of Bei Katil went

[a place name],

he stated the teaching

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

before Rav Ashi

[he went and stated Rav’s dictum before Rav Ashi]:

Rav Ashi said to him

Rav Gevihah:

But Rav and Rabbi Yohanan, both of them, say: A mature woman and one injured by wood

he should not marry

a High Priest.

And if he married

he is married

, and he need not divorce her.

Evidently

, it is proven that he need not remove her because

she will eventually become mature under him

and

she will eventually be injured by wood under him

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

Here too

, when he has intercourse with a woman whom he himself forced or with a woman whom he himself seduced, you should permit him to keep her, since

she will eventually become a non-virgin under him.

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

We learned in a beraita:

A woman whom another man forced and a woman whom another man seduced

he should not marry

a High Priest.

And if he married—

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The offspring is a ḥalal.

And the Sages say: The offspring is fit.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

, that the offspring is a ḥalal from a High Priest’s intercourse with a non-virgin.

There are those who say

that Rav Huna said in the name of Rav

as follows:

What is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reason

for saying that the offspring is a ḥalal? Is it not the case that the prohibition of a non-virgin is not a prohibition of priesthood expressed as a negative commandment, but a positive-commandment prohibition—“And he shall take a woman in her virginity,” but not a non-virgin; “for he shall take a woman from his people,” but not a non-virgin? And a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive-commandment prohibition. And a ḥalal is only one born from women disqualified for priesthood, who are forbidden to the priest by a negative commandment?!

Because

he agrees

, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

with Rabbi Elazar

, who holds that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman makes her a zona. It follows that when the High Priest has intercourse with another man’s forced or seduced woman, he has intercourse with a woman who bears the disqualification of a zona, and through his intercourse he also transgressed the negative commandment concerning a zona; therefore the offspring is a ḥalal.

And we ask:

But

, is it so that

he agrees

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

with his view

of Rabbi Elazar?!

But we have established: The teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is a kav

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

and clean

[and his statements are “clean,” meaning that wherever he is mentioned, the halakha is like him].

Yet concerning this

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

Rav Amram said

that

the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar!

And necessarily Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov does not agree here with Rabbi Elazar.

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

Rav Ashi said

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

Concerning

the question whether

there is a ḥalal from

intercourse with

those liable to a positive commandment

—

they disagree.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: There is a ḥalal

even

from those liable to a positive commandment

of priesthood.

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

, but only from those liable to negative commandments of priesthood.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reason?

Why does he hold that there is a ḥalal from a non-virgin, who is among those liable to a positive commandment?

For it is written

in the passage concerning the High Priest:

“A widow, a divorced woman, a profaned woman, and a zona

—these he shall not take. For

a virgin

from his people he shall 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.”

And it implies that the profanation of his offspring is stated

concerning all of them

, concerning all the types of disqualified women written in the previous verse, including the disqualification of a non-virgin for a High Priest.

And the Rabbis

, who hold that there is no ḥalal from a non-virgin for a High Priest, since she is only among those liable to a positive commandment—their reason is that the verse “

these

he shall not take”

interrupts

the connection of

the matter

between those liable to negative commandments and those liable to a positive commandment.

And the verse teaches that “these,” who are liable to negative commandments, are distinct in their law from those liable to a positive commandment, and the verse disqualified the offspring only through those liable to negative commandments.

But

, if Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

said

to you:

“These”

—it did not come to interrupt the matter. Rather, it came

to exclude

a priest who has intercourse with his wife while she is

menstruating

, so that offspring from her are not ḥalalim.

And the Gemara explains:

In accordance with whom does this teaching go, which was taught: From “these” you make a ḥalal, but you do not make a ḥalal from a menstruating woman?

In accordance with whom?—

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 use it to interrupt the matter, as the Sages do—if so,

let the word “these” be written

at the end

of the verse!

And we conclude: Indeed, it is

difficult

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

And here the Gemara returns to the matter explained in our Mishna and in the beraita above, 59a, in which Rabbi Meir disputes Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon concerning a High Priest, whom the Torah permitted only a virgin: whether he is also forbidden to a mature woman and one injured by wood.

And the Gemara brings a beraita discussing the virgin sister of a priest, whom the Torah permitted a priest to become impure for: what is the law of becoming impure for his sister when she is mature and injured by wood?

The Sages taught:

It is written at the beginning of the passage of Emor: “Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a person he shall not become impure among his people; except for his relative who is close to him; and for his virgin sister who is close to him, who has not belonged to a man—for her he shall become impure.”

If it happened that the priest’s

sister

who died was

betrothed

—

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He becomes impure for her

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

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

And if his sister was

forced or seduced, everyone agrees

—

he does not become impure for her.

And if his sister was

injured by wood—

he does not become impure for her, these are the words of Rabbi Shimon

[but Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, and likewise Rabbi Yosei, who is Rabbi Shimon’s counterpart in the previous dispute concerning a betrothed woman, do not agree with him, and permit him to become impure for his sister injured by wood].

For Rabbi Shimon would say: Only one who is

who is

fit for a High Priest

—an ordinary priest

becomes impure for her

when she is his sister.

But one

who is not fit for a High Priest

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

does not

an ordinary priest

become impure for her

when she is his sister.

And

if his sister was

mature, he becomes impure for her—

the words of everyone.

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda

, who hold that for his forced or seduced sister the High Priest does not become impure for her, but for his betrothed sister, his sister injured by wood, and his mature sister, he does become impure for her?

And we answer: Because

they expound in this manner

the verse concerning his sister:

“And for his virgin sister”—

to exclude one who was forced or seduced

, who are not virgins.

Could I also be excluding one injured by wood

, who is likewise not a virgin?

The verse says: “Who has not belonged to a man.”

One whose becoming what she is

, who became a non-virgin,

was through a man

—that one the Torah forbade her priestly brother to become impure for.

This one is excluded

, one injured by wood,

whose becoming what she is was not through a man.

“Who is close”—

to include the betrothed woman.

And the verse needed to include his betrothed sister, so that we would not exclude her from “who has not belonged to a man,” because without the inclusion, since “becoming” is an expression of betrothal, I would exclude a betrothed woman from the verse “who has not belonged to a man.”

“To him”—

to include

his sister

who is mature.

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 mature sister:

This

[mature woman]—

why do I need a verse

to include that he is permitted to become impure for her?!

But Rabbi Meir said

[in the passage above, 59a], concerning a non-virgin for a High Priest:

“Virgin”—

even partially a virgin

[a mature woman, who has only part of her virginity]

is implied!

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

And we answer:

It was necessary

for the verse to teach concerning his mature sister that he becomes impure for her.

Because

it might enter your mind to say, let us derive

by a gzera shava:

“Virgin”

[“and for his virgin sister”]

“virgin” from there

[from the passage of forced intercourse, in which it is written “if a man finds a virgin girl”] .

And I would say:

Just as there

, in the law of forced intercourse, the verse speaks of a

young woman

and not of a mature woman,

so here too

, concerning the priest’s impurity for his virgin sister,

also

the verse speaks specifically of a

young woman

and not of a mature woman.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse that he also becomes impure for his mature sister.

And

, if

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon

, who hold that he does not become impure for his betrothed, forced, or seduced sister, but he does become impure for a mature sister—

what are their reasons?

They expound

the verse

as follows:

“And for his virgin sister”—

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

“Who has not belonged”—

to exclude a betrothed woman.

For “becoming” is an expression of betrothal.

“Who is close”—

to include a betrothed woman who was divorced.

“To him”—

to include the mature woman.

And the Gemara wonders about Rabbi Shimon’s derivation:

“Who is close”—

to include a betrothed woman who was divorced.