Yevamot 60b — the Talmud in English

But Rabbi Shimon said:

only his sister who is

fit to marry the High Priest—

he becomes impure for her

her brother, the ordinary priest.

But if his sister is

not fit to marry the High Priest—

he does not

the ordinary priest

become impure for her.

And this woman, who is divorced, is not fit even to marry an ordinary priest, so how could he become impure for her!?

And we answer:

The case there is different,

in the case of a betrothed woman who was divorced,

because the Torah expressly included

that her brother may become impure for her, as it is written: “his

close relative.”

However, according to this answer, the Gemara asks:

If so,

if we rely on the additional teaching derived from the word “close relative”—

the Torah should likewise have included a woman whose virginity was lost through an accident,

since she too is a close relative!

Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon maintain that he does not become impure for his sister whose virginity was lost through an accident?

And we answer: The verse includes only

“one close relative”

through its additional wording,

but not two

close relatives.

That is, this verse allows you to include only one woman, not two.

And we examine the matter:

What did you see

that led you to include specifically the betrothed woman who was divorced through the word “close relative,” and not the woman whose virginity was lost through an accident?

And we answer:

This one,

the woman whose virginity was lost through an accident—

an act was done to her.

This one,

the betrothed woman who was divorced—

no act was done to her.

And the Gemara infers:

And Rabbi Yosei—since Rabbi Shimon left him,

Rabbi Shimon

his partner [that is, since Rabbi Shimon, who had been Rabbi Yosei’s partner in the previous dispute, left him and disputed alone with Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concerning the law of a woman whose virginity was lost through an accident ],

[since Rabbi Shimon, who had been Rabbi Yosei’s partner in the previous dispute, left him and disputed alone with Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concerning the law of a woman whose virginity was broken by an object],

by inference

you learn

that with regard to a woman whose virginity was lost through an accident,

Rabbi Yosei holds

like Rabbi Meir [who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and maintains that he becomes impure for a woman whose virginity was lost through an accident]—

[who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and holds that he does become impure for a woman whose virginity was broken by an object]—

that is his view.

And if so,

from where does Rabbi Yosei derive

that he becomes impure for a woman whose virginity was lost through an accident?

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei derives that he becomes impure for a woman whose virginity was lost through an accident

from the phrase “she had not belonged to a man”,

which implies that her status did not come about through a man, as Rabbi Meir explains.

And we ask:

But you have already used it [Rabbi Yosei has already used this verse for another teaching—to say that he does not become impure for his betrothed sister, because it is written “who had not been,” as explained above]?!

And we answer: Two teachings are derived from this verse. One teaching,

And we answer: Two teachings are derived from this verse. One

one,

to exclude a betrothed woman, is derived

from “she had not been”,

meaning that she was not betrothed, since through her betrothal she had already belonged to a man.

And

one teaching,

one,

to permit becoming impure for his sister whose virginity was lost through an accident, is derived

from

“she had not been”

to a man:

this woman had not belonged to a man; she had only lost her virginity through an accident.

The Gemara now explains what was said earlier according to Rabbi Shimon: the word

“to him”

comes

to include

his

adult sister:

But Rabbi Shimon said

in the earlier discussion, on page 59a:

“virgin”

means a complete virgin,

and not an adult woman!

And we answer: When we said earlier according to Rabbi Shimon that “virgin” means a complete virgin, we did not know this merely from the logical meaning of the word “virgin.”

Rather,

his reason there as well [Rabbi Shimon’s reason for holding, with regard to the High Priest, that “virgin” means a complete virgin] is

[the reason Rabbi Shimon holds with regard to a High kohen that “virgin” means a complete virgin]

derived from here,

from this passage.

For he interprets it as follows: Since

the verse contains an additional expression,

“to him”—

to include an adult woman.

By inference

you learn

that “virgin”

means a complete virgin.

See the note ,

which explains the basis for understanding the following discussion.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

It is written in Ezekiel: “They shall not take a widow or a divorced woman for themselves as wives, but only virgins from the offspring of the House of Israel.”

From the phrase “from the offspring of the House of Israel,” we learn that a priest is forbidden to marry a female convert.

The prohibition is from the Torah, because she has the status of a woman forbidden as a prostitute, since she comes from nations steeped in licentiousness.

From the wording “virgins from the offspring of the House of Israel,” we learn that the verse insists that her virginity should have been “planted” in Israel.

The meaning is that her virginity should have developed and reached completion after she entered the Jewish people. This is when she reaches the age of three, at which point her virginity has reached its status with regard to intercourse: if she engages in intercourse from then on, her virginity will not return. But if she engages in intercourse before the age of three, her virginity returns.

Therefore, a

female convert

who converted through her father when she was

less than three years and one day old,

and whose virginity consequently developed while she was already Jewish, is

fit to marry into the priesthood.

And there is proof for this

as it is stated

in connection with the war against Midian, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses:

“Avenge the vengeance of the Children of Israel against the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people. Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, for the army, them and Phinehas son of Eleazar the kohen, for the army [Phinehas was the High kohen anointed for war]. The Children of Israel took the women of Midian and their children captive. Moses said to them: ‘You have allowed every female to live! These were the very ones who caused the Children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit treachery against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the plague occurred among the assembly of the Lord.’”

“Now kill every male among the children. And every woman who has known a man through intercourse, kill.

But all the female children who have not known intercourse with a man,

keep alive for yourselves.”

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai proves from this:

And Pinhas

was a

priest

with them, and the Torah said, “Keep them alive for yourselves.” The meaning of “for yourselves” is for all who went out to war, including Pinhas; they were fit for them to marry.

The verse teaches that the “female children who have not known intercourse with a man,” who are not fit for intercourse because they are less than three years old, are fit to marry a priest.

The Sages, however, disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai and forbid even this woman to marry a priest, because they interpret the verse according to its plain meaning: the verse permitted only virgins from the offspring of the House of Israel, and not a female convert. This applies even when she converted before the age of three, when she was not fit for intercourse and her virginity developed while she was Jewish.

And the Sages

reject Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s proof, because when the verse says “keep them alive for yourselves,” it means that they should be

slaves

and maidservants,

and not that they should be taken as wives.

The Gemara questions Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s words:

If so—

if “keep them alive for yourselves” refers to marriage, and this verse teaches that a female convert who converted before the age of three is permitted to marry a priest—

then a female convert who converted after she had become

three years and one day old

also

should be fit to marry into the priesthood!

For the verse says, “But all the female children who have not known intercourse with a man, keep alive for yourselves,” implying that even if she is fit for intercourse, if she has not engaged in intercourse, “keep her alive for yourselves,” to marry her.

And Pinhas was with them!

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai holds

in accordance with Rav Huna,

who explained that “who have not known intercourse with a man” means that they are not fit for intercourse—they are not fit for intercourse because of their young age, being less than three years old.

For Rav Huna raises a contradiction

between the verses:

It is written: “Every woman

[which implies an adult woman]

who has known a man through intercourse—

kill her.

But

if she

has not known

a man through intercourse—

keep her alive,

.

All this refers to an adult “woman.”

And

by inference

you learn

that the female children

[the young girls]—

whether they have known

a man

or whether they have not known

a man—

keep them alive.

And,

on the other hand,

it is written: “But all the female children

[which implies the young girls]

who have not known intercourse with a man, keep alive for yourselves.”

But

if they

have known—

kill them!

According to this verse, there is no difference between the adult women and the young girls.

And since the verses apparently contradict one another,

you must say

to resolve the contradiction that the words “has known” and “who have not known” do not refer to actual intercourse. Otherwise, the verses cannot be reconciled.

Rather,

the verse speaks about one who is fit for intercourse.

Thus, every woman who is fit for intercourse is to be killed.

And the “woman” whom the verse says is to be killed when she “has known a man” means even one who is among the female children—namely, a three-year-old girl, who is fit for intercourse.

Therefore, you may not infer as you wanted to say: “With regard to the female children, whether they have known a man or have not known a man, keep them alive,” since the verse speaks about one who is fit for intercourse.

Rather, when the Torah says “keep alive for yourselves,” it refers to one who is less than three years old.

A beraita was taught likewise:

“And every woman who has known a man

through intercourse”—

the verse speaks about one who is fit for intercourse.

You say: It speaks about one who is fit for intercourse; or perhaps it refers only to one who

has

actually engaged in intercourse.

When it says: “But all the female children who have not known intercourse with a man,”

the verses would contradict one another, as Rav Huna explained.

You must say: The verse speaks about one who is fit for intercourse.

How did they know,

how did the Children of Israel know which of the captives were fit for intercourse, when they did not know their ages?

Rav Huna bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Pious: They passed them before the frontlet,

and a miracle occurred there:

Everyone

who

had a greenish face

[became green]—

it was known that she was fit for intercourse.

А у всякой, чье лицо не зеленело, —

And

everyone whose face did not become greenish—

it was known that she was not fit for intercourse.

Rav Naḥman said: A sign of transgression

of sexual immorality

is droken

[the faces of those who commit a transgression become greenish].

You can say the same with regard to this: When the Children of Israel went out to kill the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead because they had not gone to war against the tribe of Benjamin in the matter of the concubine at Gibeah:

“They commanded them, saying: Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead by the sword—the women and the children. This is what you shall do: every male and every woman who has known intercourse with a man, you shall destroy.”

“And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young women who were virgins, who had not known a man through intercourse.”

And we explain:

How did they know

How did they know

who had engaged in intercourse and who had not?

Rav Kahana said: They seated them on the opening of a wine barrel,

and the one who was

not a virgin—the scent

of the wine barrel

would spread

from her, since her opening below was open; but the one who was

a virgin,

whose opening was closed—

the scent would not spread.

And we ask:

Why did they not pass them before the frontlet,

as they did during the war against Midian?!

Rav Kahana,

explained,

son of Rav Natan,

since with regard to the frontlet it is written: “It shall be on his forehead constantly,

for acceptance for them”—

it is written.

The verse thereby teaches that the frontlet would be present only

for acceptance

for them,

and not for punishment.

And we ask:

If so—

in Midian too,

how could they pass the women before the frontlet for punishment?!

Rav Ashi said: The verse is written,

“for acceptance

for them.”

“for them”—

for Israel, like the daughters of Jabesh-gilead—the tzitz will be only

for favor and not for punishment.

And

if

for idolaters—like the daughters of Midian—the tzitz would be

as in the case of the daughters of Midian—the tzitz would be

even for punishment.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, that a female convert who is younger than three years and one day is fit for the priesthood.

that a female convert who converted when she was younger than three years and one day is fit to marry a kohen, a member of the priestly family.

He said:

he asked

Rabbi Zeira of Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi:

Did

you hear explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai,

from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai,

or

only

did you hear it by inference [from another matter that you heard from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—from which, as he proceeds to explain, you learned that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai in this matter]?

[from something else that you heard from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as the Gemara proceeds to explain, and from which you learned that he held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai in this matter]?

And we explain:

what inference—from which report do we have to learn that this is the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

from which teaching can we learn that this was the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: There was one city in the Land of Israel against which a challenge was raised [a challenge concerning its fitness].

[a challenge to their fitness], and

And Rabbi sent Rabbi Romanus, and he examined it.

And he found in it a female convert

who had converted when she was

younger than three years and one day, and Rabbi deemed her fit for the priesthood [he left her with her husband, the kohen].

[he permitted her to remain married to her kohen husband].

He said:

he answered

him,

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi to Rabbi Zeira:

I heard it explicitly!

And we are astonished:

But if it was by inference—

what then!? What difference is there that Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi learned the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from here, and what objection is there to this, such that Rabbi Zeira asked: Did Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi learn it from here, or did he hear it explicitly?!

What difference does it make that Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi learned Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion from this incident, and what objection is there to that, such that Rabbi Zeira asked him whether he had learned it from this incident or had heard it explicitly?!

And we explain:

Perhaps there it is different, since he married her, he married her [since he had already married her, therefore he allowed him to remain married].

[since he had already married her, he was therefore permitted to remain married to her].

For Rav and Rabbi Yohanan both said: A mature woman and one injured by wood, initially

at the outset

the High Priest should not marry

the High Priest.

And if he married her—

he remains married! And the same applies in our matter.

And the same would apply in our case.

The Gemara is astonished at the comparison:

Is that so now [is the case under discussion comparable to the proof]?!

[is the case under discussion comparable to the proof]?!

Granted, there—in the case of a mature woman and one injured by wood—therefore, if the High Priest married her, he remains married, since

in the case of a mature woman and a woman whose virginity was broken by an object—if the High Priest married one of them, he remains married to her, since

in the end she will become mature while married to him. And likewise, if the High Priest married a woman whom he himself had raped or seduced, if he married her he remains married, because

Similarly, if a High Priest married a woman whom he himself had raped or seduced, if he married her, he remains married to her, because

in the end she will be one who has had intercourse while married to him. But

but

here,

this is not so. For will

she in the end

be a zona

while married to him?!

Rav Safra taught this—

this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

by inference.

And it was difficult for him, as we objected: “Perhaps there it is different, since he married her, he married her.”

as we challenged it: “Perhaps there is a difference there, since once he had married her, he had married her.”

And he answered,

and Rav Safra resolved it

thus,

as the Gemara rejected the comparison to a mature woman and one injured by wood. And the Gemara brings an incident that occurred with

And the Gemara relates an incident involving

a certain kohen,

with one kohen,

who married

who married

a female convert

who had converted when she was

younger than three years and one day.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said to him: What is this!? [What is this?] And who permitted her to you!

[What is this?!] Who permitted her to you?!

He said to him,

the kohen answered Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak: I learned that she is permitted from this:

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai.

He said to him,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak to that kohen:

Go and divorce her [go and release her with a bill of divorce].

[go and divorce her with a bill of divorce].

And if not,

you divorce her—

I will remove Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi from your ear!

I will remove Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi from your “ear.” That is to say, I will impose a ban upon you! And the Gemara now brings a beraita containing an additional ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai.

That is, I will place you under a ban! And the Gemara now brings a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, containing another ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.

It was taught in a beraita: And likewise

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai used to say: