Yevamot 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

But Rabbi Shimon said:

only his sister who is

fit to marry a High Kohen—

he becomes impure for her,

her brother, the ordinary kohen.

But his sister

who is not fit to marry a High Kohen—

the ordinary kohen does not

become

impure for her.

And this woman, who is divorced, is not fit even to marry an ordinary kohen!

And we answer:

That case is different,

in the case of a betrothed woman who was divorced,

for Scripture included her,

teaching that her brother must become impure for her, as it is written: “the

close one.”

But according to this answer, the Gemara asks:

If so,

if one relies on the scriptural inclusion in the word “the close one,”—

a woman whose virginity was broken by an object should likewise have been included by Scripture,

for she too is a close relative!

Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon hold that he does not become impure for his sister whose virginity was broken by an object?

And we answer: Scripture includes only

“one close relative”,

through this verse,

but not two

close relatives.

That is, this verse can include only one woman, but not two.

And we inquire:

What did you see

that led you to include specifically the betrothed woman who was divorced through the phrase “the close one,” and not the woman whose virginity was broken by an object?

And we answer:

This one,

the woman whose virginity was broken by an object,

an act was performed upon her.

This one,

the betrothed woman who was divorced,

no act was performed upon her.

And the Gemara infers:

And Rabbi Yosei—since Rabbi Shimon left him,

Rabbi Shimon’s

partner in the dispute

[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 this:

with regard to a woman whose virginity was broken by an object,

Rabbi Yosei holds

like Rabbi Meir

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

this is his view.

This was explained according to the emendation of the Bach;

If so,

from where does Rabbi Yosei derive

that he becomes impure for a woman whose virginity was broken by an object?

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei derives that he becomes impure for a woman whose virginity was broken by an object

from “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 object:

But you have already used it

[Rabbi Yosei has already extracted and used this verse for another exposition: to teach that he does not become impure for his betrothed sister, since it is written “who had not belonged,” as explained above]!

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

is

to exclude a betrothed woman: this is derived

from “she had not belonged”,

meaning, not a betrothed woman, who had already belonged to a man through her betrothal.

And

one

is

to permit becoming impure for his sister whose virginity was broken by an object: this is derived

from

“she had not belonged”

to a man,

for this woman had not belonged to a man; she has only had her virginity broken by an object.

The Gemara now explains what was said according to Rabbi Shimon, that

“to him”

comes

to include

his

adult sister:

But Rabbi Shimon said

in the earlier discussion, on 59a:

“Virgin”

means a complete virgin,

and not an adult woman!

And we answer: What we said earlier according to Rabbi Shimon—that “virgin” means a complete virgin—does not mean that we know this from logical consideration, that this is the meaning of the word “virgin.”

Rather,

his reason there as well

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

is from here,

from this passage it is derived.

For he expounds as follows: Since

Scripture wrote an inclusion in the word

“to him”—

to include an adult woman.

By inference

you learn

that “virgin”

means a complete virgin.

See the note —

it explains the basis for understanding the following passage.

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 of the seed of the House of Israel.”

We learn from the phrase “of the seed of the House of Israel” that a kohen is forbidden to marry a convert.

And the prohibition is by Torah law, on account of her being a zona, since she comes from gentiles steeped in promiscuity.

And from the wording “virgins of the seed of the House of Israel,” we learn that Scripture required that her virginity be “seeded” in Israel.

The intention of the verse is that her virginity should develop and reach completion after she entered the community of Israel. This is when she becomes three years old, since at that age her virginity has reached its status with regard to intercourse: if she has intercourse from that point onward, her virginity will not return. But if she has intercourse before the age of three, her virginity returns.

Therefore,

a convert

who converted through her father when she was

less than three years and one day old,

with the result that her virginity was “seeded” while she was an Israelite, is

fit to marry into the priesthood.

This was explained according to the discussion in Kiddushin 78a. However, some early authorities hold that the entire verse in Ezekiel is unrelated to our subject, since it does not speak about an ordinary priest at all. According to them, the principal derivation is from the war against Midian; see the Ritva here.

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:

But Phinehas

was a kohen

with them,

and the Torah said, “keep alive for yourselves.” The meaning of “for yourselves” is for all those who went out to war, including Phinehas; thus, these women were fit to be their wives.

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

The Sages, however, disagreed with Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai and forbade even this woman to marry a kohen, because they interpret the verse according to its plain meaning: Scripture permitted only virgins of the seed of the House of Israel, and not a convert. This applies even when she converted before the age of three, when she was not fit for intercourse and her virginity was “seeded” in Israel.

And the Sages

reject Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s proof, because when Scripture said “keep alive for yourselves,” its intention was that they should be

slaves

and maidservants,

and not that they should marry them as wives.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s words:

If so—

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

then a convert who converted after she had become

three years and one day old

should likewise

be fit to marry into the priesthood!

For Scripture says, “But all the female children who have not known intercourse with a man—keep alive for yourselves,” implying that even if she was fit for intercourse, if she had not known intercourse, “keep alive for yourselves,” to marry them as wives.

And Phinehas was with them!

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai holds

in accordance with Rav Huna,

who explained the meaning of “who have not known intercourse with a man” as referring to those who were not fit for intercourse—who were not fit for intercourse because of their young age, being less than three years old.

For Rav Huna reconciled the verses with one another:

between the verses:

It is written: “Every woman”

[implying an adult woman]

who has known a man through intercourse—

kill her.

This

is: if she

has not known

a man through intercourse—

keep her alive,

her.

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

[implying the young girls]

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

This

is: if they

have known—

kill them!

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

And since the verses apparently contradict one another,

you must say

by way of resolution that “has known” and “who have not known” do not refer to actual intercourse, for otherwise the verses cannot be reconciled.

Rather,

the verse is speaking of one who is fit for intercourse.

Thus, every woman who is fit for intercourse—kill her.

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

You cannot infer as you wished to say, “As for the female children, whether they have known or have not known, keep them alive,” because the verse is speaking of one who is fit for intercourse.

Rather, the Torah’s statement “keep alive for yourselves” refers to a girl less than three years old.

A beraita was also taught in this manner:

“Every woman who has known a man

through intercourse”—

the verse is speaking of one who is fit for intercourse.

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

has

actually had 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 is speaking of 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 tzitz,

and a miracle occurred there:

every

girl

whose face became green

[became green]—

it was known that she was fit for intercourse.

The Maharsha explained: It is written, “May the the Almighty make His face shine upon you.” The verse teaches that their faces would become bright through the Divine Name written on the frontlet, namely, “Holy to the the Almighty.” Correspondingly, on the opposite side, their faces would become greenish.

And

every girl whose face did not become green—

it was known that she was not fit for intercourse.

Rav Naḥman said: A sign of transgression

of sexual immorality is

hadrokan

[the faces of those who commit sexual transgressions become green].

Similarly, you can say that 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, including 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

which women had had intercourse and which had not?

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

and if a woman was

and the one who was

one who had had intercourse, her scent

of the barrel of wine

would waft

from her, since her opening below was open; but if she was

a virgin,

and her opening was closed—

its scent would not waft.

And we object:

Let them pass them before the tzitz

as they did in the war against Midian?!

Rav

answered:

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Natan: Since concerning the tzitz it is written, “It shall be on his forehead always,

for acceptance for them,”

it is written.

Scripture thereby teaches that the tzitz would be for them only

for acceptance,

but

not for calamity

or punishment.

And we object:

If so—

in Midian too,

how could they pass them before the tzitz for the purpose of punishment?

Rav Ashi said:

“For acceptance

for them” is written.

“to them”—

to Israel, as with the daughters of Jabesh-gilead—the tzitz will be only

“for favor and not for calamity.”

And

if it were

“for idolaters”—

as with the daughters of Midian—the tzitz would be

even for calamity.

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

that a female convert who converted when she was less than three years and one day old is fit to marry into the priesthood.

He said:

Rabbi Zeira asked

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi:

Did

you hear explicitly

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

or

only

did you hear it by inference [

from another matter that you heard from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—as the Gemara proceeds to explain—from which you learned that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai in this matter]?

And we explain:

What is the inference—

from which teaching can we learn that this was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s view?

As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael against which an objection was raised [

an objection concerning its fitness].

And Rabbi sent Rabbi Romanus, and he investigated it.

And he found a female convert there

who had converted when she was

less than three years and one day old, and Rabbi deemed her fit to marry into the priesthood [

he allowed her to remain with her kohen husband].

He said:

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi replied

to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

I heard it explicitly!

And the Gemara is perplexed:

And if it was by inference—

what of it?

What difference does it make that Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi derived Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s view from this source, and what refutation could there be to this, such that Rabbi Zeira asked: Did Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi learn it from here, or did he hear it explicitly?!

And we explain:

Perhaps there it is different, since once he married her, he married her [

since he had already married her, he therefore allowed him to remain married to her].

For Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan both say: A woman who has reached maturity or one who has been injured by a piece of wood

ab initio

the High Priest may not marry

her.

But if he married her—

he remains married to her!

And the same would apply in our case.

And the Gemara challenges the comparison:

Can this really be compared [

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

Granted, there—

with regard to a woman who has reached maturity or one who has been injured by a piece of wood—therefore, if the High Priest married her, he remains married to her, since

she will ultimately reach maturity while married to him.

And similarly, if a High Priest married a woman whom he himself had raped or seduced, if he married her, he remains married to her, since

she will ultimately have had intercourse while married to him.

But

here,

this is not so.

For will

she ultimately become a zona

while married to him?!

Rav Safra taught

this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

by inference.

And he found it difficult,

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

And he answered,

Rav Safra offered the following resolution:

so,

in the manner in which the Gemara rejected the comparison to a woman who had reached maturity or one who had been injured by a piece of wood.

And the Gemara relates an incident that occurred with

a certain kohen,

a certain priest,

who married

a

female convert

who had converted when she was

less than three years and one day old.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is this?! [

What is this?!], who permitted her to you?!

He said to him,

the kohen replied to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: I learned that she is permitted from this statement of

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him,

to that kohen:

Go, divorce her [

go and release her with a bill of divorce].

And if not,

if you do not divorce her,

I will expel Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi from your ear!

I will remove Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi from your “ear.”

That is, I will impose a ban upon you! And the Gemara now cites a beraita containing an additional ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.

It was taught in a beraita: And so

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would say: