Yevamot 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

The graves of gentiles do not impart impurity through a tent

to one who makes a tent over them, since they are not included in the general category of what the Torah stated: “When a person dies in a tent, anyone who enters the tent and whatever is in the tent shall be impure for seven days.”

Since

it is stated: “And I shall give

with a patah and a tzeirei, as in “ve’atem,”

you are My sheep, the sheep of My pasture—

you are persons!”

The verse teaches that only

you,

Israel,

are called “persons,” whereas gentiles are not called “persons.”

Meitivi

from the verse stated concerning the war against Midian, regarding the captives whom the Israelites took from them: “

And the cattle were thirty-six thousand, and the donkeys thirty thousand five hundred.

And the human souls were sixteen thousand.”

Thus, gentiles too are called “persons”?!

And we answer: There they are called persons

because of the animals.

Since the same context also mentions the animals taken from the captives, the gentiles are called “persons” in relation to the animals; but they are not called persons without qualification.

We raise another difficulty: Is it not written concerning the city of Nineveh, which was a gentile city,

“which contains more than one hundred twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left,”

“and many animals”?

And we answer: There they are called persons

because of the animals.

For it is stated there: “and many animals.”

We now raise a difficulty against the substance of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s statement, that gentiles do not impart impurity:

Is it not written after the war against Midian: “You shall encamp outside the camp for seven days,

anyone who has killed a person and anyone who has touched a corpse

shall purify himself

with the water of purification on the third day and on the seventh day”? Thus, they became impure with seven-day impurity because they touched the corpses of the Midianites!

And we answer: The warriors did not require seven-day purification because of the Midianites, but because of the concern

that perhaps one of Israel had been killed

and they became impure through him.

And the Sages,

who disagree and hold that gentiles too impart impurity, maintain that the war against Midian proves that gentiles too impart impurity. For according to the Sages, it is impossible to explain that they became impure through Israelites, since it is written there that not one Israelite was killed in the war: “

The officers who were appointed over the thousands of the army drew near to Moses, and they said to Moses: Your servants have counted the men of war who were under our command, and

not one

was missing from us,

man.”

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai

explains this verse differently:

“Not one was missing from us”—for a transgression.

Ravina said

to resolve the difficulty from the verse “Anyone who has killed a person and anyone who has touched a corpse shall purify himself”:

Although

even though

the verse excluded them from imparting impurity through

the impurity of

a tent, as it is written

in the basic statement of the laws of impurity transmitted through a tent:

“When a person dies in a tent”—

from

the impurity of

contact and carrying,

which are not described with the term “person” in the basic statement of their laws of impurity —

did the verse exclude them?!

Therefore, “anyone who has killed a person and anyone who has touched a corpse” became impure with seven-day impurity.

Mishna:

A common priest who

betrothed a widow and was appointed

to be High Priest

between the time of betrothal and the time of marriage—he

may marry

her as his wife, despite the fact that a widow is forbidden to a High Priest, as the Gemara explains the reason.

And there was an incident involving Joshua ben Gamla,

the priest,

who betrothed Marta daughter of Baitos,

who was a widow,

and the king appointed him to be High Priest

before he married her,

and he married her.

But

a widow awaiting yibbum who fell before a common priest, and he was appointed to be High Priest

before he married her,

even though

he had already

performed ma’amar with her

before he was appointed—

he may not marry her!

For ma’amar has no force by Torah law [Meiri].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a common priest betrothed

a widow

and was appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her?

The verse states:

“For he shall take a virgin from among his people,”

“a wife.”

It should have stated only, “He shall take a virgin from among his people.” Why did the verse add and say “a wife”? To teach that if he betrothed a widow and was appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her.

We raise a difficulty:

If so, a widow awaiting yibbum

who fell before a common priest and he became High Priest

also

should be included by this verse, so that he may perform yibbum with her!

And we answer: “He shall take”

“a wife”

is what is written,

and not “his yevama.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“An incident involving Joshua”

ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta daughter of Baitos, “and the king appointed him” to be High Priest:

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the Mishna:

“Appointed him”—

yes!

That is, the king indeed appointed him, but the Sanhedrin and his fellow priests did not appoint him.

But

“was appointed,”

which implies that he was fit for this appointment—

no,

we do not learn that.

Rav Yosef said: “I see a conspiracy here!”

I see a conspiracy of wicked men here: He was not fit to be High Priest; rather, he gave money as a bribe, and they appointed him.

For Rav Asi said: Three kav

of dinars Marta daughter of Baitos brought to King Yannai, until he installed him as chief among the priests

three kav of dinars were brought by the wife of Joshua ben Gamla to King Yannai, so that he would appoint her husband High Priest.

Mishna:

If a High Priest’s brother dies,

he

performs halitza

with his brother’s widow,

but does not perform yibbum

with her, because he is forbidden to marry a widow.

Gemara:

The tanna stated categorically

in our Mishna [the tanna formulated the ruling without qualification] that a High Priest never performs yibbum with his brother’s wife, and it implies:

it makes no difference

whether his brother died

after betrothal,

before he married his wife and consummated the marriage, in which case she is a widow but not a widow who had been intimate with her husband,

and it makes no difference

whether his brother died

after marriage,

after he married and had relations with her, in which case she is both a widow and one who had been intimate with her husband. The difficulty is:

Granted,

a widow

after marriage,

it is properly the case that the High Priest does not perform yibbum with his brother’s wife, because the prohibition against a widow to a High Priest involves both a

positive commandment [“He shall take a wife who is a virgin”]

and a

negative commandment [“He shall not take a widow”]

when he has relations with her.

And

he is forbidden to perform yibbum with her, since

it

applies to him when he has relations with her.

And

he is forbidden to perform yibbum with her, since

the positive commandment

of yibbum

does not override

the

negative and positive commandments.

But

his brother’s widow

after betrothal—

why is the High Priest not obligated to perform yibbum with her? Why does the

positive commandment

of yibbum not

override the negative commandment

of “He shall not take a widow”? And we answer:

It is a rabbinic decree: The Sages decreed that even the

first

act of intercourse

with

a widow

in which the positive commandment is fulfilled and has the power to override the negative commandment, is forbidden,

lest,

because of the

second act of intercourse

with her, which is forbidden because no positive commandment is fulfilled through it, since the mitzva applies only to the first act of intercourse, he come to perform the second act as well.

act of intercourse with her, which is forbidden since no positive commandment is fulfilled through it—there is a mitzva only in the first act of intercourse.

with her, which is forbidden since there is no fulfillment of a positive commandment in it, for the mitzva exists only with the first intercourse.

Mishna:

A common priest

and the same applies to every Israelite, as is explained in the Gemara

may not marry

an

an aylonit,

a woman incapable of bearing children, because this would nullify the mitzva of procreation.

Unless he has a wife

from whom he can procreate,

and children,

or he already has children and has fulfilled the mitzva of procreation.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has

a common priest

a wife and children,

this priest

may not marry

an

an aylonit,

since

she is the “prostitute” mentioned in the Torah

with regard to the prohibitions applying to priests: “They shall not take a woman who is a prostitute or profaned.”

And the Sages say: A “prostitute”

is only a female convert or an emancipated slave,

or one who has engaged in illicit intercourse,

such as an Israelite woman who has had intercourse with a man forbidden to her.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “A common priest” may not marry an aylonit:

He said—

he challenged

the Exilarch to Rav Huna

concerning our Mishna:

What is the reason

that a common priest may not marry an aylonit? Certainly,

because of procreation,

for he does not fulfill the mitzva of procreation when he marries an aylonit, who cannot bear children.

If so, the difficulty is: Why did we state this law specifically with regard to a common priest? Is

it the case that

the mitzva of

procreation

applies only to

priests,

who alone were commanded concerning it,

and

all

Israelites were not commanded

concerning it?

He said to him

Rav Huna said to the Exilarch: Indeed, all Israelites too are forbidden to marry an aylonit if they have not yet fulfilled the mitzva of procreation. But the tanna formulated the Mishna with the words “a common priest”

because he wanted

the tanna of the Mishna

to state in the latter clause: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife

and has children, he may not marry an aylonit,

because

she is the “prostitute” mentioned in the Torah.