Yevamot 61a — the Talmud in English

The graves of star-worshippers do not convey impurity through a tent

to one who makes a tent over them, since they are not included in the general principle of that which the Torah said: “When a person dies in a tent, everyone who enters the tent and everything that is in the tent shall be impure for seven days.”

Since

it is stated: “And you shall be

with a patah and a tzereh, like “and you are”]]

My sheep, the sheep of My pasture—

you are human!”

The verse teaches that only

you,

Israel,

are called “human,” whereas the star-worshippers are not called “human.”

It was objected from the verse stated concerning the war of Midian, regarding the captives whom the Children of Israel captured from them:

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

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

And human beings were sixteen thousand.”

Behold, the gentiles too are called “human”?!

And we answer: There they are called human

because of the animals.

Since in that matter the animals that they took from the captivity were also mentioned, with regard to the animals the gentiles are called “human,” but they were not called human without qualification.

We further raise an objection: But it is written concerning the city of Nineveh, which was a city of gentiles,

“in which there are more than one hundred twenty thousand human beings who do not know their right hand from their left,

and many animals.”

And we answer: There they were called human

because of the animals.

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

And now we raise an objection against the essence of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s statement, that gentiles do not convey impurity:

But it is written after the war of Midian: “And you shall encamp outside the camp for seven days,

everyone who killed a person and everyone who touched a slain person—

you shall purify yourselves

with the water of purification] on the third day and on the seventh day.” Behold, they became impure with seven-day impurity because they touched the slain persons of Midian!

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

perhaps one of Israel had been killed, and they became impure from him.

And the Sages, who disagree and hold that gentiles too convey impurity, say that from the war of Midian it is possible to prove that gentiles too convey impurity, since according to the Sages it is impossible to explain that they became impure from Israelites, because it is written there that not one Israelite was killed in the war:

“And the appointed officers who were over the thousands of the army drew near to Moses. And they said to Moses: Your servants have taken a census of the men of war who were under our command, and

not one man was missing from us

not one was missing

was lacking from us]

a man.”

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai

explains this verse differently:

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

Ravina said

to resolve the difficulty from the verse, “everyone who killed a person and everyone who touched a slain person, you shall purify yourselves”:

Granted,

even though

the verse excluded them from conveying impurity through a

impurity of

a tent, as it is written

in the principal passage concerning impurity through a tent,

“When a person dies in a tent”—

from

impurity of

contact and carrying,

for in the principal law of their impurity the wording “person” was not stated —

did the verse exclude them?!

Therefore “everyone who killed a person and everyone who touched a slain person” became impure with seven-day impurity.

Mishna:

An ordinary priest who

betrothed a widow and was appointed

to be a High Priest

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

shall marry

her as a wife, even though a widow is forbidden to a High Priest, as the reason is explained in the Gemara.

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 a High Priest

before he married her,

and he married her.

But

a woman awaiting yibbum whose brother-in-law was an ordinary priest, and he was appointed to be a High Priest

before he married her,

even though he

had already

performed maamar with her

before he was appointed—

he shall not marry her!

For maamar has no force by Torah law [Meiri].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if an ordinary priest betrothed

a widow

and was appointed to be a High Priest, that he shall marry her?

The verse says:

“For only a virgin from his people

shall he take as a wife.”

It need only have said, “A virgin from his people shall he take”; why did the verse add and say “a wife”? To teach that if he betrothed a widow and was appointed to be a High Priest, he shall marry her.

And we raise an objection:

If so, a woman awaiting yibbum

whose brother-in-law was an ordinary priest and became a High Priest

also

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

And we answer: “He shall take

a wife”

is written,

and not “his brother’s widow.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“An incident involving Joshua”

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

And the Gemara analyzes the wording of the Mishna:

“Appointed him”—

yes!

That is to say: 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 did not teach.

Rav Yosef said: “A band of conspirators I see here!”

I see here a conspiracy of evildoers], for he was not fit to be a High Priest; rather, he gave money as a bribe, and they appointed him.

For Rav Asi said: A tarkeva

of dinars Marta daughter of Baitos brought to King Yannai, until he installed Joshua among the great priests

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

Mishna:

If a High Priest’s brother died,

he

performs chalitza

with his brother’s widow,

but does not perform yibbum

with her, because he is forbidden to a widow.

Gemara:

It categorically states and teaches

in our Mishna [the tannay taught it absolutely] 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 and had intercourse with his wife, so that she is only a widow and not a widow who had intercourse,

and it makes no difference

whether his brother died

after marriage,

after he married her and had intercourse with her, so that she is both a widow and one who had intercourse. And the difficulty is:

Granted,

a widow

after marriage,

it is proper that the High Priest does not perform yibbum with his brother’s wife, because the prohibition of a widow to a High Priest is a prohibition of

a positive commandment [“And he shall take a woman in her virginity”]

and

and

a prohibition of

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

if

it is,

if he has intercourse with her.

And

he is forbidden to perform yibbum with her, since

there is no positive commandment

of yibbum

that overrides

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 should the

positive commandment

of yibbum not come

and override the negative commandment

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

A decree

the Sages decreed to forbid even the

intercourse

that is

the first

with a widow, through which the positive commandment is fulfilled and it has the power to override the negative commandment,

lest

because of the

intercourse

that is

the second

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:

An ordinary priest

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

shall not marry

the

sexually underdeveloped woman

who is not fit to bear children, because of nullifying the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

Unless he has a wife

from whom he can be fruitful and multiply,

and children,

or he already has children and has fulfilled the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

Rabbi Judah says: Even though he has

the ordinary priest

a wife and children,

that priest

shall not marry

the

sexually underdeveloped woman,

since

she is the “prostitute” stated in the Torah

with regard to prohibitions applying to the priesthood: “They shall not take a prostitute or one profaned.”

And the Sages say: “A prostitute” is no one

other than a female convert and an emancipated slavewoman,

and one with whom intercourse was had as licentious intercourse,

such as an Israelite woman with whom one unfit for her had intercourse.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “An ordinary priest” shall not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman:

He said

he challenged

the Exilarch to Rav Huna

concerning our Mishna:

What is the reason

that an ordinary priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Certainly,

because of being fruitful and multiplying,

for he does not fulfill it when he marries a sexually underdeveloped woman, who cannot bear children.

And if so, the difficulty is: Why did we teach this law with regard to an ordinary priest? Is it that

only

the mitzva of

being fruitful and multiplying

is incumbent upon

priests

only they were commanded concerning it],

and

all

Israelites are not commanded

concerning it?

He said to him

Rav Huna said to the Exilarch: Indeed, all Israelites too are forbidden to marry a sexually underdeveloped woman when they have not yet fulfilled being fruitful and multiplying. But the tannay used the expression “an ordinary priest”

because he wanted

the tannay of the Mishna

to teach the latter clause: Rabbi Judah says: Even though he has a wife

and has children, he shall not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman,

because

she is the “prostitute” stated in the Torah.