Yevamot 61b — the Talmud in English

And the latter clause speaks only of kohanim,

that is, “a zonah”—

kohanim

alone

are commanded,

for they were commanded to be forbidden to her.

But

if all

Israelites—

they are not commanded,

they were not commanded to be forbidden to a zonah.

And

for this reason, it teaches

also at the beginning of the Mishna

a kohen.

Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Rabbi Judah

who holds that a woman incapable of conception is a zonah?

For it is written: “They ate, but they were not satisfied; they engaged in harlotry, but they did not increase.”

And he expounds it from the expression, “And you shall spread forth westward and eastward and northward and southward” [Maharav Ranshburg].

And from here they learned that

every intercourse in which there is no spreading forth

of increase

is nothing but intercourse of harlotry.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: A kohen may not marry a minor,

and he proceeds to explain the reason.

Rav Hisda said to Rabbah: Go out,

examine it,

since

in the evening—

Rav Huna will ask you about it [Go and examine the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, who forbids a kohen to marry a minor, because toward evening Rav Huna will ask you about the reason for the matter]!

Rabbah went out,

Rabbah

examined it,

and explained his reason:

Rabbi Eliezer adopted the view of Rabbi Meir, and adopted the view of Rabbi Judah.

And the Gemara explains:

He adopted the view

Rabbi Eliezer

of Rabbi Meir

in this,

that he is concerned

that Rabbi Meir is concerned

for the minority.

And here there is a minority of women who are incapable of conception [as explained below in the sugya], and therefore one must be concerned in the marriage of a minor that perhaps she is incapable of conception.

And

if indeed she is incapable of conception, she is forbidden to a kohen.

For

he also adopted the view

Rabbi Eliezer

of Rabbi Judah, who says: A woman incapable of conception—

she is a zonah!

The Gemara raises two objections to Rabbah’s words: A.

And [he adopted the view] of Rabbi Meir,

who is concerned for the minority of women incapable of conception—

did Rabbi Eliezer adopt his view

Rabbi Eliezer?!

And it was taught in a beraita: A minor boy and a minor girl [or: a minor girl]

—

may neither perform halitza nor enter into yibbum; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

as he proceeds to explain the reason.

They said to Rabbi Meir:

Indeed,

you have spoken well that

the minor boy or minor girl

may not perform halitza.

For

“man” is written in the passage,

as it is stated: “But if the ‘man’ does not wish to take his yevama, then his yevama shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and remove his shoe.”

And we challenge this,

and we derive the

woman from the man by analogy.

As it is written: “But if the man does not wish to take his yevama, then his yevama shall go up” [Rashi below, 105b].

And from this analogy we learn that the woman, too, does not perform halitza when she is a minor.

Rather, what is the reason

that you hold that a minor boy and a minor girl

do not enter into yibbum? [

He said to them ]

Rabbi Meir:

A minor boy

does not enter into yibbum—

lest he be found to be a eunuch.

And

a minor girl

does not enter into yibbum—

lest she be found to be incapable of conception.

And they would thereby encounter the forbidden relation

of the wife of a brother.

For the Torah said in the passage of yibbum: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall stand in the name of his dead brother, so that his name shall not be erased from Israel.” And the Sages expounded:

“Whom she bears”—to exclude a woman incapable of conception, who does not give birth.

“So that his name shall not be erased”—to exclude a eunuch, whose name is erased [above, 24a].

And the Gemara concludes the proof that Rabbi Eliezer does not adopt the view of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority of women incapable of conception:

And

behold,

it was taught in a beraita: A minor girl enters into yibbum but does not perform halitza; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

It is evident from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer said that a minor girl enters into yibbum that he is not concerned for the minority of women incapable of conception. How, then, can you say that Rabbi Eliezer adopts the view of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority?!

B. And there is a second objection to Rabbah’s words:

And [he adopted the view] of Rabbi Judah,

who forbids the marriage of a kohen to a woman incapable of conception—

did Rabbi Eliezer adopt his view

Rabbi Eliezer?!

And it was taught in a beraita: “A zonah”

spoken of in the Torah is

a zonah [

one who strays from beneath her husband],

in accordance with her name!

That is, there is no zonah except a woman who commits adultery beneath her husband, straying from him to others,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Akiva says: “A zonah”—

this is

a woman

who is promiscuous,

who makes herself available to every man [but an unmarried woman who commits harlotry once is not a zonah].

Rabbi Matya ben Harash says: Even if

her husband warned her not to seclude herself with another man, and she went and secluded herself, and

her husband went

to the Great Court in order

to give her to drink

the water of a sota,

and he had intercourse with her on the way,

after she had become forbidden to him by the law of a sota—behold,

he made her

thereby

a zonah, since she had intercourse with one disqualified to her.

Rabbi Judah says: “A zonah”—

this is a woman incapable of conception

[and he is the first Tanna of our Mishna].

And the Sages say: There is no zonah except a convert, an emancipated woman, and one who had intercourse of harlotry,

[and these are the words of the Sages in our Mishna].

Rabbi Elazar says: An unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage,

even once—

makes her a zonah.

And if so, it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer follows neither Rabbi Meir nor Rabbi Judah.

And we must seek a new reason for his words, that he said: A kohen may not marry a minor.

Rather—

because of these objections to Rabbah’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer’s words—

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

to explain the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that a kohen may not marry a minor:

Here we are dealing with a High Priest,

who is forbidden to marry a minor because of the prohibition of a woman who has had intercourse—since

when does he acquire her

the High Priest [that is, when does the minor become his wife by Torah law]? Only

when she grows up,

when she reaches adulthood, since the betrothal of a minor is of no consequence.

And if so, at the time when she grows up and becomes his wife—she is already

a woman who has had intercourse,

because of the acts of intercourse that he had with her when she was a minor, which are only acts of seduction, and she becomes forbidden to him by the law of “one whom he himself seduced,” who is forbidden to him.

Rava said: It is without heart [

like “without understanding”], for there is no reason or logic to this matter that you have said!

For, in any event, in which manner does Rabbi Eliezer forbid a High Priest to marry a minor?

If

it is speaking of a case

in which her father betrothed her,

for her father betrothed her, since he has the right to betroth his minor daughter, then already

from that moment [

from the moment when he betrothed her]

he acquired her,

she is acquired by him as a wife by Torah law, and she is not one whom he himself seduced.

And if she betrothed herself [

that she betrothed herself without her father], is it possible to say that

this is Rabbi Eliezer

alone who holds that he may not marry her

but not the Sages!?

Surely in such a case even the Sages certainly agree to forbid her to a High Priest, for she is a woman who has had intercourse. How, then, did the Tanna teach in the beraita: “Rabbi Eliezer says” that a kohen may not marry the minor, implying that the Sages do not agree with him?!

Rather, Rava said,

this is how Rabbi Eliezer’s words are to be explained:

In fact,

Rabbi Eliezer is speaking

of an ordinary kohen.

And

he is forbidden to marry the minor because

we are concerned lest,

since she has no understanding,

she be seduced

and commit adultery

against him

after he marries her, and thereby become forbidden to him, while he does not know of it.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that you are concerned lest she commit adultery beneath him because of her minority—

an Israelite also

may not marry the minor because of this concern!

And we answer:

The seduction of a minor,

who has no understanding,

is coercion.

And coercion in the case of an Israelite woman

is

permitted

to her husband.

But a kohen may not marry her, for she is forbidden to him even if she had intercourse under coercion.

Rav Pappa said,

this is how Rabbi Eliezer’s words are to be explained:

Here

we are dealing with a High Priest,

we are dealing with him.

And this is the Tanna,

who forbade a minor to a High Priest by a scriptural decree:

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written concerning a High Priest, “For only

a virgin

from his people shall he take as a wife.”

One might have thought

that a High Priest could marry

a minor,

who is also a virgin.

The verse states: “A woman,”

and not a minor, who is not called a woman.

If “a woman”,

one might have thought

that he could marry even

an adult woman?

The verse states: “A virgin.”

A virgin, and not an adult woman, for part of her virginity has ceased.

How is this so?

His wife has left

the status of a High Priest’s wife

from the category of minors, but has not entered the category of adults.

And this is a maiden.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said

to explain the words of Rabbi Eliezer:

Here we are dealing with a High Priest, and

this is the Tanna:

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written: “For only

a virgin

from his people shall he take as a wife.”

“A virgin” means only a maiden.

And so it says

concerning Rebecca:

“And the maiden was very beautiful in appearance, a virgin.”

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Elazar says: An unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage—

he makes her a zonah!

Rav Amram said: The halakha does not follow Rabbi Elazar.

Mishna:

A person may not cease

from being fruitful and multiplying unless he has

two

sons.

And with what children does a person fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying?

Beit Shammai say: Two males.

But not a male and a female. And the Gemara will explain their reason.

And Beit Hillel say: A male and a female.

As it is stated

in the creation of the world: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day that God created man”—

male and female He created them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A person may not cease from being fruitful and multiplying unless he has sons:

And the Gemara infers from the language of the Mishna, which taught: A person may not cease “from being fruitful and multiplying” unless he has sons, and did not teach: A person may not cease “from [taking] a wife” unless he has sons:

This

is so: if

he has sons,

only

from being fruitful and multiplying

is he

released.

But

from

taking

a wife he is not released,

rather, a person must marry a woman, except that he need not seek a woman fit to bear sons.

Our Mishna supports

the view of

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even though a person has several sons,

he is nevertheless

forbidden to remain without a wife.

As it is stated: “It is not good for man to be alone.”

And some say,

that one should infer from our Mishna the opposite of Shmuel’s law:

If he has sons—

he is released from being fruitful and multiplying, and he is also released from [the obligation of] a wife.

And we raise the matter:

Let it be

our Mishna

a refutation of Rav Nahman in the name of Shmuel,

who holds that even a person who fulfilled being fruitful and multiplying may not remain without a wife?!

And we answer:

No,

not as you inferred, that if he has sons he no longer needs to marry a wife. Rather:

If

he does not have sons—

he marries a woman capable of bearing sons

[fit to bear sons].

And if

he has sons—

he marries a woman who is not capable of bearing sons.

But he may not remain without a wife.

However, even when he has sons, it is a mitzva upon him to marry a woman capable of bearing children.

And there is

a practical difference

between one who has sons and one who does not have sons, with regard to

selling a Torah scroll for the sake of sons.

For one should not do so, unless he does not have sons and does not find a woman unless he sells the Torah scroll that he has, for the sake of his marriage expenses.

But if he has sons, he should not sell a Torah scroll for the sake of a woman capable of bearing children; rather, he should marry a woman who does not have children [explained according to the second interpretation of Tosafot].

We learned in the Mishna:

“Beit Shammai say: two males”:

And we raise the question:

“What is the reason of Beit Shammai?”

And we answer:

“We derive it from Moses”,

who separated from his wife [as explained below] after he had two sons.

As it is written: “The sons of Moses—

Gershom and Eliezer.”

And

the reason of

Beit Hillel,

who hold that the mitzva of procreation is fulfilled with a male and a female, is that

we derive it from the creation of the world [from Adam and Eve],

as it is said of them: “Male and female He created them.”

And we challenge:

And Beit Shammai—

let them derive [let them too learn]

from

the creation of the world?!

And we answer:

One does not reason from a possibility—

such as every person who has two males, for whom it is possible to marry one of the other females in the world—