Yevamot 68a — the Talmud in English

For he acquires her

the betrothed man acquires his betrothed

through the act of marriage, and the Torah said: “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man, she—from that time when she ‘became’ the wife of a foreign man, namely, when she became betrothed to a foreign man—of the sacred teruma she shall not eat.”

.

And if

his betrothed

is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest—

he does not feed her,

the priestly betrothed man does not allow his betrothed, an Israelite woman, to eat teruma,

because of Ulla.

For Ulla said: By Torah law, an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest eats teruma, as it is written: “And a priest, when he acquires a person, the acquisition of his money—he shall eat of it.” And for what reason did they say that she does not eat? A decree, lest they pour her a cup of teruma wine in her father’s house, where she is still in his home while she is betrothed, and she go and give the teruma wine to drink to her Israelite brothers and sisters.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the deaf-mute

disqualifies but does not feed:

And the Gemara explains the reason for the matter:

If

the wife of the deaf-mute

is a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite—

he disqualifies her

the deaf-mute disqualifies her from the teruma of her father’s house,

for he acquires her

the deaf-mute acquires his wife

by rabbinic ordinance,

for they instituted marriage for him, although he does not possess understanding.

And if

the wife of the deaf-mute

is an Israelite woman married to a priest—

he does not feed

the priestly deaf-mute does not feed his wife, since “and a priest, when he acquires a person,

the acquisition of his money,” said the Merciful One, and this

deaf-mute

is not one who can acquire,

by Torah law; rather, the Sages merely instituted marriage for him, but he cannot enable her to eat teruma, since she is not acquired by him by Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who is nine years and

one day old—disqualifies but does not feed:

It enters our mind

that the Mishna is dealing

with a yevama awaiting levirate marriage to one who is nine

years

and one day old.

And we object:

For what purpose,

for what matter of disqualification does the Mishna say this?

If it is to disqualify

a priest’s daughter, and the Mishna teaches that if she is bound to an Israelite levir who is nine years old, since he is fit for intercourse, then he disqualifies her from eating teruma, and this is what we learned: “And one who is nine years and one day old disqualifies.”

It is impossible to interpret it this way.

For a levir

a minor

an Israelite, even if he is younger than nine years—

also certainly disqualifies

a priest’s daughter from returning to her father’s house and eating teruma, since she is bound to him. And since she is attached to him and is not permitted to the public, I cannot apply to her: “And she shall return to her father’s house as in her youth”!

And if it is to feed [to enable]

an Israelite woman to eat teruma, such that if she were bound to a priestly levir who is nine years old, he would enable her to eat teruma; and this is what we learned: one who is nine years and one day old “feeds.”

This too cannot be said.

For even a levir

fully grown

in fact

also does not feed

a yevama awaiting levirate marriage. And as we learned in our Mishna, the levir does not feed.

And if so, for what purpose does the Mishna distinguish between a minor who is nine years old and one who is younger than him?!

Abaye said:

Here we are dealing with a levir

who is a priest who

is nine years and one day old [whose intercourse is intercourse],

[его соитие считается соитием],

who had intercourse with his yevama

an Israelite woman

we are dealing—

for by Torah law she is acquired by him,

and she is his wife by Torah law. And

it might enter your mind to say: since by Torah law she is acquired by him, and his intercourse

of one who is nine

is intercourse

it is,

say

that he acquired her by Torah law as though she were entirely married to him, despite the fact that he is a minor, and

he should feed her [he should enable his yevama to eat teruma] just as an adult levir feeds his yevama after intercourse.

Согласно Раши в трактате Кидушин, 19а.

It teaches us

our Mishna, that the minor’s acquisition is not a complete acquisition:

Rather,

they made

the Sages the status of

the intercourse of

a minor

who is nine years and one day old

with his yevama such that it acquires the yevama

like

that which

a maamar of

an

adult levir acquires, who does not acquire her by Torah law as a complete acquisition.

.

Rava said to

Abaye:

If so—

that our Mishna says only that minors who are nine years and one day old “do not feed,” and it does not deal with them with regard to “disqualifies”—

The end of the Mishna, which teaches

in it:

It is uncertain

whether he is

nine years and one day old, or it is uncertain whether he is not

nine—

It is necessarily to be interpreted that the intention of the Mishna is to continue what was said above and to say that even one whose age is uncertain whether he is nine years and one day old is subject to the law stated concerning one certainly nine years old, that he does not feed—and if so, this is difficult: does our Mishna need to teach that one whose age is uncertain whether he is nine does not feed?

But

now, when one certainly nine does not feed—

One whose age is uncertain

nine—does it

need to be stated

by the tannay that he does not feed?!

Rather, Rava said, the Mishna is teaching as follows: “One who is nine years and one day old—disqualifies.”

.

And here

it teaches concerning one who is nine years and one day old among these disqualified persons [our Mishna is dealing with disqualified minors who are nine years old, such as a mamzer and a netin],

[то есть о малолетних девятилетних, являющихся мамзерами или нетинами],

that they disqualify through their intercourse [who disqualify a woman through their intercourse], and our Mishna teaches us that they disqualify only once they reach the age of nine, when they become fit for intercourse.

[то есть делают женщину непригодной вследствие соития], и Мишна учит нас, что они лишают её права только с того времени, когда достигают девяти лет и становятся способными к соитию.

And as it was taught in a beraita: One who is nine years and one day old:

An Ammonite convert,

or a

Moabite

convert, or a

Egyptian, and

likewise an

Edomite convert [who are forbidden to enter the congregation],

[которым запрещено вступать в общину Израиля],

A Samaritan [the Samaritans are converts through lions, and their intercourse is forbidden because of “You shall not intermarry with them”].

[кути — это самаритяне, потомки тех, кого ассирийский царь переселил в страну Израиля; их соитие запрещено на основании стиха «не вступай с ними в брак»].

A netin,

a Gibeonite, whose law will be explained below.

A halלal,

who disqualifies a woman from the priesthood through his intercourse,

And a mamzer,

who is forbidden to enter the congregation,

who had intercourse with a priest’s daughter [a priest’s daughter], or with

[дочерью коэна] или с

a Levite woman or an Israelite woman—

they disqualified her

from teruma and from the priesthood [and this is explained further in the Gemara on page 68b].

And we object: How is it possible to establish our Mishna as dealing with disqualified minors who disqualify the woman through their intercourse?

But from the fact that the end of the Mishna teaches,

in the following Mishna: “One who rapes and one who seduces,”

if they are not fit to enter into marriage among Israelites—

these disqualify!

This teaches you that all who disqualify a woman through their intercourse disqualify her even through rape and seduction, without marriage.

Behold,

by implication

you learn from this,

the first clause [our Mishna, which deals with a minor who is nine years old, who has no betrothal, and whose intercourse is considered “seduction” by Torah law]—

[наша Мишна говорит о девятилетнем малолетнем, который не может совершить кидушин, а его соитие по закону Торы считается соблазнением] —

we are not dealing with disqualified persons!

For if our Mishna dealt with disqualified persons who disqualify the woman through intercourse without betrothal, why did the tannay need to repeat and teach this also in the end of the following Mishna?! Necessarily, our Mishna, which is the first clause, does not deal with disqualified persons.

And we answer: In fact, both our Mishna and the end of the following Mishna deal with disqualified persons, but they are two different types of disqualified persons—

the first clause

deals with

those disqualified from the congregation,

who disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse without betrothal.

The end of the Mishna—

deals with

those disqualified from the priesthood, with halalim, who also disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse without betrothal.

The matter itself: One who is nine years and one day old, an Ammonite and a Moabite convert, an Egyptian and an Edomite, a Samaritan, a netin, a halלal, and a mamzer, who had intercourse with a priest’s daughter, a Levite woman, or an Israelite woman—

they disqualified her.

An Ammonite, a Moabite, and a mamzer are forbidden to enter the congregation even through their tenth generation. But the Torah prohibited an Egyptian and an Edomite convert only in the first and second generations; the third generation is permitted to enter the congregation.

Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone whose

even

offspring is disqualified—

he is

one who disqualifies

his wife.

Anyone whose offspring is not disqualified,

such as the second generation of an Egyptian or Edomite convert, whose offspring is not disqualified—

does not disqualify

even the woman with whom he had intercourse, even though he had intercourse with her in violation of a prohibition [and this is explicitly stated in the Gemara below].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you marry [whom it is permitted to marry, since she is fit]—

[то есть с дочерью которой разрешено вступить в брак, поскольку она пригодна],

you marry

also

his widow,

for she was not disqualified through his intercourse.

And anyone whose daughter you do not marry,

because she is disqualified—

you do not marry

his

widow,

since she was disqualified through his intercourse.

And the Gemara below will explain this further.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters derived,

that a woman with whom one who is disqualified for her had intercourse is thereby disqualified by him from teruma and from the priesthood?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The verse says, “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man”—

she “of the sacred teruma shall not eat.” The verse teaches that

once she has had intercourse with one who is disqualified for her,

he

disqualifies her

from teruma.

And we object: But

this

verse, “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man, she of the sacred teruma shall not eat”—

is needed for itself,

it is needed for the matter explicitly stated in the verse, and it is impossible to expound additional matters from it!

For the Merciful One says: A priest’s daughter who marries a foreigner—

shall not eat! [A0220]A priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite shall not eat teruma from her father’s house!?

[дочь коэна, вышедшая замуж за израильтянина, не должна есть תרума из дома своего отца]!?

And we answer:

That [this law, that one who marries an Israelite is disqualified]—

[закон о том, что вышедшая за израильтянина теряет право есть תרума] —

From “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be a widow or divorced,”

“and when a daughter of a priest becomes a widow or divorced,”

“and she shall return

to her father’s house as in her youth; from her father’s bread she shall eat” —

is derived [it is learned].

For

For

from the fact that the Merciful One says [since the Torah says]:

[так как Тора сказала]:

“And she shall return to her father’s house,”

and then “from her father’s bread she

shall eat.”

By implication

you now learn

that initially,

before she returned to it, when she was under her husband—

she did not eat

teruma.

And we still object that the verse “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man” is not superfluous in order to derive the law of a woman who had intercourse with one disqualified for her, for we need the verse according to its plain meaning, to teach concerning one who marries an Israelite that she becomes disqualified from teruma; and although the Torah already said, “And she shall return to her father’s house—from her father’s bread she shall eat,” and we know that before she returned she shall not eat, nevertheless the Torah needed to write also “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man”:

For

if from that verse, “And she shall return to her father’s house”—

verse, “And she returns to her father’s house”—

it might enter our mind to say

that a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite, if she eats teruma, transgresses only a

negative commandment derived from a positive commandment [a prohibition learned by the principle that from “yes” you hear “no”], which is only a prohibition of

[запрет, который выводится из положительного утверждения по принципу «из положительного следует отрицательное»], то есть только

a positive commandment,

for you learned to prohibit her only from what the Torah said: “And she shall return”—then she shall eat. But if she did not return—she shall not eat.

And therefore

the Merciful One wrote this: “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man, she of the sacred teruma shall not eat” —

стих: «А если дочь коэна выйдет замуж за чужого человека, она не будет есть святыню» —

to

give

a negative commandment

for eating teruma by a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite.

And since this is so, you still have not learned that a woman who had intercourse with one disqualified for her is thereby disqualified!

And we answer: The prohibition of

the negative commandment

for a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite to eat teruma—

is derived from “And no foreigner shall eat sacred things.”

Since she married an Israelite, she too is included in this negative commandment.

And once we know the prohibition of the negative commandment even without the verse “And the daughter of a priest, when she will be married to a foreign man,” you have the possibility of learning from this superfluous verse that a woman who had intercourse with one disqualified for her is thereby disqualified!