Yevamot 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

For he has acquired her

the betrothed man has acquired his betrothed

through the act of marriage,

and the Torah said: “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of the sacred offerings”—that is, from the moment she “becomes” the wife of a non-priest, namely, when she becomes betrothed to a non-priest, she may no longer eat teruma.

And if

his betrothed

is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest—

he does not enable her to eat

the priestly betrothed man does not enable his Israelite betrothed to eat teruma,

because of the ruling of Ulla.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the deaf-mute”

disqualifies but does not enable her to eat:

The Gemara explains the reason for this:

If

the deaf-mute’s wife

is a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite—

he disqualifies her

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

for he has acquired her

the deaf-mute has acquired his wife

through a rabbinic enactment,

by which the Sages instituted marriage for him even though he lacks legal understanding.

And if

the deaf-mute’s wife

is an Israelite woman married to a priest—

he does not enable her to eat

the deaf-mute priest does not enable his wife to eat, since “when a priest acquires a person, the acquisition

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

deaf-mute

is not capable of acquiring

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 according to Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And a boy of nine years

and one day—disqualifies but does not enable her to eat”:

It might have been thought

that the Mishna is discussing

a woman awaiting levirate marriage to a boy of nine

years

and one day.

And we challenge this:

For what purpose,

for which matter of disqualification does the Mishna say this?

If it is to disqualify

a priest’s daughter, teaching that if she is bound to an Israelite yavam who is nine years old—who is fit for intercourse—he disqualifies her from eating teruma, and this is what we learned: “And a boy of nine years and one day disqualifies.”

This cannot be explained in that manner.

For even an Israelite yavam who is

a minor

Israelite—even if he is younger than nine years—

also 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 marry someone else, I cannot apply to her the verse, “And she shall return to her father’s house as in her youth”!

And if it concerns enabling to eat [to enable] an Israelite woman to eat teruma—if she were bound to a priestly yavam who was nine years old, he would enable her to eat teruma; and this is what we learned: A boy of nine years and one day “enables her to eat.”

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 yavam who is

a full-grown adult

in fact

also does not enable

a woman awaiting levirate marriage to eat. And so we learned in our Mishna, that the yavam does not enable her to eat.

If so, for what purpose does the Mishna distinguish between a minor who is nine years old and a minor younger than that?!

Abaye said:

Here we are dealing with a yavam

who is a priest and

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

who has intercourse with his yevama

an Israelite woman;

we are dealing

with a case in which Torah law has acquired her,

and she is his wife according to Torah law. And

it might have been thought that, since Torah law has acquired her, and the intercourse

of a boy of nine

is intercourse,

it is

possible to say

that he acquired her according to Torah law as though she were fully married to him, despite his being a minor, and

enable her to eat [enable his yevama to eat teruma], just as an adult yavam enables his yevama to eat after intercourse.

It teaches us

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

Rather,

the Sages made

the status of

the intercourse of

a minor

of nine years and one day

with his yevama such that it acquires the yevama

like

the acquisition effected by

the maamar of

a

grown

yavam, which does not effect a complete acquisition by Torah law.

Rava said to

Abaye:

If so—

that our Mishna teaches only that minors of nine years and one day “do not enable her to eat,” and does not discuss them with regard to “disqualifying”—

The latter clause, which teaches

in it:

If it is uncertain

whether he is

nine years and one day, or whether he is not

nine—

it is necessarily interpreted as continuing what was stated above, saying that even one who is possibly nine years and one day has the same ruling stated regarding one who is certainly nine, namely, that he does not enable her to eat. If so, this is difficult: Does our Mishna need to teach that one who is possibly nine does not enable her to eat?

For

now, if one who is certainly nine does not enable her to eat—

One who is possibly

nine—does it

need to be stated

by the tanna that he does not enable her to eat!?

Rather, Rava said, this is what it teaches: “A boy of nine years and one day—disqualifies.”

And here

it teaches the case of a boy of nine years and one day who belongs to these disqualified groups [our Mishna is discussing minor members of disqualified groups who are nine years old, such as a mamzer or a Natin],

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

And as it is taught in a beraita: A boy of nine years and one day:

An Ammonite convert,

or a

Moabite

convert, or an

Egyptian,

and likewise an

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

a Samaritan [the Samaritans were converts motivated by fear of lions, and their intercourse is forbidden because of “You shall not intermarry with them”].

A Natin,

a Gibeonite, whose law will be explained below.

A ḥalal,

who disqualifies a woman from marrying into 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

a Levite woman or an Israelite woman—

they disqualified her

from teruma and from the priesthood [this is explained further in the Gemara on the following side].

And we challenge this: How can our Mishna be established as referring to disqualified minors who disqualify the woman through their intercourse?

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches,

in the next Mishna: “One who rapes or seduces,”

if they are not fit to enter the congregation of Israel—

these disqualify her!

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

Behold,

by inference

you learn this concerning

the first clause [our Mishna, which discusses a minor of nine years, whose betrothal is ineffective and whose intercourse is considered seduction by Torah law]—

we are not dealing with disqualified groups!

For if our Mishna dealt with disqualified groups, who disqualify a woman through intercourse without betrothal, why would the tanna repeat this in the latter clause as well? It must be that our Mishna, which is the first clause, does not deal with disqualified groups.

And we answer: In fact, both our Mishna and the latter clause of the next Mishna deal with disqualified groups, but they concern two different types of disqualified groups—

the first clause

deals with

those disqualified from entering the congregation,

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

The latter clause—

deals with

those disqualified from the priesthood,

namely, ḥalalim, who likewise disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse without betrothal.

The essential passage: A boy of nine years and one day, an Ammonite and Moabite convert, an Egyptian and Edomite convert, a Samaritan, a Natin, a ḥalal, 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 after ten generations. But the Torah forbade an Egyptian and 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

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, although he had intercourse with her in violation of a prohibition [as is explicitly stated in the Gemara below].

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

you may marry

also

his widow,

for she was not disqualified through his intercourse.

And anyone whose daughter you may not marry,

because she is disqualified—

you may not marry

his

widow,

because she was disqualified through his intercourse.

This will be explained further in the Gemara below.

And we inquire:

From where are these matters derived,

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states, “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest”—

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

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

he

disqualifies her

from teruma.

And we challenge this: But

this

verse, “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of the sacred offerings”—

is needed

for the very matter stated in the verse, and it cannot be used to derive additional matters!

For the Merciful One said: A priest’s daughter who marries a non-priest—

she may not eat! A priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite may not eat the teruma of her father’s household!?

And we answer:

That matter [the law that one who marries an Israelite is disqualified]—

is derived from

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

“and she returns

to her father’s house as in her youth; she may eat of her father’s bread.”

It is derived [it is learned] from there.

For

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

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

and then “she may eat of her father’s bread,”

she may eat.

By inference

you learn

that initially,

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

she did not eat

teruma.

We still challenge this: The verse “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest” is not superfluous for deriving the law that a woman who has intercourse with one disqualified from her is disqualified, since we need the verse for its straightforward meaning, to teach that a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite is disqualified from teruma. Although the Torah has already said, “And she returns to her father’s house—she may eat of her father’s bread,” and we know that before she returns she may not eat, nevertheless the Torah needed to write “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest” as well:

For

if it were only from that

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

it might have been thought

that if a priest’s daughter who married an Israelite ate teruma, she would violate only a

negative commandment derived from a positive commandment [a prohibition inferred by means of the principle that a negative statement is derived from a positive one], which is only a

positive commandment,

since we learned that she is forbidden only from the Torah’s statement: “And she returns”—then she may eat; if she has not returned, she may not eat.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote this: “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of the sacred offerings”—

to

give

a negative commandment

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

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

And we answer: The prohibition, a

negative commandment, against a priest’s daughter who married an Israelite eating teruma—

is derived from “No non-priest shall eat of the sacred offering.”

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

And once we know the prohibition of a negative commandment even without the verse “And when a daughter of a priest is married to a non-priest,” you can derive from this apparently superfluous verse that a woman who has intercourse with one disqualified from her is indeed disqualified!