Yevamot 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection to the answer that the prohibition against a daughter of a kohen who marries an Israelite can be derived from the verse, “And no non-kohen may eat of the sacred food”:

But

that

verse—“And no non-kohen may eat of the sacred food”—

is needed for its own subject matter, namely, an actual non-kohen, who may not eat teruma; from where do you derive from this verse that a daughter of a kohen who is not herself a non-kohen is prohibited?

And we answer:

Two instances of “and no non-kohen” are written.

a. “And no non-kohen may eat of the sacred food.” It is impossible to derive from this verse the case of an Israelite woman married to a kohen, since she is not a non-kohen.

b. “And when she returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread, but no non-kohen may eat of it.” The meaning of the verse is: If she has not yet returned, she may not eat, and she is prohibited by a prohibition.

Still

we ask: But

it is

needed—“but no non-kohen may eat of it”—

for the teaching of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,

who derived from this verse that an onen is permitted to eat teruma?

As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: “And any non-kohen

may not eat of it; you have thereby learned:

I told you that which is non-kohen

is prohibited from eating teruma,

but not aninut.

Thus, we have no prohibition concerning an Israelite woman who marries a kohen except from the verse, “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen.” Still, from where do we know that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her becomes disqualified?

And we answer: The primary purpose of the verse, “And no non-kohen may eat of it,” is to teach that an Israelite woman who marries a kohen is subject to a prohibition.

And we answer: The principal purpose of the verse “and no non-priest may eat of it” is to teach that an Israelite woman who marries a kohen is subject to a prohibition.

An

additional

statement:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,

said that an onen is permitted to eat teruma,

from the word “non-kohen”

in “and no non-kohen” it is derived; that is, from the superfluous word “and” we learn that an onen is permitted to eat teruma.

That is, from the extra word “and” we learn that a mourner is permitted to eat teruma.

Therefore, the verse “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen” remains available to teach concerning a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her, that she becomes disqualified.

Still

we ask: How can we derive from “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen” the case of a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her? After all,

it is needed

for this verse

for the teaching that was taught:

Just as a daughter of a kohen eats teruma, so too she eats the breast and the thigh, which are given to the kohen from every sacrifice of peace-offerings, as the verse states: “And the breast of the waving and the thigh of the uplifting you shall eat, you, Aaron the kohen, and your sons and your daughters with you.”

When she—

a daughter of a kohen who married an Israelite—

returns

to her father’s house when she is widowed or divorced, she

returns

only

to teruma, but

she

does not return to the breast and the thigh. She remains prohibited from eating them even after she is widowed or divorced, just as she became prohibited from eating them from the time she became betrothed to an Israelite.

And Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina bar Rav Sheila said: What is the verse?

As it is written: “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen,

she may not eat of the teruma of the sacred offerings,”

teaching you that she

may not eat

of the

“uplifted portion” of the sacred offerings,

namely, the breast and the thigh.

namely, the breast and the thigh.

And we answer: The primary purpose of this verse is to teach concerning teruma that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her becomes disqualified. Nevertheless, from this verse you also learn the law that she does not return to the breast and the thigh, because:

If so—

if the verse came only to disqualify her from teruma when she has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her—

let the verse write: “She may not eat of the sacred offerings.”

It would then be understood that it refers to teruma, since the entire passage is discussing teruma.

What is the significance of “of the teruma of the sacred offerings”?

You can derive two matters from it:

a. A woman who has intercourse with someone who is a non-kohen and disqualified for her thereby becomes disqualified from teruma.

b. When she returns, she returns to teruma, but she does not return to the breast and the thigh.

Now that we know that “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen” teaches that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her—“she may not eat of the teruma of the sacred offerings”—the Gemara proceeds to explain the other details stated in the beraita concerning this disqualification, as well as its other laws.

We have found

that a woman of priestly lineage [a daughter of a kohen] is disqualified from teruma, which is the primary teaching of the verse.

A Levite woman and an Israelite woman—

from where do we know

that they too become disqualified? And we explain:

As Rabbi Abba said that Rav said

below, to expound the superfluous letter vav in the word

“daughter,”

as it is written,

“And a daughter

of a kohen who becomes a widow or divorced,” in order to derive another matter from it.

Here too,

we expound the superfluous letter vav in the word

“daughter,”

as it is written,

“And a daughter

of a kohen who marries a non-kohen may not eat of the teruma of the sacred offerings,” to teach you that a Levite woman and an Israelite woman also become disqualified through intercourse with one who disqualifies them.

We ask:

According to whom

do we hold this view? Do we hold

according to Rabbi Akiva, who expounds

additional

vavs, as we find that he said: “I expound ‘a daughter and a daughter”?

And we answer:

You may even say that it is according to the Rabbis.

Since this is not an exposition based solely on the extra letter vav, but rather

the entire phrase “and a daughter

of a kohen who marries a non-kohen”

is a superfluous verse.

of a kohen becomes married to a non-priest” —

For it could have said: “And a kohen who acquires a person, an acquisition of his money, he may eat of it, and those born in his household may eat of his bread. But if she marries a non-kohen, she may not eat of the teruma of the sacred offerings.” Why, then, did the verse say, “And a daughter of a kohen”?

And the Gemara is astonished at the question:

Rather, it teaches also concerning a Levite woman and an Israelite woman who have intercourse with one who is disqualified, that he disqualifies them.

The Gemara adds an explanation of another detail of this law: We have found that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified becomes disqualified

from teruma.

With regard to priestly marriage,

to prohibit her from marrying a kohen—

from where do we know this?

The Gemara raises an objection to the question:

Is that so?

Does a Levite woman and an Israelite woman— who were mentioned in the beraita as disqualified, and whom we derived from the superfluous “and a daughter”—

not become disqualified specifically with regard to

priestly marriage,

for which purpose

we included them?

Surely they were included to teach that they are disqualified with regard to priestly marriage.

For if they were included with regard to teruma,

one should ask: Are a Levite woman and an Israelite woman

women who are entitled to eat teruma that you need to disqualify them from teruma through intercourse with one who is disqualified?

And the Gemara responds, challenging the challenge:

Why not? Is eating teruma not applicable to a Levite woman or an Israelite woman?

After all,

you can find a case in which she eats,

a Levite woman or an Israelite woman,

on account of her son,

whom she has from a kohen; and it is necessary to teach us that she becomes disqualified from eating teruma when she has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her.

The Gemara rejects the possibility that the inclusion came to include a Levite woman and an Israelite woman with regard to teruma:

For a Levite woman or an Israelite woman who eats

on account of her son—

it is a kal va-chomer

that she should become disqualified, based on the case of a daughter of a kohen, who becomes disqualified from eating teruma:

And if a woman of priestly lineage [a daughter of a kohen], who

eats by virtue of the sanctity of her own person, and nevertheless

he disqualifies her—the intercourse with one who is disqualified disqualifies her from eating teruma—

a Levite woman and an Israelite woman, who eat only on account of their son,

and have no independent sanctity,

all the more so should they become disqualified from eating teruma when they have intercourse with one who is disqualified for them.

Since this is a kal va-chomer, we do not need the inclusion “and a daughter” to include Levite women and Israelite women as becoming disqualified from teruma. It follows that we learn that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her becomes disqualified from priestly marriage.

The Gemara rejects the kal va-chomer:

But it is this very consideration—

the distinction you have made between a daughter of a kohen, who possesses independent sanctity, and Levite women and Israelite women, who eat on account of their son—

that provides the basis

for saying: On the contrary, these women should not become disqualified from eating teruma.

For specifically

a woman of priestly lineage, whose body is sanctified,

is one whom

he disqualifies—a disqualified man, through intercourse with her, profanes her sanctity, and therefore she may no longer eat teruma.

But

this woman, a Levite woman or an Israelite woman who eats on account of her son,

whose body is not sanctified, is one whom the disqualified man

does not disqualify through intercourse with her.

By virtue of this rejection, we indeed explain that the inclusion “and a daughter” comes to disqualify from eating teruma the Levite women and Israelite women who eat teruma on account of their sons. But we have no source to disqualify from marrying into the priesthood a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her.

Rather, to disqualify a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified, so that she is prohibited from marrying

into the priesthood, we derive it by a

kal va-chomer from a divorcee, who is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

And this is the derivation:

And if a divorcee, who is permitted to eat teruma, is nevertheless

prohibited from marrying

into the priesthood—

this woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her and

is prohibited from eating teruma,

is it not logically necessary that she be

disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?

We ask:

Can a warning be derived from an inference [from a kal va-chomer]?

That is, can a full-fledged prohibition be established through a kal va-chomer? But we have an established principle that a warning cannot be derived from an inference.

And we answer: The derivation from the kal va-chomer is merely

a mere clarification of the matter, that the prohibition in “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen” entails disqualification from priestly marriage just as it entails disqualification from teruma, since eating teruma is by virtue of priestly sanctity.

to disqualify a woman who has intercourse with a man disqualified for her, so that she is forbidden to marry

Here the Gemara returns to the basic law that a woman who has intercourse with anyone who is disqualified for her becomes disqualified from priestly marriage and from teruma, and to the source of the law, which is the verse, “But if a daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen, she may not eat of the teruma of the sacred offerings.”

And we ask:

But perhaps the verse did not disqualify a woman who

has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her, but only one who had intercourse with

those liable to karet, with whom betrothal does not take effect.

But concerning a woman who has intercourse with those liable for transgressions punishable by lashes, with whom betrothal does take effect—as with all those mentioned in the beraita—from where do we know that they disqualify her? And we answer:

“And a daughter of a kohen

when she becomes

a non-kohen’s wife”—

the Merciful One said.

And it follows that those in whom there is validity [with whom betrothal takes effect] are included, whereas those liable to karet are not subject to validity. And we ask:

this woman, who

has had intercourse with a man disqualified for her and

is forbidden to eat teruma—

is it not logical that she

should be

disqualified from the priesthood?!

And we ask:

Can a prohibition be established through an inference

from an a-fortiori inference?

That is, can a full Torah prohibition be established through an a-fortiori inference? But we have an established principle that a prohibition is not established through an inference alone!

And we answer: The inference from the a-fortiori argument is merely

a clarification of the matter,

that the prohibition in “and if the daughter of a kohen becomes married to a non-priest” disqualifies her from the priesthood just as it disqualifies her from teruma, because eating teruma is a result of priestly sanctity.

Here the Gemara returns to the basic law: a woman who has intercourse with anyone who is disqualified for her becomes disqualified from the priesthood and from teruma. It also returns to the source of the law, the verse: “And if the daughter of a kohen becomes married to a non-priest, she may not eat of the sacred offerings’ teruma.”

And we ask:

But perhaps

the verse disqualifies not the woman who

has intercourse with a man disqualified for her, but only a woman who has intercourse with one of

the

those liable to excision,

with whom a valid betrothal cannot take effect.

But regarding a woman who has intercourse with one of those liable to a prohibition, with whom a valid betrothal does take effect—as in all the cases mentioned in the beraita—from where do we know that they disqualify her? And we answer: “And if the daughter of a kohen

becomes married

to a non-priest”—

the Merciful One said.

who are not people of havaya and betrothal, — should they not be disqualified the women from teruma through their intercourse?!

The implication is:

Those with whom the status of marriage exists

—with whom betrothal can take effect—

whereas

those liable to excision

are not people with whom the status of marriage exists.

And we ask:

If so, if you expound “when she becomes” as referring to those with whom betrothal is valid, one could say the opposite: The Torah disqualified only a woman who had intercourse with one with whom betrothal takes effect.

But

a gentile and a slave [and the same applies to those liable to karet ], who are not subject to validity and betrothal, —

should they not disqualify the women from teruma through intercourse with them?

a gentile and a slave

—and the same applies to those liable to excision— who are not people with whom the status of marriage and betrothal exists,

should not disqualify

women from teruma through intercourse with them!

And we answer:

those

—an idolater, a slave, and those liable for karet—

disqualify

from eating teruma

based on Rabbi Ishmael’s teaching.

As Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: From where is it derived that an idolater or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman, or with a daughter of a kohen or a Levite, disqualifies her?

As it is stated: “And a daughter of a priest, when she becomes a widow or divorced

and returns to her father’s house.”

And it would have been sufficient for him to state one of them [Tosafot].