Yevamot 69a — the Talmud in English

Rather, to teach you:

one who has widowhood and divorce with her,

he is the one whose intercourse does not disqualify her, and therefore she returns to her father’s house.

Excluded are a gentile and a slave, who do not have widowhood and divorce

with her [for betrothal does not take effect for him with her], with whom “and she returns to her father’s house” is not applicable, since intercourse with a gentile or a slave disqualifies her from teruma.

And from here we also learn regarding those liable to karet, that they disqualify a woman through their intercourse.

And we examine it:

We have found,

indeed we have found the teaching from “widow and divorcee,” regarding the law of a

kohen’s daughter

with respect to the teruma of her father’s household, that she is disqualified through a gentile, a slave, and those liable to karet, since her body has been sanctified.

But

a Levite woman and an Israelite woman,

who eats on account of her son whom she has from a kohen, whose body has not been sanctified—

from where do we know

that she too is disqualified when she has intercourse with one who does not have widowhood and divorce with her?

And we answer:

as Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav

below, that one is to expound the superfluity of the letter vav when it is added to the word

“daughter,”

as it is written

“and daughter.”

Here too,

we expound the addition of the letter vav in the word

“daughter,”

as it is stated

“and daughter of a kohen shall become a widow or a divorcee,”

to include also a Levite woman and an Israelite woman who eat on account of their sons, that they are disqualified through intercourse with one who does not have widowhood and divorce with her.

And we examine it:

In accordance with whose view,

in accordance with whom do we expound in this way?

Do we hold

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who expounds

the letters

vavs?!

And we answer:

You may even say that it is in accordance with the Sages,

who do not expound “vavs”; here they do expound the additional vav, since

the entire “and daughter” is—

a superfluous verse!

For it is stated first, “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes the wife of a foreign man,” and in the following verse it says, “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes a widow or a divorcee.” It should have said, “And when she becomes a widow or a divorcee.”

For it was first stated, “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes married to a non-kohen,” and in the following verse it is stated, “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes a widow or a divorcee.” It should have said, “And when she becomes a widow or a divorcee.”

And now the Gemara returns and raises a difficulty against the exposition that we learned from “and a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes a widow or a divorcee, and she has no offspring, and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth”: that she returns to her father’s house only if one who has widowhood and divorce with her had intercourse with her; gentile, slave, and those liable to karet are excluded, since betrothal does not take effect for them with her, yet they disqualify her through their intercourse.

And say,

that the exclusion “when she becomes a widow or a divorcee” is to be interpreted with regard to “and she has no offspring,” and that it comes to be lenient, and to say:

Only

one who has widowhood and divorce with her,

that is, an Israelite non-kohen, then—

when he does not have

offspring—

she eats

teruma of her father’s household.

When he has offspring—

she does not eat,

because the offspring she has from an Israelite disqualifies her.

But

one who does not have widowhood and divorce with her

and had intercourse with her,

even though he has offspring, she may also eat!

And we answer:

If so,

that the verse comes to be lenient and to say that offspring from a gentile or a slave does not disqualify—

the inclusion of a Levite woman and an Israelite woman

with regard to this [as we expounded above from “and daughter”]—

why do I need it?!

And would there have been room to say that a kohen’s daughter is not disqualified by the offspring of a gentile, whereas a Levite woman and an Israelite woman would be disqualified by the offspring of a gentile? For if a kohen’s daughter, whose body has been sanctified, is not disqualified, all the more so she should not be disqualified by the offspring of a gentile.

And we still raise a difficulty: And for Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal does not take effect with those liable for prohibitions, and what is the meaning of

“and a daughter”

of a kohen

when she becomes married to a non-kohen,”

“becomes” is not the language of betrothal, since betrothal does not take effect with those liable for prohibitions, but as though the verse said, “and a daughter of a kohen

when she has intercourse

with a non-kohen,” for betrothal with a non-kohen who is disqualified is not possible — and if so, everything is included in this verse, both one who has intercourse with those liable for prohibitions and one who has intercourse with a gentile, a slave, and those liable to karet, for she is disqualified.

And if so,

“widow and divorcee”—

which comes to include disqualification in the case of one who had intercourse with a gentile, a slave, and those liable to karet—

why do I need it,

since we have already heard all of these from the verse “and a daughter of a kohen when she becomes married to a non-kohen”?!

And we answer: Indeed, according to Rabbi Akiva, the verse did not come to teach that intercourse with one who does not have widowhood and divorce disqualifies the woman; rather, the language “widow and divorcee” concerns the primary law of the verse, which teaches that she returns to her father’s house when she has no offspring from the Israelite whom she married, and that she is disqualified from teruma when she has offspring from the Israelite whom she married.

And the language

“widow”

comes to make her subject to stringency,

to teach that even the widow does not return to her father’s house if she has offspring.

And the language

of

“divorcee”

comes to make her subject to leniency,

and to teach that even the divorcee returns to her father’s house when she has no offspring.

And it is necessary,

the verse needs to make both matters known.

For if it had made known “widow,”

that she returns to her father’s house when she has no offspring, I would say: Only

a widow—

when she has no offspring, she eats, because she is fit for the priesthood

[for she is disqualified only from a High Priest].

But a divorcee, who is not fit for the priesthood

[for she is not fit to marry into the priesthood],

perhaps: Even though she has no offspring, she does not eat,

for she does not return to her father’s house after she married and became disqualified from teruma, even when she has no offspring.

And if it had made known “divorcee,”

that she is disqualified from teruma when she has offspring from her husband, I would say: Only

a divorcee is such that when she has offspring she does not eat, because she is not fit for the priesthood. But a widow,

who is fit for the priesthood, perhaps: Even though she has offspring, she too may eat.

And therefore

it is necessary

to write both matters.

And here the Gemara returns to explain the law of “and a daughter of a kohen when she becomes married to a non-kohen”: If she had intercourse with one disqualified to her, she is disqualified from teruma and from the priesthood.

And we ask:

And say: one who had intercourse with one disqualified to her,

that is,

even one who remarries his divorcee

after she married another, who disqualifies his wife from the teruma of her father’s household, since he is forbidden to her.

But in the beraita above, in the chapter Haḥoletz, we learned that she is not disqualified?!

And we answer: “When she becomes married

to a non-kohen,” said the Merciful One,

and it implies:

one who was initially a non-kohen in relation to her

is the one who disqualifies her through his intercourse.

This excludes this one,

to exclude one who remarries his divorcee—

for he was not initially a non-kohen in relation to her,

since at the outset, before he divorced her, he was fit for her.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

a chalal, who is not a “stranger”—

who is not included in “and the daughter of a priest, when she shall be [married] to a strange man” [for even the daughter of a priest is not forbidden to marry a chalal]—

should not disqualify

a woman from teruma through his intercourse! Yet in the beraita we learned that it also includes a chalal?!

And we answer:

The verse says: “A widow, and a divorced woman, and a chalala, and a woman who has been a prostitute—these he shall not take [the High Priest], and so on, and

he shall not profane his offspring among his people; he compares ‘his offspring’

to the offspring

of a High Priest by a widow

to him [

to the High Priest],

just as he disqualifies

the widow from teruma through his intercourse,

so too his offspring

of a High Priest by a widow—that is, the chalal—

also disqualifies

a woman through his intercourse.

And we still raise an objection concerning the law derived from “and the daughter of a priest, when she shall be [married] to a strange man,” that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her is thereby disqualified from teruma:

But perhaps

she should already be disqualified

from the time of the marriage [

the betrothal], even if he died before having intercourse with her, for the Torah said: “when she shall be [married] to a strange man”?!

And we answer: The disqualified man and the stranger in relation to her disqualify her

in the manner of the High Priest with a widow: just as the High Priest with a widow

disqualifies her only

through intercourse,

so too this one—

a stranger and one disqualified in relation to her—

also

does not disqualify her from teruma except

through intercourse,

but through marriage alone, no.

And we still raise an objection:

But perhaps

the stranger and the disqualified man should not disqualify her

until there is both marriage and intercourse

together, but not through intercourse alone.

And we answer:

In the manner of the High Priest with a widow: just as with the High Priest and a widow, through intercourse alone

she becomes disqualified, even without betrothal,

so too this one—

a stranger and one disqualified—

also, through intercourse alone

he disqualifies her, even without betrothal.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yose says: Anyone whose offspring is disqualified—

disqualifies, and anyone whose offspring is not disqualified does not disqualify:

And we explain:

What difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Yose?

Rabbi Yohanan said: A second-generation Egyptian [

the son of an Egyptian convert], whose offspring is not disqualified, for the Torah did not forbid a third-generation Egyptian,

and a second-generation Edomite

whose offspring, which is the third generation, is forbidden to enter the congregation,

are the point of difference between them.

The view of the first tanna: Anyone who is a stranger and disqualified in relation to her disqualifies her, even when his offspring is not disqualified.

The view of Rabbi Yose: Anyone whose offspring is not disqualified does not disqualify; therefore, a second-generation Egyptian and a second-generation Edomite do not disqualify the woman who has intercourse with them.

And both of them—

the first tanna and Rabbi Yose—

derived it only from the High Priest with a widow

who disqualifies her.

The first tanna holds: Just as with the High Priest and a widow, whose intercourse

with her is

a transgression, and he disqualifies

her,

so too this one—

a second-generation Egyptian and a second-generation Edomite, whose intercourse with the congregation of Israel is a transgression—he

disqualifies

her.

Rabbi Yose holds: Like the High Priest: just as the High Priest whose offspring is disqualified—

when he transgressively had intercourse with the widow, for he became profaned through intercourse with those disqualified for the priesthood—

and disqualifies

her,

so too anyone whose offspring is disqualified,

such as an Ammonite, whose son too is forbidden [even if he came through a permitted union], he

disqualifies

the woman who has intercourse with him through a transgression,

to exclude a second-generation Egyptian, whose offspring is not disqualified, for it is written: “Children who shall be born to them, the third generation shall enter for them into the congregation of the Lord.”

We learned in a beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow

—that is, the woman who has intercourse with him—and anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow:

And we explain:

What difference is there between Rabbi Yose and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Ulla said: An Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert—

whose daughter is not disqualified, as will be explained below—

are the point of difference between them, and both of them derived it only from the High Priest with a widow

who disqualifies her.

Rabbi Yose holds: Just as with the High Priest and a widow, whose offspring is disqualified, and he disqualifies her, so too anyone whose offspring is disqualified disqualifies her.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: Just as with the High Priest and a widow, all of whose offspring—

both his son and his daughter—

is disqualified, and he disqualifies

her,

so too one all of whose offspring is disqualified and disqualifies

[he is the one who disqualifies her],

to exclude an Ammonite and a Moabite, for not all of whose offspring is disqualified, as the master said: “Ammonite

the Torah forbade entering the congregation

but not an Ammonite woman; ‘Moabite’ but not a Moabite woman,”

it follows that not all of his offspring is disqualified, and you may marry his daughter; therefore, you may marry his widow.

Mishna:

A daughter of a priest is not disqualified through intercourse with a stranger, but through marriage to a stranger; and a priest does not enable an Israelite woman to eat teruma except through betrothal and marriage. Therefore:

The one who rapes and the one who seduces

a woman and does not marry her,

and the imbecile,

even if he married her through the bridal canopy and betrothal, they do not take effect— these

do not disqualify

a daughter of a priest if they are strangers,

and do not enable

a daughter of Israel to eat teruma if they are priests.

And if they are not—

the one who rapes, the one who seduces, and the imbecile—

fit to enter into Israel [

for example, if they were a mamzer or an Edomite and the like, who are disqualified from entering the congregation of Israel],

these disqualify

the woman from eating teruma, since she became profaned through intercourse with one disqualified for her [Rashi].

How so?

The one who rapes and the one who seduces do not disqualify and do not enable:

The one who rapes and the one who seduces do not disqualify: Behold,

[

Bach]

an Israelite who has intercourse

through rape or seduction

with a daughter of a priest

who is in her father’s house—she

may eat teruma.

For the Torah said: “And if the daughter of a priest is a widow or divorced, and has no offspring, and she returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread.”

But before she becomes widowed or divorced, she does not eat from her father’s bread, and you have learned that she is disqualified only through one to whom she is betrothed or married, an Israelite.