Yevamot 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, this teaches you that

one to whom widowhood and divorce are applicable with regard to her

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

A gentile and a slave are excluded, as widowhood and divorce are not applicable with regard to her

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

And from here we also learn the same with regard to those liable for karet, as intercourse with them disqualifies a woman.

And we raise a difficulty:

We have found

, indeed we have found the derivation from “a widow and a divorcee” with regard to the law of

a daughter of a kohen

eating teruma in her father’s house, who is disqualified by a gentile, a slave, and those liable for karet, since her body has acquired sanctity.

But

a Levite woman or an Israelite woman

, who eats teruma on account of a son she has from a kohen, whose body has not acquired sanctity—

from where do we know

that she, too, is disqualified when she has intercourse with one to whom widowhood and divorce are not applicable with regard to her?

And we answer:

As Rabbi Abba said that Rav said

below, the extra letter vav is to be expounded 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, when she becomes a widow or a divorcee,” to include even a Levite woman or an Israelite woman who eats on account of her sons, that they are disqualified through intercourse with one to whom widowhood and divorce are not applicable with regard to them.

And we raise a difficulty:

In accordance with whose view

do we expound it in this manner?

Do we hold

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who expounds

the letters

vav?!

? The Gemara answers:

And we answer:

Even if you say it is the Rabbis

, who do not expound “vavs,” here they do expound the additional vav, since the entire word “and daughter”

is an extra 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 the verse first says, “And a priest's daughter, if she becomes the wife of an Israelite,” and in the following verse it says, “And a priest's daughter, if she becomes a widow or a divorcee.” It could have said, “And if she becomes a widow or a divorcee.”

The Gemara now raises another question against the exposition 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”: She returns to her father’s house only if she was intimate with one to whom widowhood and divorce are applicable with regard to her. A gentile, a slave, and those liable for karet are excluded, since betrothal is not effective for them with regard to her; nevertheless, they disqualify her through intercourse.

And perhaps

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

Only

one to whom widowhood and divorce are applicable with regard to her

, namely, an Israelite who is a foreign man, in that case—

when he has no

offspring

she may eat

teruma in her father’s house.

When he has offspring

she may not eat,

because the offspring she has from an Israelite disqualifies her.

But

one to whom widowhood and divorce are not applicable with regard to her

and has intercourse with her—

even though he has offspring, she may also eat!

And we answer: If so,

if the verse comes to be lenient

, teaching that offspring from a gentile or a slave does not disqualify her—

why do I need

the inclusion of a Levite woman and an Israelite woman for this matter [as we expounded above from “and daughter”]—

why do I need it?!

Would there be any basis for saying that a daughter of a kohen is not disqualified by offspring from a gentile, whereas a Levite woman or an Israelite woman is disqualified by offspring from a gentile? If a daughter of a kohen, whose body has acquired sanctity, is not disqualified, all the more so she should not be disqualified by offspring from a gentile.

The Gemara nevertheless continues to object: And what can be said according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal is not effective with those liable for prohibitions, and what is the meaning of

“And a daughter of a kohen”

“when she becomes

the wife of a foreign man”

? The word “becomes” does not denote betrothal, since betrothal is not effective with those liable for prohibitions; rather, it is as though the verse said, “And a daughter of a kohen

when she has intercourse

with a foreign man,” since betrothal with a foreign and disqualified man is impossible—if so, everyone is included in this verse, both a woman who has intercourse with one liable for a prohibition and a woman who has intercourse with a gentile, a slave, or one liable for karet, for she is disqualified.

If so,

“a widow and a divorcee”

—which comes to include disqualification when she has intercourse with a gentile, a slave, or one liable for karet—

why do I need it

, since we have already heard all these cases from the verse, “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes the wife of a foreign man”?

And we answer: Indeed, according to Rabbi Akiva, the verse does not come to teach that intercourse with one to whom widowhood and divorce are not applicable disqualifies the woman. Rather, the phrase “a widow and a divorcee” concerns the essential law of the verse: It 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 expression

“widow”

comes to make the law more stringent for her

, teaching that even a widow does not return to her father’s house if she has offspring.

And

the expression

“divorcee”

comes to make the law more lenient for her

, teaching that even a divorcee returns to her father’s house when she has no offspring.

And it is necessary

for the verse to teach both matters.

For had it taught only “widow”

, that she returns to her father’s house when she has no offspring, I would have said that only

a widow

eats when she has no offspring, because she is fit to marry into the priesthood

[as she is disqualified only from marrying a High Priest].

But with regard to a divorcee, who is not fit to marry into the priesthood

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

I might say: Even though she has no offspring, she may not eat

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

And had it taught only “divorcee”

, that she is disqualified from teruma when she has offspring from her husband, I would have said that only

a divorcee may not eat when she has offspring, because she is not fit to marry into the priesthood. But with regard to a widow

who is fit to marry into the priesthood, I might say: Even though she has offspring, she may also eat.

Therefore,

it is necessary

for the verse to state both matters.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the law of “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes the wife of a foreign man”: If she has intercourse with one who is disqualified for her, she is disqualified from teruma and from the priesthood.

And we object:

And perhaps: “She had intercourse with one disqualified for her”

means

even one who remarries his divorcee

after she married someone else, who disqualifies his wife from the teruma of her father’s house, 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 the wife

of a foreign man,” said the Merciful One

, and this implies:

one who was a foreigner with regard to her from the outset

is the one whose intercourse disqualifies her.

This excludes this one

, one who remarries his divorcee—

for he was not a foreigner with regard to her from the outset

, since initially, before he divorced her, he was permitted to her.

And we raise an objection:

If so:

a ḥalal, who is not a “stranger”—

who is not included in the verse, “And if the daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen” [because even the daughter of a kohen is not forbidden to marry a ḥalal]—

should not disqualify

a woman from teruma through intercourse with him! Yet in the beraita we learned that the ḥalal is included as well?!

And we answer:

The verse states: “A widow, a divorcee, a ḥalala, or a zona—these he shall not take [the High Priest], etc., and

he shall not profane his offspring among his people; it juxtaposes “his offspring”

—

of the High Priest by a widow—

to him

[to the High Priest]:

Just as he disqualifies

the widow from teruma through intercourse with her,

so too his offspring

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

also disqualifies

a woman through intercourse with her.

And we still raise an objection to the law derived from “And if the daughter of a kohen marries a non-kohen,” namely, that a woman who has intercourse with one who is disqualified to her becomes disqualified from teruma:

But say

that she should already become disqualified

from the time of the marriage

[the betrothal], even if he died before having intercourse with her, for the Torah states: “When she marries” a non-kohen?!

And we answer: The disqualified man and the non-kohen in relation to her disqualify her

in a manner analogous to the High Priest with a widow. Just as the High Priest with a widow

disqualifies her only

through intercourse ,

so too this one

—the non-kohen and one disqualified in relation to her—

also

does not disqualify her from teruma except

through intercourse;

mere marriage, however, does not disqualify her.

And we still raise an objection:

But say

that the non-kohen and the disqualified man should not disqualify her

unless there are both marriage and intercourse

together, but not through intercourse alone.

And we answer:

In a manner analogous to the High Priest with a widow: Just as with the High Priest and a widow, intercourse alone

disqualifies her, even without betrothal ,

so too this one

—the non-kohen and the disqualified man—

also, through intercourse alone

disqualifies her, even without betrothal.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei 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 Yosei?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A second-generation Egyptian

[the son of an Egyptian convert], whose offspring is not disqualified, since the Torah did not prohibit a third-generation Egyptian,

and a second-generation Edomite,

whose offspring, which is the third generation, is not forbidden to enter the congregation,

are the difference between them.

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

The view of Rabbi Yosei is: 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 Yosei—

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 a member of the Jewish congregation is a transgression—

disqualifies

her.

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

—when he transgressively has intercourse with the widow, since he became profaned through intercourse with one disqualified for the priesthood—

and disqualifies

her,

so too anyone whose offspring is disqualified,

such as an Ammonite, whose son is also forbidden [even if he was born permissibly],

disqualifies

the woman who has intercourse with him through a transgression,

excluding a second-generation Egyptian, whose offspring is not disqualified, as it is written: “Children who are born to them; the third generation may enter 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 had 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 Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Ulla said: An Ammonite or Moabite convert—

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

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

who disqualifies her.

Rabbi Yosei holds: Just as the offspring of the High Priest by a widow 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 his offspring

—both his son and his daughter—

is disqualified, and he disqualifies

her,

so too only one whose entire offspring is disqualified and disqualifies

[is the one who disqualifies her],

excluding an Ammonite and a Moabite, whose entire offspring is not disqualified, as the Master said: “Ammonite”

the Torah prohibited from entering the congregation,

but not an Ammonite woman; “Moabite,” but not a Moabite woman;

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

Mishna:

The daughter of a kohen does not become disqualified through intercourse with a non-kohen, but only through marriage to a non-kohen; and a kohen does not enable the daughter of an Israelite to eat teruma except through betrothal and marriage. Therefore:

One who rapes or seduces

a woman and does not marry her,

and an imbecile,

even if she marries him through a wedding canopy and betrothal, they do not take effect — these people

do not disqualify

the daughter of a kohen if they are non-kohanim,

nor do they enable her to eat

the daughter of an Israelite if they are kohanim.

And if they are not— one who rapes, one who seduces, or an imbecile—

fit to enter the Jewish congregation

[for example, if they were a mamzer or an Edomite, or similarly disqualified from entering the Jewish congregation],

these disqualify

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

How so?

One who rapes or seduces does not disqualify and does not enable her to eat:

One who rapes or seduces does not disqualify: Here is

[Baḥ]

an Israelite who has intercourse

through rape or seduction

with the daughter of a kohen

who is in her father’s home; she may

eat teruma.

For the Torah states: “And if the daughter of a kohen becomes a widow or divorced, and she returns to her father’s house, she may eat of her father’s bread.”

Before she becomes a widow or is divorced, however, she may not eat of her father’s bread; and you have learned that she becomes disqualified only through being betrothed or married to an Israelite.