Yevamot 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

But if

she became pregnant

by him, even through rape or seduction, she

may not eat teruma.

Because a fetus conceived from an Israelite disqualifies her, as it is stated: “And if the daughter of a kohen is a widow or divorced woman, and has no child, and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth”—“as in her youth” excludes a pregnant woman; and the fetus disqualifies her even if it was conceived through licentious intercourse. And if

And if

the fetus was removed from her womb

[and likewise, if she gave birth to it and it subsequently died, Rashi], she shall return and

eat

teruma.

“A raped or seduced woman does not enable her to eat”:

Thus

[Baḥ],

if a kohen had intercourse with an Israelite woman

through rape or seduction, she

may not eat teruma,

for the Torah said: “And when a kohen acquires a person, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it”; but these women are not his acquisition.

If she became pregnant

by him through rape or seduction, she

may not eat,

because a fetus does not enable her to eat.

And if

she gave birth

to his child through rape or seduction, she

may eat,

for the Torah said: “And those born in his house, they shall eat of his bread,” and we read it as: “They shall enable her to eat of his bread.”

It follows that the power of the son is greater than that of the father,

for the son enables his mother to eat without marriage, whereas his father does not enable her to eat without marriage [Meiri].

A slave disqualifies through intercourse,

that is: if a slave has intercourse with a woman, he disqualifies her from eating teruma, for any woman who has intercourse with a gentile or with a slave, with whom betrothal is ineffective, is disqualified by him from teruma, as it is stated: “And if the daughter of a kohen becomes a widow or divorced woman,” as explained above, on 68b.

But he does not disqualify through offspring,

that is: according to the law of “And if the daughter of a kohen has no offspring, and she returns”; but if she has offspring, she does not return to eat of her father’s teruma.

And likewise, he does not enable her to eat, as is the law concerning offspring from a kohen who had intercourse with an Israelite woman.

How

does a slave neither enable nor disqualify?

A. Offspring from an Israelite disqualifies a daughter of a kohen only when the offspring is alive; however, if he died and left offspring, that offspring disqualifies her as long as it remains alive.

B. Offspring from a kohen enables his Israelite mother to eat teruma only when the offspring is alive; however, if he left offspring, that offspring enables his mother to eat, even if the offspring is a non-kohen.

C. When a free man has intercourse with a maidservant, her son or daughter is a slave like her, as it is stated: “If his master gives him”—to a Hebrew slave, who is a fully-fledged Israelite—“a woman”—a Canaanite maidservant—“and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master.”

D. A son or daughter born to a free man who has intercourse with a maidservant is not affiliated with his father at all, as we learned in the Mishna above, 22a: “Except for one who has a son from a maidservant or a gentile woman.”

An Israelite woman married to a kohen, and a daughter

[or a daughter]

of a kohen married to an Israelite, and she bore him a son, and the son went and forced himself upon

[pressed himself against and clung to her; this is a derogatory expression, , Rashi] [Rashi]

the maidservant, and she bore him a son,

that son is a slave.

“The slave does not enable”: If

his paternal grandmother was an Israelite woman married to a kohen

[and her kohen husband died, and her son, the slave’s father, died], she

may not eat teruma

because of the slave, who is her offspring from a kohen.

“The slave does not disqualify”: If his paternal grandmother was

a daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite

[and her Israelite husband died, and the slave’s father died], she

may eat teruma,

even though the slave is her offspring from the Israelite.

A mamzer disqualifies

a daughter of a kohen from eating teruma when he is her offspring from an Israelite,

and enables

an Israelite woman to eat teruma when her offspring is from a kohen, as the Mishna proceeds to explain.

How

does the mamzer enable and disqualify?

An Israelite woman married to a kohen, and a daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married

[that is, had intercourse with him]

a slave or a gentile, and she bore him a son, that son is a mamzer.

“A mamzer enables”: If

his maternal grandmother

of the mamzer

was an Israelite woman married to a kohen

[and her kohen husband died, and the mamzer’s mother died], she

may eat teruma

through his agency, even though he is a non-kohen and a mamzer, because any living offspring from a kohen enables her to eat.

“A mamzer disqualifies”: If his maternal grandmother was

a daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite,

[and her Israelite husband died, and the mamzer’s mother died], she

may not eat teruma,

because she has offspring from the Israelite.

A High Priest sometimes disqualifies

a daughter of a kohen from eating teruma, as the Mishna proceeds to explain.

How? A daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went

who is a non-kohen

and married a kohen, and bore

him a son, and this is

the son

fit to become a High Priest

and

stand and serve upon the altar.

And this son

enables his mother to eat

even though she is a non-kohen, for she has offspring from a kohen.

And he disqualifies

his maternal grandmother

[if his mother died ], for her daughter’s offspring is from the Israelite.

This—

the maternal grandmother—complains and

says: “Not like my son”

[that is, my daughter’s son]

a High Priest, who disqualifies me from teruma;

that is, may there not be many like him among Israel.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The rapist and the seducer, etc., neither disqualify nor enable”:

We learned it

in our Mishna, which makes clear that a mentally incompetent person has no marriage at all,

as that which the Sages taught in a beraita: A mentally incompetent man and a minor who married women and died—their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from yibbum,

because a mentally incompetent person has neither acquisition nor marriage.

We learned in the Mishna:

How: Thus

[Baḥ]

an Israelite who had intercourse with a daughter of a kohen

through rape or seduction

may eat teruma; if she became pregnant

by him,

she may not eat:

And we ask: But

since

if she

became pregnant

by him, she

may not eat,

why, then, did we learn: “An Israelite who had intercourse with a daughter of a kohen may eat teruma”? Surely

we should be concerned that she became pregnant

through that intercourse and was disqualified from eating teruma?!

Did we not learn

that even when only one act of intercourse is known, we are concerned that she became pregnant? For we learned above, in the chapter “Four Brothers”: When two men betrothed two women, and when they entered the wedding canopy they exchanged each other’s brides, and each took the other’s bride,

they separate them

so that they may not return to their husbands

for three months—

the period required for the fetus to be recognizable—

lest they are pregnant

from that intercourse and their children are mamzerim; an interval of discernment is required in order to distinguish between fit offspring and disqualified offspring.

Thus, even for a single act of intercourse, which creates only an uncertainty of pregnancy, we are concerned that they became pregnant?!

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: They were concerned with regard to lineage

The Sages were concerned even for a single act of intercourse and for an uncertainty [Rashi], but

with regard to teruma they were not concerned

that she might have become pregnant through a single act of intercourse.

We still ask: Is it so that with regard to teruma one is not concerned for an uncertainty?

But it was taught:

A kohen who gave his wife a bill of divorce and said to her:

“This is your bill of divorce, effective one hour before my death,”

she

is immediately prohibited from eating teruma,

lest he die during the coming hour, in which case the divorce takes effect and she is prohibited from eating teruma. We see that she is prohibited from teruma because of an uncertainty [Rashi].

And since this is so, in our Mishna as well we should have been concerned and prohibited her from eating, lest she became pregnant?!

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Huna said: With

intercourse through

marriage they were concerned

that she might have become pregnant through that intercourse.

But

with

intercourse through

licentious intercourse they were not concerned,

because it is customary for a woman who engages in licentious intercourse to turn over afterward so that she will not become pregnant.

And we ask:

But with

intercourse through

marriage, were they concerned

to prohibit her from eating teruma on account of a single act of intercourse and an uncertainty?!

But it was taught in a beraita: If a daughter of a kohen married an Israelite, and

her husband died that same day, she

immerses

like other women who have intercourse,

and eats teruma in the evening,

because she has returned to her father’s house as in her youth.

Thus, we are not concerned for pregnancy from a single act of intercourse on the basis of uncertainty; but this contradicts the ruling that she is prohibited from teruma because of the uncertainty concerning the death of her kohen husband?!

He said—

Rav Ḥisda

explained:

Indeed, we are concerned that she might have become pregnant. And what they said in the beraita, that she immerses and eats teruma in the evening, means:

She immerses and eats teruma until forty

days from the day on which she had intercourse, for until forty days there is no concern of a prohibition at all, since:

For if she did not become pregnant, she did not become pregnant

[if she did not become pregnant, she may certainly eat, since she did not become pregnant],

and

even

if she did become pregnant

through that intercourse,

until forty

days,

it is merely water,

mere fluid, and is not considered a fetus with regard to prohibiting her from teruma.

Abaye said

in objection

to him,

to Rav Ḥisda:

If so—

if, as you explain, she eats only until forty days, when it is certain that there is no fetus to disqualify her from teruma—

say the latter clause:

A non-kohen who unwittingly eats teruma must pay the principal and an additional fifth for what he ate; and likewise, a daughter of a kohen who had offspring from an Israelite and unwittingly ate teruma must pay the principal and an additional fifth.

She ate teruma in the evening, and afterward

She ate teruma in the evening, and afterward

her pregnancy became recognizable in her womb,

she shall be retroactively rendered liable

to pay the principal and the additional fifth for what she ate, as is the law concerning a non-kohen who ate teruma.

But if, as you say, she ate only before forty days, then even though her pregnancy became recognizable, at the time she ate she was permitted to eat teruma, since the fetus was then merely fluid; why, then, should she be retroactively rendered liable?!

And we answer:

What does “rendered liable” mean?

Until forty days!

That is, this is what the beraita is saying: If she ate—without permission—after forty days, she is rendered liable for all the food she ate retroactively, up to the fortieth day.

The following teaching is explained according to the method of Tosafot in our sugya.

It was stated: If one has intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house,

and she gives birth.

Rav said: The offspring

is an uncertain

mamzer.

For we are concerned that another man may also have had intercourse with her, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And Shmuel said: The offspring is a shetuki

[an uncertain mamzer]; that is, the offspring is “checked,” teaching you that if they examined his mother and she said, “I had intercourse only with my betrothed,” she is deemed credible.

Rava said: Rav’s statement is reasonable

who said that the child is a mamzer, only where

she is suspected of having relations with others [

suspected of committing adultery with others].

But

if

she is not suspected of having relations with others,

we do not suspect that she had relations with another man, and

we attribute the child to him [

we attribute the child to the betrothed, since this act of intercourse is known to us, and he is fit.

Rava said: From where do I derive this?

That when she is not suspected of having relations with others, we attribute the fetus to the act of intercourse known to us?

For it was taught

in our Mishna: If a priest had intercourse with a Jewish woman [whether through rape or seduction] and

she gave birth,

she

may eat

teruma by virtue of the child.

But

what are the circumstances?

If you say that she is suspected of having relations with others,

if so,

why may she eat when she gives birth,

since perhaps the child is not from that known act of intercourse with the priest, but from another man, who is an Israelite.

Rather, is it not

a case where

she is suspected of having relations with him

but is not suspected of having relations with others,

so we learn: Whenever she is not suspected of having relations with others, we attribute the child to the act of intercourse known to us.

And this follows by means of a kal va-chomer:

And just as there—

in our Mishna—

with regard to this one [

to have intercourse with this priest]

it is prohibited

for her, since the Sages decreed that intercourse with an unmarried woman is prohibited,

and with regard to that one [

to have intercourse with anyone else]

it is prohibited

for her—that is, she is prohibited even from having intercourse with the man with whom she committed adultery, just as she is with other men, and there is reason to fear that, since she had relations with this man, she likewise had relations with another—

nevertheless

we attribute the child to him [

we attribute the fetus to the known act of intercourse and do not suspect that she also had relations with another man.

Here—

with regard to a betrothed man who had intercourse with his betrothed and she gave birth—

with regard to this one [

to everyone else]

it is prohibited, whereas with regard to this one [

the betrothed man with whom she committed adultery]

it is permitted,

all the more so

that we should attribute the fetus to the betrothed, since his act of intercourse is known to us, and should not suspect that she had prohibited relations with other men.

Abaye said to him

to Rava:

I can always say to you: Whenever

she is suspected of having relations with him,

even though she is not suspected of having relations with others,

also

Rav said

that

the child is a mamzer.

And

for what reason

do we suspect that she had intercourse with others even though she was not suspected of them? It is

because we say: Since she abandoned herself [

since she abandoned herself]

with regard to the betrothed,

perhaps

she abandoned herself

also

with regard to others [

she abandoned herself to others as well].

And our Mishna—

which implies that we attribute the child to the known act of intercourse and do not suspect other acts of intercourse—is speaking of a case such as

where both of them were confined in a prison,

and there is no concern that she had intercourse with others who were not in the prison.

Some say: When he had intercourse with her

the betrothed certainly did and she is not suspected of having relations with others,

everyone—

both Rava and Abaye—

agrees that we attribute the child to him;

their dispute concerns a case where the betrothed certainly had intercourse with her and she is suspected of having relations with others, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And this is how the dispute

between Rav and Shmuel was stated, and this is what Rava and Abaye said:

A betrothed woman who became pregnant

and it is not known that the betrothed certainly had intercourse with her:

Rav said: The child is

a possible

mamzer.

And Shmuel said: The child is a shetuki [

one whose paternity must be investigated].

Rava said: Rav’s statement is reasonable—

that is, his statement that the child is a possible mamzer applies only when two conditions are present:

A.

She is not suspected of having relations with him,

meaning that it is not known to us that the betrothed had intercourse with her.

B.

And she is suspected of having relations with others [

she is suspected of committing adultery with others].