Yevamot 69b — the Talmud in English

But if

she became pregnant

with the priest’s daughter from him, even through rape or seduction, she is

not to eat teruma.

Because a fetus from an Israelite disqualifies her, as it is stated: “And a priest’s daughter, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth”—excluding a pregnant woman; and it disqualifies even through licentious intercourse.

And if

the fetus was cut out within her

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

eats

teruma.

“A raped woman and a seduced woman do not enable [her to eat teruma]”:

Behold

[Bach]

a priest who had intercourse with an Israelite woman

through rape or seduction, she is

not to eat teruma,

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

If she became pregnant

from him through rape or seduction, she is

not to eat,

for a fetus does not enable her to eat.

And if

she gave birth

to him through rape or seduction, she

eats,

for the Torah said: “And those born in his household, 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 had intercourse with a woman, he disqualifies her from eating teruma, for every woman with whom a gentile or a slave, with whom betrothal does not take effect, has intercourse, he disqualifies her from teruma, as it is stated: “And a priest’s daughter, when she becomes a widow or divorced woman,” as was explained above, 68b.

But he does not disqualify through offspring,

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

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

How

does a slave neither enable nor disqualify?

A. Offspring from an Israelite does not disqualify a priest’s daughter unless it is alive; however, if he died and left offspring, that offspring disqualifies her as long as it is alive.

B. Offspring from a priest does not enable his Israelite mother to eat teruma unless it is alive; however, if he left offspring, that offspring enables his mother to eat, even if the offspring is a non-priest.

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

D. The son or daughter born from 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 priest, and a daughter

[or a daughter]

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

[pressed himself against her and clung to her, and this is an expression of disgrace] , Rashi,

upon the maidservant, and she bore him a son ,

he is a slave

“A slave does not enable”: if

his father’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest

[and her priest-husband died and her son, the slave’s father, died], she is

not to eat teruma

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

“A slave does not disqualify”: if his father’s mother was

a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite

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

eats teruma,

even though the slave is her offspring from the Israelite.

A mamzer disqualifies

a priest’s daughter 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 priest, as it explains further.

How

does a mamzer enable and disqualify?

An Israelite woman married to a priest, and a priest’s daughter 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, he is a mamzer

“A mamzer enables”: if

his mother’s mother was

the mamzer’s

an Israelite woman married to a priest

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

eats teruma

through his power, even though he is a non-priest and a mamzer, for every living offspring from a priest enables her to eat.

“A mamzer disqualifies”: if his mother’s mother was

a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite,

[and her priest-husband died and the mamzer’s mother died], she is

not to eat teruma,

for she has offspring from the Israelite.

A High Priest sometimes disqualifies

a priest’s daughter from eating teruma, as it explains further.

How: a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went

who is a non-priest

and married a priest, and she bore

him

the son

who is fit to become a High Priest

and

stands and performs the service upon the altar.

And this one

enables his mother to eat,

the non-priest woman, for she has offspring from a priest.

And he disqualifies

his mother’s mother

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

This—

the mother’s mother—resents it 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 raped woman and the seduced woman, etc., neither disqualify nor enable”:

We already learned it—

in our Mishna, in which it is explained that a mentally incompetent person has no marriage at all—

for that which the Sages taught: A mentally incompetent person and a minor who married women and died—their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage,

because a mentally incompetent person has neither acquisition nor marriage.

We learned in the Mishna:

How: behold

[Bach]

an Israelite who had intercourse with a priest’s daughter

through rape or seduction

eats teruma; if she became pregnant

from him

she is not to eat:

And we challenge: But

since

if she

became pregnant

from him, she is

not to eat,

if so, why did we learn: “An Israelite who had intercourse with a priest’s daughter, she eats teruma”? But

let us be concerned that she may have become pregnant

through that intercourse and thereby become disqualified from eating teruma?!

Did we not learn

that even when only one act of intercourse is known, we are concerned that pregnancy occurred? And we learned above, in the chapter “Four Brothers”: Two men betrothed two women, and at the time they entered the wedding canopy, they exchanged each other’s women, and each one’s woman with the other’s,

they separate them

so that they should not return to their husbands

for three months

—which is the time for recognition of the fetus—

lest they are pregnant

from that intercourse and their children are mamzerim, and examination is required to distinguish between fit offspring and disqualified offspring.

Thus, in the case of only one act of intercourse, which involves merely uncertainty about pregnancy, are we concerned that they became pregnant?!

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: With regard to lineage, they were concerned

the Sages were concerned even for one act of intercourse and for uncertainty [Rashi], but

with regard to teruma, they were not concerned

that she may have become pregnant through one act of intercourse.

We still ask: Is it so that with regard to teruma one is not concerned on account of uncertainty?

But it was taught:

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

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

she is

immediately forbidden to eat teruma,

lest he die in the next hour and the bill of divorce take effect, making her forbidden to eat teruma. We see that they prohibit her from teruma on account of uncertainty [Rashi].

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

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Huna said: With

intercourse through

marriage they were concerned

that she may have become pregnant through that intercourse.

But

with

intercourse of

licentious intercourse they were not concerned,

for a woman who engages in licentious intercourse customarily turns over so that she will not become pregnant.

And we challenge:

And with

intercourse through

marriage, were they concerned

to prohibit her from eating teruma on the basis of one act of intercourse and uncertainty?!

But it was taught: A priest’s daughter who married an Israelite, and her

husband died

on that very day, she immerses

like other women who have intercourse ,

and eats teruma in the evening,

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

Thus, we are not concerned about pregnancy from one act of intercourse; and this contradicts the fact that they were concerned to prohibit her from teruma because of the uncertainty of the death of her priest-husband?!

He said

he answered,

Rav Ḥisda:

Indeed, we are concerned lest she became pregnant. And what they said in the baraita, that she immerses and eats impurity 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 any prohibition at all, since:

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

[if she did not become pregnant, she certainly eats, for she did not become pregnant],

and

even

if she did become pregnant

through that intercourse,

until forty

days

it is merely water,

it is merely water and is not considered a fetus to prohibit her from teruma.

Abaye said

he challenged

him,

Rav Ḥisda:

If so

—that you explain that she eats only until forty days, when there certainly is no fetus here that can disqualify her from teruma—

consider the latter clause:

A non-priest who eats teruma unwittingly pays the principal and a fifth for his eating; and likewise, a priest’s daughter who had offspring from an Israelite and ate teruma unwittingly pays the principal and a fifth.

She ate teruma in the evening, and afterward

her fetus became recognizable within her,

and it was found that she had eaten teruma unlawfully, unwittingly,

she will be retroactively rendered defective

and must pay the principal and a fifth for her eating, as is the law of a non-priest who ate teruma.

And if it is as you say, that she ate only before forty days, then even though her fetus became recognizable, at the time of her eating she was permitted to eat teruma, since the fetus was merely water; why, then, is she retroactively rendered defective?!

And we answer:

What does “rendered defective” mean?

Until forty!

That is, this is what the baraita is saying: If she ate—without permission—after forty days, she is rendered defective with regard to all the eating that she ate retroactively, until forty days.

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

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

and she gave birth.

Rav said: The offspring is

an uncertainty,

a mamzer.

For we are concerned that perhaps another man also had intercourse with her, and the Gemara explains this further.

And Shmuel said: The offspring is a foundling

[an uncertain mamzer], that is: the offspring is “examined”; this teaches you that if they examined its mother and she said, “I had intercourse only with my betrothed,” she is believed.

Rava said: Rav’s statement is logical

that he said: “The offspring is a mamzer,” where

she is suspected of [relations] outside

[suspected of committing adultery with others].

But

if

she is not suspected of [relations] outside

we do not fear that she committed adultery with another, and

we assign the latter to him

[we attribute the offspring to the betrothed], since this intercourse is known to us, and he is fit.

Rava said: From where do I say this

that if she is not suspected of [relations] outside, we attribute the fetus to the intercourse known to us?

For it teaches

in our Mishna: A priest who had intercourse with an Israelite woman [by force or by seduction] and

she gave birth,

she

may eat

teruma, by virtue of the child born.

But

what are the circumstances?

If you say that she is suspected of [relations] outside,

if so,

why may she eat after she gives birth,

for perhaps the offspring is not from that known intercourse with the priest, but from another man, who is an Israelite?

Rather, is it not

such as

she is suspected of him

but is not suspected of [relations] outside,

we have learned: Wherever she is not suspected of [relations] outside, we attribute the offspring to the intercourse known to us.

And the matter follows by kal va-homer:

And what there—

in our Mishna—

where for this one

[to have intercourse with this priest]

there is a prohibition

upon her, for the Sages decreed a prohibition of intercourse upon an unmarried woman,

and for this one

[to have intercourse with the entire world]

there is a prohibition

upon her; that is, even to have intercourse with the one with whom she committed adultery she is forbidden, just as she is to the other men, and there is concern that perhaps, since she committed adultery with this one, she likewise committed adultery with another.

In any event,

we assign the latter to him

[we attribute the fetus to the known intercourse], and we do not fear that she also committed adultery with another.

Here—

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

where for this one

[for the entire world]

there is a prohibition, and for this one

[for the betrothed with whom she committed adultery]

there is permission,

is it not all the more so

that we attribute the fetus to the betrothed, since his intercourse is known to us, and we do not fear that she committed adultery with others in violation of a prohibition?

Abaye said to him

to Rava:

I will always say to you: Every

place where she is suspected of him,

even though she is not suspected of [relations] outside,

also

Rav said

that

the offspring is a mamzer.

And

what is the reason

that we fear their intercourse with others even though she was not suspected by them? Because

we say: Since she abandoned herself

[since she made herself available]

with regard to the betrothed,

perhaps she

abandoned herself

also

to the rest of the world

[made herself available also to others].

And our Mishna—

which implies: We attribute the offspring to the known intercourse and do not fear other acts of intercourse—is speaking of a case such as

where the two of them were imprisoned in the prison,

and there is no concern for intercourse with others who are not in the prison.

Some say: When he had intercourse with her

the betrothed man certainly and she was not suspected of [relations] outside,

everyone—

between Rava and Abaye—

does not disagree that we assign it to him;

and the dispute between Rava and Abaye is when the betrothed man certainly had intercourse with her and she was suspected of [relations] outside, as he proceeds to explain.

And this is how it was stated

the dispute of Rav and Shmuel, and this is what Rava and Abaye said:

A betrothed woman who became pregnant

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

Rav said: The offspring is

a doubtful

mamzer.

And Shmuel said: The offspring is shtuki

[examined].

Rava said: Rav’s statement is logical—

who said: “The offspring is a doubtful mamzer”—only under two conditions:

a.

She is not suspected of him,

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

b.

And she is suspected of [relations] outside

[she is suspected of committing adultery with others].