Yevamot 70a — the Talmud in English

But she is known to have had intercourse with him:

that is, it is known to us that the betrothed had intercourse with her [Tosafot

even though she is known

also

to have had intercourse with someone else, we attribute it to him.

?

Rava said: From where do I say this?

For it teaches

in our Mishna:

the girl may eat.

But

what are the circumstances?

If you say that she is known to have had intercourse with him

and is not known to have had intercourse with someone else,

then

is it necessary to say that she may eat!

Rather, is it not that she is also known to have had intercourse with someone else,

and nevertheless we attribute the fetus to the known intercourse; and if so, you learn by a kal va-chomer that with a betrothed woman with whom the betrothed certainly had intercourse, we attribute the fetus to the betrothed even though she is known to have had intercourse with someone else, for:

And just as there,

in our Mishna,

for this one [

the kohen with whom she committed adultery

there is a prohibition

against her

and for that one [

the other man

there is a prohibition

that is, she is forbidden even to the one with whom she committed adultery; nevertheless,

we attribute it to him

and do not take into consideration the intercourse of others,

here,

with regard to the betrothed who certainly had intercourse with her,

for this one [

the other man

there is a prohibition

against her,

and for that one [

the betrothed

there is permission, all the more so

that we should not take into consideration the intercourse of others.

Abaye said to Rava

:

I will say to you: Wherever she is known to have had intercourse with someone else, even though she is known to have had intercourse with him [

her intercourse with the betrothed is known

Rav said: The child is a mamzer.

And our Mishna—

which we learned: “The girl may eat”—

is where she is not known at all,

that is, she is not known to have had intercourse with others.

We learned in our Mishna:

A slave disqualifies by intercourse,

but does not disqualify by offspring. How so? An Israelite woman married to a kohen, or a kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite, and she bore him a son, and the son went and had intercourse with a maidservant, and she bore him a son—this is a slave. If the father’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a kohen, she may not eat teruma; if she was a kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite, she may eat teruma:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

It is possible to explain this in two ways:

The first: What is the reason that he is a slave?

The second: What is the reason that he is not considered offspring, to disqualify or to enable her to eat?

For

the verse says: “The woman and her children shall belong

to her master”; thus we have learned that he is a slave, and is not considered his father’s offspring.

We learned in the Mishna:

A mamzer disqualifies and enables her to eat:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And when the daughter of a kohen shall become a widow or divorced,”

“and she has no offspring”

; “then she shall return to her father’s house, as in her youth; she shall eat of her father’s bread.”

I have only

her offspring, which disqualifies her from her father’s teruma, as it is said: “and she has no offspring.”

But

her offspring’s offspring—

for example, the first offspring died and offspring of her offspring remained—

from where

do we know that it disqualifies her?

The verse says: “And she has no offspring”—in any event.

I have only fit offspring—

that which she has from an Israelite—which disqualifies her.

But

unfit offspring—

that which she has from an Israelite—from where do we know this?

The verse says: “And she has no offspring”—examine it.

And we raise an objection:

But you have already extracted it [

you have already used this verse for another exposition

to

teach about

offspring’s offspring

that it disqualifies her?!

And we answer:

Offspring’s offspring does not require a verse,

for

children’s children are like children,

when a verse is required

is “‘and he has no son’”:

to

teach you about

unfit offspring

that it disqualifies her from teruma.

We learned in the Mishna: How so? An Israelite woman married to a kohen, or a kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or an idolater, and she bore him a son—this is a mamzer:

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: In accordance with whom

is our Mishna, which holds that when a slave has intercourse with an Israelite woman, the child is a mamzer?

In accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said: There is a mamzer from

intercourse with

those liable for negative commandments,

for with a slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman there is the negative commandment “There shall not be a sacred prostitute,” and with an idolater who has intercourse with an Israelite woman there is the negative commandment “You shall not intermarry with them”; and for this reason the child is a mamzer.

And we reject this:

You may even say: The Rabbis,

who disagree and hold that there is no mamzer from those liable for negative commandments;

with an idolater and a slave

who have intercourse with an Israelite woman,

they agree

that the child is a mamzer.

For when Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avdimi in the name of our master [

Rabbi, who holds generally that there is no mamzer from those liable for negative commandments:

When an idolater or a slave has intercourse with an Israelite woman, the child is a mamzer, [

and all this was explained in the sugya above, folio 45].

We learned in the Mishna: If the mother of his mother [of the mamzer] was an Israelite woman married to a kohen, she may eat teruma, and so on.

A High Priest sometimes disqualifies,

how so? A kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a kohen, and she bore him a son—this one is fit to become a High Priest, and he disqualifies his mother’s mother, and so on:

The Sages taught: “I am an atonement for my daughter’s son

who is

a small vessel [

a small utensil], that is, he is inferior, for he is a mamzer,

who enables me to eat teruma, and I am not an atonement for my daughter’s son

who is

a valuable vessel [

a significant utensil], that is, he is a High Priest,

who disqualifies me from teruma.

We have returned to you, chapter “A Widow to a High Priest.”

Mishna:

The priest

who is uncircumcised,

and

the priests

who are impure—

shall not eat teruma.

But

their wives and slaves—

shall eat teruma.

For the uncircumcised man and the impure men did not leave the category of priests; rather, they are lacking only a remedy, and therefore they cause their wives and slaves to eat teruma.

The male organ of a person consists of a “shaft,” at whose head is a “corona,” and of a pouch containing the testicles.

The corona is the thick and high strip of flesh that rises at the head of the shaft.

If part of the shaft is cut in a manner that prevents the man from being able to beget children, this man is called “one whose shaft is severed” [because the shaft is the place from which a person’s urine pours].

And if the testicles are cut or wounded, the man is called “one wounded by crushing.”

One wounded by crushing and one whose shaft is severed are forbidden to enter the assembly of the Lord.

A priest who is

wounded by crushing, and

likewise a priest who is

one whose shaft is severed

[this will be explained further], for they are forbidden to enter the assembly:

They

themselves,

and

likewise

their slaves—

shall eat

teruma.

But

their

wives—

shall not eat

teruma. Since the women were disqualified through them, through their intercourse with them, for they had intercourse with one who is disqualified for them.

And if she did not know him,

meaning that the priest-husband had not had intercourse with his wife

from

the time

that he became wounded by crushing and one whose shaft is severed —

these,

their wives,

shall eat

teruma, for they were not disqualified through intercourse.

And who is one wounded by crushing?

Anyone whose testicles were wounded, even one of them.

And

who is

one whose shaft is severed?

Anyone whose shaft was severed.

And if

the corona was cut and

there remained of

the

corona even as much as a hair’s breadth,

he is

fit

to enter the assembly, because the corona is merely flesh and not the shaft, for the shaft is considered to begin only from the corona onward, toward the body.

Gemara:

It was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised man does not eat teruma?

It is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant

shall not eat of it,”

with regard to

the offering

of Passover.

And it is stated: “A sojourner

[of a priest]

and a hired servant

[of a priest] shall not eat holy things,”

with regard to teruma.

And you learn by gezera shava:

Just as with regard to “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated concerning Passover, an uncircumcised man is forbidden with regard to it, so too

with regard to “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated concerning teruma, an uncircumcised man is forbidden with regard to it.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to learn it from a gezera shava:

Rather,

it says

[Leviticus 22:4]:

“Any man

of the offspring of Aaron who is a leper or has a discharge shall not eat of the holy things.”

And the Torah repeated the word “man” in order

to include

the

uncircumcised,

who is considered like an impure person with regard to the prohibition against eating teruma.

The master said

in the beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: “A sojourner and a hired servant” is stated concerning Passover, and “a sojourner and a hired servant” is stated concerning teruma; just as

with regard to “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated concerning Passover, an uncircumcised man is forbidden with regard to it, so too with regard to “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated concerning teruma, an uncircumcised man is forbidden with regard to it:

And the Gemara explains: Necessarily, the “sojourner and hired servant” that is stated is a verse

designated

[superfluous, for the purpose of learning]!

For if it is not designated,

but it is needed for the matter concerning which it was stated, we could not learn a gezera shava from it, because with such a gezera shava, if there is a refutation, one does not learn from it—

and here, after all,

there is a basis for refutation:

What is true of Passover is that one is liable for

a sin-offering for eating it unwittingly

because of piggul,

and notar,

and impurity

[one who eats the Passover offering in a state of bodily impurity].

Can you say this with regard to teruma, with which piggul and notar have no relevance, and one who eats it in a state of bodily impurity is not liable for a sin-offering?

And the Gemara confirms:

Indeed

[truly, Rashi Shabbat 64a]

it is designated for use as a reference!

And we raise an objection:

Which

which of the two “sojourner and hired servant” passages is

designated?

Is it the one stated concerning Passover, or the one stated concerning teruma?

If the

“sojourner and hired servant”

of teruma

is the designated one, this is impossible, for

both are needed: both “sojourner” and “hired servant” must be written, and neither is designated!

—both “resident” and “hired laborer” had to be written, and neither is available!

For it was taught: “A sojourner”

of a priest, stated concerning teruma:

this

is a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced, who is

acquired

by the priest

with an everlasting acquisition,

until the Jubilee year.

“A hired servant”

of a priest:

this

is a Hebrew slave

acquired

by the priest

with an acquisition for years.

An ordinary Hebrew slave, who leaves after six years.

And Scripture teaches that neither this one nor that one has his body acquired by his master, like a Canaanite slave, and therefore they do not eat of their master’s teruma like he does.

Perhaps you will say: Nevertheless, there is here a superfluous written expression, and it is designated for a gezera shava:

And

Scripture could have said that

“a sojourner”

of a priest does not eat teruma,

but it should not have said

also that

“a hired servant”

of a priest does not eat.

And I

on my own

say:

If a Hebrew slave

acquired

by the priest

with an everlasting acquisition does not eat

teruma, a Hebrew slave

acquired with an acquisition for years, all the more so

does not eat; and thus the verse “hired servant” is designated.

It is impossible to say this. For:

If

Scripture had said

so, I would have said:

that

“a sojourner”

stated in the verse, who does not eat teruma, is

this,

the one

acquired with an acquisition for years.

But

a Hebrew slave of a priest

acquired

by him

with an everlasting acquisition,

does

eat

teruma.

And therefore

“hired servant” comes and teaches concerning “sojourner” that even though he is acquired with an everlasting acquisition, he does not eat;

That is, the superfluity of the verse “hired servant,” in addition to “sojourner,” comes to teach that one of them is acquired with an everlasting acquisition.

And it is reasonable to explain “sojourner” as referring to the one acquired with an everlasting acquisition, for he resides with him a long time [whereas the expression “hired servant” more strongly implies that he is destined to leave], and to teach that even a sojourner does not eat of his priest-master’s teruma.

And therefore Scripture must say in connection with teruma both “sojourner” and “hired servant,” and neither one is designated for the learning of a gezera shava.

Rather,

it must be said that the “sojourner and hired servant”

of

the offering

of Passover

is the one that is

designated

for a gezera shava.

For

this “sojourner and hired servant

shall not eat of it,”

which the Merciful One wrote concerning Passover—

what is it,

which sojourner and hired servant does Scripture mean?

If we say: “a sojourner and a hired servant” literally,

that is, a Hebrew slave acquired with an acquisition for years or with an everlasting acquisition, and Scripture came to exempt them from Passover—

surely this cannot be said!

For is it

because he became

the Israelite slave

a sojourner and hired servant

of a priest—

he is exempt

thereby

from

the offering

of Passover!?

And we have established

that Scripture says explicitly

with regard to teruma that

a Hebrew slave

does not eat

of his master’s teruma.