Yevamot 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

But it is known from him:

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

even though she is reputed

also

to have had intercourse with others, we attribute the child to him.

?

Rava said: From where do I derive this?

As it teaches

in our Mishna:

If she gave birth, she may eat.

But

what are the circumstances?

If we say that she is reputed to have had intercourse with him

but is not reputed to have had intercourse with others,

then

is it necessary to state that she may eat?

Rather, is it not that she is also reputed to have had intercourse with others,

and nevertheless we attribute the fetus to the man with whom she is known to have had intercourse? If so, by means of a kal va-chomer you can learn that, when a betrothed woman certainly had intercourse with her betrothed, we attribute the fetus to the betrothed even though she is reputed to have had intercourse with others, because:

And just as there,

in our Mishna,

with regard to this one with whom the woman committed adultery,

the kohen with whom she committed adultery

it is a prohibition

for her

and with regard to that one afterward,

the other man

it is a prohibition—

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

we attribute the child to him

and do not take into consideration intercourse with other men;

here,

with regard to a betrothed man who certainly had intercourse with her,

with regard to this one afterward,

the other man

it is a prohibition,

for her,

and with regard to that one the betrothed,

the betrothed

it is permitted—how much more so

should we not take into consideration intercourse with others.

Abaye said

to Rava:

I will always say to you: Wherever she is reputed to have had intercourse with others, even though she is reputed to have had intercourse with him

[her intercourse with the betrothed is known to us],

Rav said that the child is a mamzer.

And our Mishna—

which teaches: “If she gave birth, she may eat”—

deals with a case in which she is not reputed at all,

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

Our Mishna teaches:

A slave disqualifies her by intercourse,

but does not disqualify her by offspring. How so? If an Israelite woman married to a kohen, or a kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite, gave birth to a son from him, and the son subsequently had intercourse with a maidservant, who gave birth to a son from him, that child is a slave. If the child’s paternal grandmother 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?

There are two ways to interpret this:

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

The second: What is the reason that he is not considered offspring for purposes of disqualifying or enabling her to eat?

For

the verse states: “The woman and her children shall be”

for her master. We have thus learned that he is a slave and is not considered the offspring of his father.

The Mishna teaches:

A mamzer disqualifies her and enables her to eat.

The Sages taught:

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

“and she has no offspring,”

“and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread.”

I have derived only that her offspring

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

But

her offspring’s offspring—

for example, her first offspring died and offspring of that offspring remains—

from where

do we know that it disqualifies her?

The verse states: “And she has no offspring,” in any event.

I have derived only that legitimate offspring—

that she has from an Israelite—disqualifies her.

But

illegitimate offspring—

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

The verse states: “And she has no offspring”; look upon her.

And we raise a difficulty:

But you have already derived it

[you have already used this verse for another exposition]

to

teach about

offspring’s offspring

that it disqualifies her?!

And we answer:

A verse was not necessary for offspring’s offspring,

for

children of children are considered like children,

when a verse was necessary

for the phrase “and he has no son,” it was

to

teach you that

illegitimate offspring

disqualifies her from teruma.

The Mishna teaches: “How so? If an Israelite woman married to a kohen, or a kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite, gave birth to a daughter from him, and the daughter subsequently married a slave or an idolater, who gave birth to a son from her, that child is a mamzer.”

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: In accordance with whose opinion

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

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

intercourse with

those liable for negative commandments

—for in the case of a slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman, there is the prohibition “There shall be no prostitute,” and in the case of an idolater who has intercourse with an Israelite woman, there is the prohibition “You shall not intermarry with them”; and for this reason the child is a mamzer.

And we reject this:

You may even say it is in accordance with the Rabbis,

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

with regard to 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 that Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avdimi said 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, on page 45.

The Mishna teaches: “If his mother’s mother [the mamzer’s] was an Israelite woman married to a kohen, she may eat teruma,” and so on.

A High Priest sometimes disqualifies her;

how so? If a kohen’s daughter married to an Israelite gave birth to a daughter from him, and the daughter subsequently married a kohen and gave birth to a son from him, that son is fit to become a High Priest, and he disqualifies his maternal grandmother, and so on.

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

who is

a small vessel

[a small utensil]—that is, he is inferior, as he is a mamzer—

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

who is

a large vessel

[an important utensil]—that is, he is a High Priest—

who disqualifies me from teruma.”

We have completed the chapter “A Widow to a High Priest.”

Mishna:

The priest

who is uncircumcised,

and

all the priests

who are impure—

may not eat teruma.

But

their wives and slaves—

may eat teruma.

For the uncircumcised and the impure did not cease to be priests; rather, they are disqualified only by a remediable deficiency. Therefore, they enable their wives and slaves to eat teruma.

A man’s reproductive organ consists of the “shaft,” at whose head is the “corona,” and the scrotum.

The corona is the thick, raised ridge of flesh that projects at the head of the shaft.

If part of the shaft is severed in a manner that prevents the man from fathering children, this man is called one whose shaft is severed (kerut shofkha) [because the shaft is the place from which a person’s urine flows].

If the testicles are severed or injured, the man is called one with crushed testicles (petzu’a daka).

One with crushed testicles and one whose shaft is severed may not enter the congregation of the Lord.

A priest who is

one with crushed testicles, and

likewise a priest who is

one whose shaft is severed

[the Mishna proceeds to explain], as they may not enter the congregation:

They

themselves,

and

likewise

their slaves—

may eat

teruma.

But

their

wives—

may not eat teruma, because the women were disqualified through them when they had intercourse with them, since they had intercourse with one who is disqualified for them.

teruma, because the women were disqualified through their husbands’ intercourse with them, since they had relations with men who were disqualified for them.

And if she did not know him,

meaning that the priestly husband did not have intercourse with his wife

from

the time

when he became one with crushed testicles or one whose shaft was severed —

then these,

their wives,

may eat

teruma, because they were not disqualified through intercourse.

And who is one with crushed testicles?

Anyone whose testicles have been injured, even one of them.

And

who is

one whose shaft is severed?

Anyone whose shaft has been severed.

And if

the corona was severed but

there remained of

the

corona even a thread’s breadth,

he is

fit

to enter the congregation, since the corona is merely flesh and not the shaft; the shaft is considered to begin only beyond the corona, toward the body.

Gemara:

It was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer said: From where is it derived that one who is uncircumcised may not eat teruma?

It is stated: “A resident and a hired laborer

may not eat of it,”

concerning the

Passover

offering.

And it is stated: “A resident

of a priest

and a hired laborer

of a priest may not eat sacred food,”

concerning teruma.

And you learn by a gezera shava:

Just as with regard to “a resident and a hired laborer” stated concerning the Passover offering, an uncircumcised person may not partake of it, so too with regard to

“a resident and a hired laborer” stated concerning teruma, an uncircumcised person may not partake of it.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to learn this by a gezera shava.

Rather,

the verse says

[Leviticus 22:4]:

“Any man

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

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.

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

The Master said

in the beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated “a resident and a hired laborer” concerning the Passover offering, and it is stated “a resident and a hired laborer” concerning teruma; just as

with regard to “a resident and a hired laborer” stated concerning the Passover offering, an uncircumcised person may not partake of it, so too with regard to “a resident and a hired laborer” stated concerning teruma, an uncircumcised person may not partake of it:

The Gemara explains: Necessarily, the expression “a resident and a hired laborer” is

available

[superfluous, for the purpose of deriving a teaching].

For if it is not available,

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

And here

there is a basis for refutation:

What is true of the Passover offering is that one is liable

to bring a sin-offering for eating it unwittingly

because of piggul,

notar,

and impurity

[when one eats the Passover offering while impure].

Can you say the same with regard to teruma, where piggul and notar do not apply, and one who eats it while physically impure is not liable to a sin-offering?

The Gemara confirms:

Indeed,

[in truth, Rashi, Shabbat 64a,]

it is available for derivation!

The Gemara asks:

Which,

which of the two expressions “a resident and a hired laborer” is

available?

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

If

“a resident and a hired laborer”

concerning teruma is the available expression, this cannot be, because

is the superfluous one, this is impossible, because

both are needed

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

As it was taught: “A resident”

of a priest, stated concerning teruma,

this

is a Hebrew slave who had his ear pierced, who is

acquired

by the priest

with an everlasting acquisition,

until the Jubilee year.

“A hired laborer”

of a priest:

this

is a Hebrew slave

acquired

by the priest

for a term of years.

An ordinary Hebrew slave, who goes free after six years.

And the verse teaches that neither of these has his body acquired by his master, as does a Canaanite slave; therefore, they do not eat of their master’s teruma as he does.

You might say that there is nevertheless a superfluous expression here, available for a gezera shava:

And

the verse could have said that

“a resident”

of a priest may not eat teruma,

but it need not have said

also that

“a hired laborer”

of a priest may not eat.

And I

on my own

say:

If a Hebrew slave

acquired

by a priest

with an everlasting acquisition may not eat

teruma, then a Hebrew slave

acquired for a term of years, all the more so,

may not eat, and thus the expression “hired laborer” is available.

This cannot be said, because:

If

the verse had said

so, I would have said:

The

“resident”

mentioned in the verse, who may not eat teruma, is

this,

the one

acquired for a term of years.

But

a Hebrew slave of a priest

acquired

by him

with an everlasting acquisition—

he

may eat

teruma.

Therefore,

“hired laborer” was added, teaching concerning “resident” that although he is acquired with an everlasting acquisition, he may not eat.

That is, the superfluous mention of “hired laborer” in addition to “resident” teaches that one of them is acquired with an everlasting acquisition.

It is more reasonable to interpret “resident” as referring to one acquired with an everlasting acquisition, since he resides with him for a long time [whereas the expression “hired laborer” more strongly implies one who is destined to leave], and the verse teaches that even a resident may not eat of his priestly master’s teruma.

Therefore, the verse must state both “resident” and “hired laborer” concerning teruma, and neither one is available for a gezera shava.

Rather,

it must be said that “a resident and a hired laborer”

of the

Passover

offering is the expression that is

is the expression that is

available

for a gezera shava.

For

this “a resident and a hired laborer

may not eat of it,”

which the Merciful One wrote concerning the Passover offering—

what is it,

of which resident and hired laborer is the verse speaking?

If you say: “A resident and a hired laborer” literally,

meaning a Hebrew slave acquired for a term of years or with an everlasting acquisition, and the verse came to exempt them from the Passover offering—

That certainly cannot be said!

For is it the case that

because he became

a Jewish slave,

a resident and a hired laborer

of a priest,

he is exempt

from

the

Passover

offering?!

But we have established that the verse states explicitly

that the verse explicitly says

concerning teruma that a

Hebrew slave

does not eat

his master’s teruma.