YEVAMOS - 068a – אלמנה לכהן גדול – פרק שביעי – יבמות, סח ע”א

Gemara

…since he acquired her through the “becoming” [of betrothal].^[1]

דקניה בהויה - and from the moment of “becoming” she is disqualified, as it is written: “And a kohen’s daughter, if she becomes [married] to a foreign man.”

And if she is a Yisrael’s daughter [betrothed] to a kohen, he does not enable her to eat, because of Ulla’s teaching.^[2]

משום דעולא - in Masechta Kesubos, perek Af al pi (57b): by Torah law a betrothed Yisrael woman [betrothed to a kohen] eats terumah, as it is written “the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it”; and why did they say she does not eat? A decree, lest they mix a cup [of terumah wine] for her in her father’s house and she go and give it to her brothers and sisters to drink.

And the cheresh:^[3] if she is a kohen’s daughter [married] to a Yisrael, he disqualifies her, since he acquired her through the Rabbis’ enactment.

בתקנתא דרבנן - for although a cheresh lacks understanding, the Rabbis instituted marriage for him, as below in perek Cheresh shenasa (112b).

And if she is a Yisrael’s daughter [married] to a kohen, he does not enable her to eat: the Torah said “the acquisition of his money”,^[4] and this one is not capable of acquisition.

And a boy of nine years, etc.:^[5]

It was assumed that [the Mishnah speaks of] a woman awaiting yibum^[6] from a boy of nine years and a day.

קס"ד בשומרת יבם לבן ט' - and he has not had relations with her. For what law, then, did [the Mishnah] mention nine years? If to disqualify — to teach us that since he is fit for relations he disqualifies her through the bond of yibum — why specifically a nine-year-old? Even a minor [disqualifies] too, for of her one cannot read “and she returns to her father’s house”; let it teach us [a boy] younger than nine!

For what [purpose]? If to disqualify — even a minor [under nine] disqualifies; if to enable her to eat — even an adult does not enable her to eat!

ואי לאכולי כו' - and if it mentioned nine for this, to teach us a novelty, that although he is fit for relations he does not enable his yevamah to eat through his bond — even a real adult does not enable her to eat, for she is not his acquisition, as it already taught us of an adult in the first clause of the Mishnah.

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a yavam of nine years and a day who had relations with his yevamah.

הבא על יבמתו - for were he an adult she would eat; and it teaches us a novelty, that although his relations count as relations he does not enable her to eat. And “disqualify” taught in the Mishnah refers to the others — the fetus, the yavam without relations, erusin and the cheresh; but the nine-year-old it mentioned only on account of “and do not enable eating”.

Since by Torah law he acquires her, you might have said: since by Torah law he acquires her and his relations count as relations, let her eat.

It teaches us that [the Rabbis] made the relations of a boy of nine years and a day like a maamar^[7] of an adult.

Rava said to him: If so, the latter clause, which teaches “[if it is] doubtful whether he is nine years and a day or not”^[8] — now, if one who is certainly nine does not enable her to eat, need it be said of a doubtful one?!

אי הכי - that it mentioned him on account of “does not enable eating”, why need it teach the latter clause, which teaches that “doubtful whether he is nine or not” is also like a nine-year-old? Now, if one who is certainly nine, etc.

Rather, Rava said: The boy of nine years and a day [is taught here as one] of those unfit men who disqualify through their relations.

פסולין - such as a mamzer or a nasin, and it mentioned him on account of “disqualify”; and “do not enable eating” refers not to the nine-year-old but to the others: the fetus, the yavam, erusin and the cheresh.

As it was taught: “A boy of nine years and a day who is an Ammonite or Moabite convert, an Egyptian or an Edomite, a Kuti, a nasin, a chalal or a mamzer, who had relations with a kohenes, a Leviyah or a Yisraelis — disqualified her.”^[9]

בן תשעה - who is an Ammonite or Moabite convert, etc., who are forbidden to enter the congregation.

מצרי ואדומי - until the third generation, by a positive command.

כותי ונתין - under “you shall not intermarry with them”, for he holds they are “lion converts”.^[10]

חלל - unfit for the kehunah.

פסלוה - a kohen’s daughter, from terumah; and a Leviyah or Yisraelis, from marrying into the kehunah forever.

But since the latter clause teaches “If they are not fit to enter into Israel, they disqualify”,^[11] it follows that the first clause does not deal with unfit men!

מדקתני סיפא - of our Mishnah.

The first clause [deals with] those unfit for the congregation; the latter clause [with] those unfit for the kehunah.

סיפא פסולי כהונה - a chalal. And although it teaches “who are not fit to enter into Israel”, it deals only with the kehunah: for from the first clause I would have said that only those unfit for the congregation disqualify, but not the relations of a chalal; therefore it taught the latter clause, a superfluous Mishnah, to teach us the chalal.

The matter itself: “A boy of nine years and a day who is an Ammonite or Moabite convert, an Egyptian or an Edomite, a Kuti, a nasin, a chalal or a mamzer, who had relations with a kohenes, a Leviyah or a Yisraelis — disqualified them.”^[12]

פסלוה - a kohenes, from the terumah of her father’s house and from the kehunah; a Leviyah and a Yisraelis, from the kehunah.

Rabbi Yosi says: “Whoever’s offspring is unfit disqualifies; whoever’s offspring is not unfit does not disqualify.”

רבי יוסי אומר כו' - the reasoning of Rabbi Yosi and Rabban Shimon is explained below in our sugya: what they mean and what their dispute is.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “Whoever’s daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow; and whoever’s daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow.”

From where are these things [derived]?

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: The verse says (Vayikra 22): “And a kohen’s daughter, if she becomes [married] to a foreign man” — once she has had relations with one unfit for her, he has disqualified her.

But that [verse] is needed for what the Torah says: a kohen’s daughter who marries a zar may not eat [terumah]!

That is derived from (Vayikra 22) “and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread”.

Since the Torah said “and she returns to her father’s house … she shall eat”, it follows that at first she did not eat.

[Had it been] from that one, I would have said: a prohibition that comes by inference from a positive statement is a positive command;^[13] so the Torah wrote this [verse] for a negative prohibition.

[But the negative prohibition] is derived from (Vayikra 22) “and no zar shall eat holy food”!

לאו מוכל זר נפקא - “and no zar shall eat holy food”; and now it is assumed that he holds that this kohen’s daughter, too, is implied by it, since she married a Yisrael.

אי בת כהן לישראל היא פסיל לה דהא קניה בהא הויה - From the wording it seems that it is derived from the verse “if she becomes [married] to a foreign man”, as Rashi explained. However, below it derives it from “and she returns to her father’s house” — it follows that at first she did not eat — and “if she becomes [married] to a foreign man” we apply to one who had relations with a man unfit for her, who disqualifies her. Here it took this plain derivation, for were it not that we derive it from “and she returns”, we would apply [the verse] to erusin, that they disqualify; and so is the way of the Gemara in several places. And the Ri said further: since from this verse “if she becomes” we also expound that she does not return to the breast and thigh^[14] through the “becoming” of erusin, therefore it mentioned it here too.

קניא ליה - Not precisely; rather it means she is bound to him, for the relations of a nine-year-old are only like a maamar, and in the first perek of Kiddushin (19a) we exclude him, that he does not acquire, from the verse “a man’s wife” — excluding the wife of a minor. And some books read חזיא ליה (“she is fit for him”), and this is its explanation: since by Torah law she is bound to him, his relations count as relations, and intent is not required with a yevamah, it might be thought that he acquires her by Torah law and she should eat; it teaches us that she does not, because he does not acquire her.

רישא פסולי כהונה סיפא פסולי קהל - And so is the reading of Rabbeinu Chananel, and not like the books that read the reverse, for the latter clause teaches “and if he is not fit to enter into Israel”. And if you ask: since the first clause taught those unfit for the kehunah, why need the latter clause teach those unfit for the congregation, which follows all the more so? One may answer that the latter clause was taught to reveal the meaning of the first, so that you should not say the first clause [deals] specifically with those unfit for the congregation. And if you ask: a boy doubtfully nine — how does he disqualify through his relations? Let us establish him on his earlier presumption, that he was under nine, and establish the woman in her presumption of fitness! Now regarding the kehunah it is well, for we do not follow a presumption for lineage, as Rabbi Yehoshua says in the first perek of Kesubos (13a): “We do not live by her mouth; rather she is presumed to have had relations with a nasin or a mamzer” — even where most [men] near her are fit, as it says there — and we do not establish her on her presumption; and even Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, who declare her fit, do so because she says “I had relations with a fit man”; but here, where she does not know whether he was nine, no. But regarding terumah it is difficult: why do we not establish them on their presumption? For it deals with terumah as well, just as with regard to slaves; and for terumah we do establish on a presumption, for in Kesubos, perek 2 (26a), regarding “we presume that this man’s father is a kohen, and a rumour went out that he is the son of a divorcee”, etc., it is set in a case of two [witnesses] against two, implying that were it not for the disgrace of the court we would raise him for everything — and that means for terumah, for to the kehunah we do not raise him on two against two, as is proven in Kiddushin, perek Ha’omer (66a), regarding the episode of King Yannai. One may answer that here it is a case where now, when he comes before us, he is certainly nine, although it was doubtful when he had relations with her; we do not establish him on his earlier presumption, but follow the present, when he is certainly nine, for the earlier presumption has been weakened.

Notes

1. 1. Our Mishnah lists those who “disqualify but do not enable eating” terumah: the fetus, the yavam, erusin, the cheresh, and a boy of nine years and a day. The Gemara is finishing with erusin: a kohen’s daughter betrothed to a Yisrael loses terumah at once, because betrothal is the “becoming” of the verse “if she becomes [married] to a foreign man” (Vayikra 22:12).
2. 2. Terumah is the portion of produce given to a kohen; only a kohen and his household (“the acquisition of his money”) may eat it. Ulla (Kesubos 57b) holds that by Torah law a Yisrael woman betrothed to a kohen may already eat, but the Rabbis forbade it until the nisuin, as Rashi explains.
3. 3. A cheresh (deaf-mute) is treated as lacking halachic understanding, so his kiddushin has no Torah force; the Rabbis instituted a marriage for him (below, 112b). The Mishnah’s clause means his marriage disqualifies a kohen’s daughter from terumah, yet does not enable a Yisrael’s daughter to eat.
4. 4. Vayikra 22:11: “But if a kohen acquires a person, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it.” From here a kohen’s wife eats terumah as his “acquisition”; one whose acquisition has no Torah force cannot enable her to eat.
5. 5. The Mishnah’s clause: a boy of nine years and a day disqualifies but does not enable eating. From that age his relations count legally as relations, though he is still a minor.
6. 6. A shomeres yavam is a widow whose husband died childless, awaiting yibum or chalitzah from his brother; she is bound to the yavam by zikah, a tie that is not yet a marriage.
7. 7. Maamar is the rabbinic betrothal of a yevamah by the yavam (with money or a document) before yibum; it gives him only a partial bond, not a full acquisition.
8. 8. The Mishnah’s next clause: if it is doubtful whether the boy has reached nine years and a day, he too disqualifies but does not enable eating.
9. 9. Those unfit for the congregation: an Ammonite or Moabite convert (forever), an Egyptian or Edomite (until the third generation), a Kuti, a nasin (descendant of the Givonim) and a mamzer. A chalal, the son of a kohen from a woman forbidden to kohanim, is unfit only for the kehunah. Relations with any of them bar a woman from terumah and from marrying a kohen.
10. 10. “Lion converts”: the Kutim converted out of fear of the lions sent against them (Melachim II 17). Whoever holds they are lion converts regards their conversion as invalid.
11. 11. The Mishnah’s last clause: men not fit to enter into Israel disqualify through their relations. For Rava, the first clause speaks of those unfit for the congregation, and this clause adds those unfit for the kehunah, i.e. the chalal (Rashi).
12. 12. “The matter itself”: the Gemara returns to the beraisa just cited to analyse it. Its ruling: relations with these men bar a kohen’s daughter from terumah, and bar a Leviyah or Yisraelis from marrying a kohen.
13. 13. A prohibition learned only by inference from a positive statement (“she returns … she shall eat” implies that before that she may not) has the force of a positive command, not of a lav; so a separate verse would be needed for a lav.
14. 14. Chazeh veshok, the breast and thigh of shelamim offerings, are given to the kohanim and eaten by them and their household.