Commentary page

Yevamot 56b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Yevamot 56b

Yevamot 56b. The full printed text of this folio side — 18 numbered segments, about 366 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ לְעַיְינִין מִמַּתְנִיתִין: אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ — פְּסוּלָה לִכְהוּנָּה. וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּתוֹרָה, אוֹ פְּסוּלוֹת.

and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. And the tanna of our mishna also taught: And so too, in the case of one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [ arayot ] by the Torah or with those who are unfit to marry him even though they are not in the category of arayot , the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest.

Segment 2

מַאי ״וְכֵן״? מַאי לָאו: לָא שְׁנָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּמֵזִיד, וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּאוֹנֶס, וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּרָצוֹן, וְקָתָנֵי: פְּסָלָהּ.

What is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? What, is it not that it is no different whether they have intercourse unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different whether they have intercourse due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught that he has rendered her disqualified from marrying a priest.

Segment 3

לָא. מַאי ״וְכֵן״ — אַהַעֲרָאָה. הַעֲרָאָה דְּמַאן, אִילֵימָא דַּעֲרָיוֹת — לְמֵימְרָא דַּעֲרָיוֹת יָלְפִינַן מִיְּבָמָה? אַדְּרַבָּה: יְבָמָה יָלְפִינַן מֵעֲרָיוֹת, דְּעִיקַּר הַעֲרָאָה בַּעֲרָיוֹת כְּתִיב!

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to the initial stage of intercourse, as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say it is referring to those with whom relations are prohibited and carry a punishment of karet or death [ arayot ], is this to say that the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from the halakha with regard to a yevama , as implied by the phrase: And so too? On the contrary, we derive the halakha of a yevama from the halakha with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main source that indicates that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse is stated in the context of those with whom relations are prohibited and not in the context of a yevama .

Segment 4

אֶלָּא, מַאי ״וְכֵן״? אַשֶּׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ דַּעֲרָיוֹת. אַדְּרַבָּה: עִיקַּר ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ בַּעֲרָיוֹת כְּתִיב!

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical, i.e., anal, sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited [ arayot ]. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: On the contrary, the main source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse “The cohabitations of a woman” (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited [ arayot ].

Segment 5

אֶלָּא, מַאי ״וְכֵן״? אַשֶּׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ דְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין.

Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase: And so too? It is referring to atypical intercourse by those liable for violating an ordinary prohibition not punishable by karet , with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet’s proof from the mishna is not conclusive.

Segment 6

אָמַר רָבָא: אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה, בַּעְלָהּ — לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה אִין, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה לָא? אֵימָא אַף מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה.

§ Rava said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged if he later has intercourse with her, due to the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a zona . The Gemara expresses surprise: Due to the prohibition proscribing a zona , yes; due to ritual impurity, no? The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava’s statement: Say that he is also flogged due to the prohibition with regard to a zona .

Segment 7

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְפָּשָׂה — אֲסוּרָה, וְאֵי זוֹ — זוֹ אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection based upon a verse with regard to a sota : “And neither was she taken” (Numbers 5:13) indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, i.e., raped, she is permitted to her husband. The term “And…she” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is prohibited even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest.

Segment 8

וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה, עֲשֵׂה!

And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, e.g., the prohibition proscribing a priest’s wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

Segment 9

אָמַר רַבָּה: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל זוֹנָה, כְּשֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב גַּבֵּי אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה מוּתֶּרֶת — מִכְּלָל דְּאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן כִּדְקָיְימָא קָיְימָא.

Rabba said in response: All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona . When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted. By inference, unlike the wife of an Israelite, the wife of a priest remains as she was. Since the Torah does not limit the category of zona with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a zona even if she was raped.

Segment 10

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבָּה: אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה — בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה. מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה — אִין, מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה — לָא, אַלְמָא בְּאוֹנֶס לָא קָרֵינָא בַּיהּ זוֹנָה.

And some say a different version of this discussion. Rabba said: With regard to the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for having intercourse with her due to her ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to the prohibition proscribing a zona , no? Apparently, in a case of rape, the victim is not called a zona .

Segment 11

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְפָּשָׂה — אֲסוּרָה, וְאֵיזוֹ — זוֹ אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן, וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה, עֲשֵׂה!

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection from the verse: “And neither was she taken” indicates that she is forbidden to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, but if she was forcibly taken, she is permitted to her husband. The term: “And…she,” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, you have another case of a woman who is forbidden even though she was forcibly taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition.

Segment 12

אָמַר רָבָא: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל ״אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה״, כְּשֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב גַּבֵּי אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת, מִכְּלַל דְּאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן כִּדְקָיְימָא — קָיְימָא.

Rava said: All were included in the verse “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4). When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden, it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, and she is forbidden.

Segment 13

מַתְנִי׳ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מִן הָאֵירוּסִין — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בִּתְרוּמָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין.

MISHNA: A widow to a High Priest, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza to a common priest, even if they had only engaged in betrothal and had not yet had intercourse, may not partake of teruma . Since they are forbidden to the men who betrothed them, the betrothal itself disqualifies them from the privileges of priesthood even if they are the daughters of priests. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare them fit to partake of teruma . Since the prohibition is violated through the act of intercourse and not betrothal, the women are disqualified only once they have intercourse.

Segment 14

נִתְאַרְמְלוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ, מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — פְּסוּלוֹת, מִן הָאֵירוּסִין — כְּשֵׁרוֹת.

In a case where these women were widowed or divorced, if it was from marriage, they are disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of teruma . This is because a woman prohibited from marrying a priest who has intercourse with a priest becomes a ḥalala , and is thereby disqualified from partaking of teruma . However, if they were widowed or divorced from their state of betrothal, they are once again fit to partake of teruma according to all opinions.

Segment 15

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה קִדּוּשֵׁי רְשׁוּת — אֵין מַאֲכִילִין, קִדּוּשֵׁי עֲבֵירָה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: This is an a fortiori inference: Just as optional betrothal, e.g., in the case of an Israelite who betroths the daughter of a priest, does not entitle her to partake of teruma , as her betrothal to a non-priest disqualifies her from partaking of her father’s teruma , is it not all the more so true in a case of betrothal that constitutes a transgression, as in the cases in the mishna?

Segment 16

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי רְשׁוּת שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, תֹּאמַר בְּקִדּוּשֵׁי עֲבֵירָה, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.

They said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to an Israelite, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as one betrothed to an Israelite may never partake of teruma , shall you also say that this is the case with regard to betrothal to a priest that constitutes a transgression, where his status does entitle her to partake of teruma in a different case, as marriage to a priest entitles a woman to partake of teruma in a case where it is permitted for them to marry?

Segment 17

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: In the case of a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, which is prohibited by the verse “He that is crushed or maimed shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2), we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Meir on the one hand and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon on the other.

Segment 18

לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אָכְלָה — הָא נָמֵי לָא אָכְלָה. לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמְרִי מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָכְלָה —

According to Rabbi Meir, who said that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid, i.e., prohibited, by Torah law may not partake of teruma , this one may also not partake of teruma , as it is prohibited by Torah law for her to have intercourse with a man with crushed testicles. According to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say that a woman who is reserved for intercourse that is invalid by Torah law may partake of teruma until she actually engages in the prohibited act of intercourse,

Yevamot 56b

Yevamot 56b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text