Yevamot 68a

דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בַּהֲוָיָה. וְאִי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הִיא — לֹא מַאֲכִיל לָהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּעוּלָּא.

as he acquired her by means of betrothal. And if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma due to the reason given by Ulla: Although by Torah law a priest’s betrothed partakes of teruma , the Sages rendered it prohibited for her to do so, lest she allow other members of her family to eat it.

וְהַחֵרֵשׁ. אִי בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא — פָּסֵיל לַהּ, דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן. וְאִי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הִיא — לָא מַאֲכֵיל, ״קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר קִנְיָן הוּא.

It is also taught in the mishna that a deaf-mute disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara elaborates: If she is the daughter of a priest married to a deaf-mute Israelite, he disqualifies her, as he acquired her through marriage sanctioned by an ordinance of the Sages. Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is invalid by Torah law, the Sages instituted an ordinance validating this type of marriage. And if she is an Israelite woman married to a deaf-mute priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma , as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “The purchase of his money, he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11), and this deaf-mute is not capable of acquisition by Torah law, as he is not legally competent.

וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם לְבֶן תֵּשַׁע וְיוֹם אֶחָד. לְמַאי? אִי לְמִיפְסַל — קָטָן נָמֵי מִיפְסָל פָּסֵיל, אִי לְאוֹכוֹלֵי — גָּדוֹל נָמֵי לֹא מַאֲכִיל!

§ It is also taught in the mishna that a nine-year-old boy disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to partake. It enters our mind that the mishna is referring to a widow waiting for her yavam , who is nine years and one day old. The Gemara therefore inquires: With regard to what is this taught? If it is with regard to disqualifying her from partaking of teruma , a younger yavam also disqualifies her, as a levirate bond was created and she cannot return to her father’s house. And if it was with regard to enabling her to partake of teruma , an older yavam does not enable her to partake either, as discussed above.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּיָבָם בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ עָסְקִינַן. דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ וּבִיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה, אֵימָא לוֹכֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּמַאֲמָר בְּגָדוֹל.

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a nine-year-and-one-day-old yavam who already engaged in intercourse with his yevama , as she was thereby acquired by him by Torah law. It might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law she was acquired by him, as the legal status of his act of intercourse is that of intercourse, perhaps he enables her to partake of teruma . The mishna therefore teaches us that the Sages rendered the legal status of the intercourse of a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy like that of levirate betrothal by means of money or a document performed by an adult man, which is not sufficient for her to partake of teruma . Since levirate betrothal is effective only by rabbinic law, the yevama is not considered the acquisition of his money by Torah law and may not partake of teruma .

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: סָפֵק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ — הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי בֶּן תֵּשַׁע לֹא מַאֲכִיל, סָפֵק מִיבַּעְיָא?!

Rava said to him: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma , and he does not enable her to partake. Now that, according to your explanation, one who is definitely nine years old does not enable her to partake of teruma , is it necessary to teach the same concerning a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not he reached that age?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד דְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלִים קָתָנֵי, דְּפָסְלִי בְּבִיאָתָן. וְכִדְתַנְיָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, גֵּר, עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי, נָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל כֹּהֶנֶת לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית — פְּסָלוּהָ.

Rather, Rava said that the mishna is teaching this halakha with regard to a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is one of those unfit males listed in a baraita , who disqualify a woman from marrying a priest by their intercourse, as they are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, as it is taught in a baraita : A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan [ kuti ], a Gibeonite, a ḥalal , or a mamzer , when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, i.e., the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest, and, in the case of the daughter of a priest, from partaking of teruma .

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִן לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִים, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בִּפְסוּלִים עָסְקִינַן! רֵישָׁא פְּסוּלֵי קָהָל, סֵיפָא פְּסוּלֵי כְהוּנָּה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the fact that the latter clause, the next mishna (69a), teaches that if men who are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage engage in extramarital intercourse with women, they disqualify them from marrying into the priesthood: It may be inferred that in the first clause, the mishna above, we are dealing not with unfit individuals but with men fit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage. The Gemara answers: That inference is incorrect. The first clause of the mishna is dealing with those unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage, while the latter clause is dealing with those who are merely unfit for the priesthood. That is why the mishna is referring to them separately. Accordingly, Rava’s explanation that the mishna is referring to an unfit nine-year-old boy is viable.

גּוּפָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, גֵּר, עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי, נָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל כֹּהֶנֶת לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית — פְּסָלוּהָ.

§ The Gemara addresses the matter itself and cites the complete baraita . A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan, a Gibeonite, a ḥalal , or a mamzer , when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, or a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ.

Rabbi Yosei says: Of the individuals mentioned above, anyone whose offspring is unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. However, anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify a woman through intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow, even if you are a priest. Anyone whose daughter may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage does not disqualify a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow if you are a priest.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ — פְּסָלָהּ.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man [ ish zar ], she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred” (Leviticus 22:12). It may be derived that since she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as the literal meaning of the expression ish zar is a man who is excluded.

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא בַּת כֹּהֵן דְּמִינַּסְבָא לְזָר — לָא תֵּיכוּל!

The Gemara asks: That verse is necessary to teach the halakha that the Merciful One says: The daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest, even one that she is permitted to marry, may not partake of teruma . Therefore, it cannot be the source for the halakha that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest.

הָהִיא, מִ״וְּשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל״ נָפְקָא. מִדְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ... תֹּאכֵל״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא אָכְלָה.

The Gemara answers: That prohibition is derived from the verse “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” ( Leviticus 22:13). From the fact that the Merciful One says: “And is returned to her father’s house…she may eat,” it may be inferred that initially, while married to a non-priest, she was not permitted to eat. Therefore, the prohibition against a woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man partaking of teruma may be derived from the former verse, as it is not necessary for this halakha .

אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הַאי לְלָאו. [לָאו] מִ״וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״ נָפְקָא.

The Gemara rejects this answer: If the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest partaking of teruma had been derived only from that latter verse, I would have said that it is a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, as it is stated in positive form, and according to the principle that a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is a positive mitzva, she would not be liable to receive a court-imposed punishment. The Merciful One therefore writes that former verse, to establish an explicit prohibition. The Gemara counters: The prohibition against the wife of a non-priest partaking of teruma is derived from a different verse: “No common man may eat of the sacred” (Leviticus 22:10).