Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 60a

that he pays no fine¹  in the case of a seduced woman.²

R. Gebiha of Be Kathil³  came and repeated the reported ruling⁴  in the presence of R. Ashi, whereupon the other said to him: Surely both Rab and R. Johanan stated '[a High Priest] must not marry a woman who is adolescent⁵  or "wounded",⁶  but if he married her, the marriage is valid', which clearly proves [that he may continue to live with the woman because in any case] she would ultimately have become adolescent and would ultimately have been 'wounded' by living with⁷  him; here also⁸  [she should be permitted to live with him because] ultimately she would have become a be'ulah by living with⁷  him! — This is a difficulty.

'He shall not marry a woman whom another man has outraged or seduced. If he did marry her, the child, said R. Eliezer⁹  b.Jacob, is profaned; but the Sages said: The child is fit'.¹⁰  Said R. Huna in the name of Rab: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; and so said R. Giddal in the name of Rab: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Others say: R. Huna stated in the name of Rab. What is R. Eliezer b. Jacob's reason?¹¹  — He is of the same opinion as R. Eleazar.¹²  But is the former of the same opinion as the latter? Surely we have an established tradition that 'the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity, but select',¹³  while in this case R. Amram¹⁴  stated that the halachah is not in accordance with R. Eleazar!¹⁵  — This is a difficulty.

R. Ashi explained: They¹⁶  differ [on the question whether the offspring] of a union forbidden by a positive commandment¹⁷  is deemed to be a halal. R. Eliezer b. Jacob is of the opinion [that the offspring] of a union forbidden by a positive commandment is deemed to be a halal while the Rabbis are of the opinion that the offspring of a union forbidden by a positive commandment is no halal. What is R. Eliezer b. Jacob's reason? — Because it is written, A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take,' but a virgin etc.,¹⁸  and this is followed by the Scriptural injunction, And he shall not profane¹⁹  his seed among his people,²⁰  which refers to all.²¹  And the Rabbis?²²  — [By the expression] these¹⁸  the context is broken up.²³  But R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintains that the expression, these,¹⁸  serves the purpose of excluding the menstruant.²⁴

Whose view is represented in the following statement wherein it was taught: [Only the offspring] of these²⁵  is to be regarded a halal but no offspring of a menstruant is to be deemed a halal.²⁶  — Whose view? That of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. But on the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, the expression these²⁶  should have been written at the end!²⁷  — This is a difficulty.²⁸

Our Rabbis taught: For a betrothed sister,²⁹  R. Meir and R. Judah said, [a common priest]³⁰  may defile himself.³¹  R. Jose and R. Simeon said: He may not defile himself for her. For [a sister who was] outraged or seduced, all agree that he may not defile himself.³¹  As to one 'wounded',³²  R. Simeon says he may not defile himself for her; for R. Simeon maintains that he may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest,³³  but he may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest.³⁴  For one who is adolescent, all agree³⁵  that he may defile himself.³⁶

What is R. Meir's and R. Judah's reason? — They make the following exposition: And for his sister a virgin,³⁷  excludes one who had been outraged or seduced.³⁸  It might be assumed that one who was 'wounded' is also to be excluded.³⁹  Hence it was specifically stated, That hath had no husband,³⁷  only she whose condition is due to a man [is excluded]³⁹  but not one⁴⁰  whose condition is not due to a man. That is near,³⁷  includes a betrothed [sister]; unto him,³⁷  includes a sister who is adolescent.

What need was there for a Scriptural text in this case?⁴¹  Surely R. Meir stated, 'virgin implies even [one who retains] some of her virginity'!⁴²  — It was required, because it might have been assumed that the expression of virgin⁴³  shall be deduced from virgin elsewhere;⁴⁴  as there it refers to a na'arah⁴⁵  only, so here also it refers to a na'arah⁴⁵  only, hence we were taught [that the case here is different]. And what are the reasons of R. Jose and R. Simeon? — They make the following exposition: And for his sister a virgin,⁴³  excludes one who has been outraged, seduced or wounded;⁴⁶  that hath had no,⁴³  excludes one who is betrothed; that is near,⁴³  includes a betrothed who had been divorced; unto him,⁴³  includes one who is adolescent. 'That is near, includes a betrothed who had been divorced';

1. Prescribed in Ex. XXII, 16.
2. The marriage exempts him from the fine (v. ibid. 15-16).
3. [On the Tigris N. of Bagdad, v. Obermeyer, pp. 143 ff].
4. That of R. Huna in the name of Rab, supra 59b ad fin.
5. Bogereth, v. Glos.
6. V. our Mishnah.
7. Lit., 'under'.
8. Cf.supra note 8.
9. Cur. edd., 'Eleazar' is apparently a misprint.
10. Supra 59b.
11. For declaring the child to be a halal.
12. Who stated, infra 61b, that intercourse for a non-matrimonial purpose between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman renders the latter a harlot, cohabitation with whom is forbidden by a negative commandment, and any issue therefrom is deemed to be a halal.
13. Supra 49b, q.v. for notes.
14. V. BaH. Cur. edd. add, 'in the name of Rab'.
15. V. infra 61b.
16. R. Eliezer b. Jacob (who in fact is in disagreement with R. Eleazar), and the Rabbis.
17. Such as that between a High Priest and a be'ulah which is forbidden owing to the positive commandment that he must marry a virgin.
18. Lev. XXI, 14.
19. I.e., cause the child to be a halal.
20. Ibid. 15.
21. That were previously enumerated, including the prohibition to marry a be'ulah, which is derived from the positive commandment a virgin … shall he take to wife'.
22. Why, in view of this Scriptural proof do they not regard such offspring as a halal?
23. Thus separating those subject to the penalty of a negative commandment from those who are subject to the penalty of a positive commandment. The reference to profanation (halal) applies only to the former.
24. If a priest cohabited with his wife while she was in such a condition, the child is not to be regarded as a halal.
25. Those enumerated in Lev. XXI, 14.
26. Lev. XXI, 14.
27. Of Lev, XXI, 14, since in his opinion it was not meant to break up the text. Cf. supra p. 399, n. 13.
28. According to R. Ashi who explained the dispute to be dependent on the interpretation of Lev. XXI. 14, 15.
29. Who died,
30. Who is forbidden to defile himself for his married sister. V. Lev. XXI, 3,
31. The reason is given infra.
32. V. our Mishnah,
33. I.e., a virgin.
34. Since virgin was mentioned in both cases (v. Lev. XXI, 3 and 14). As the 'wounded' is not permitted to a High Priest she is obviously not deemed to be a virgin. Hence she can no longer be regarded as a virgin in the matter of a priest's defilement either.
35. Even R. Meir who forbids a High Priest to marry her.
36. The reason is given infra.
37. Lev. XXI, 3.
38. Who cannot be regarded as a virgin.
39. From the term of virgin. Since she also has lost her virginity.
40. Lit., 'this went out'.
41. To include one who is adolescent.
42. Supra 59a and notes. Since virgin includes one who is adolescent, what need was there again for the text of 'unto him' to include her?
43. Lev. XXI, 3.
44. Deut, XXII, 28, dealing with a case of outrage.
45. [H] one of the age of twelve to twelve and a half years.
46. V. our Mishnah.

but, surely, R. Simeon said, 'He may defile himself for one who is fit for a High Priest, but may not defile himself for one who is not fit for a High Priest'!¹  — There²  it is different, because the All Merciful has included her [by the expression] near.³  If so, the 'wounded' also should be included! — Near³  implies one and not two. And what [reason for this]⁴  do you see? — To the body of the one something had been done while to that of the other nothing had been done.

As to R. Jose, since his colleague⁵  had left him,⁶  it may be inferred that in respect of the 'wounded', he himself is of the same opinion as R. Meir.⁷  Whence, however, does he derive it? — From That hath had no man. But deduction,⁸  surely, had already been made⁹  from this text! — One⁸  is deduced from That hath had no and the other¹⁰  from man.¹¹

It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,¹³  for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,¹⁴  and Phinehas¹⁵  surely was with them. And the Rabbis?¹⁶  — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.¹⁷  If so,¹⁸  a proselyte whose age is three years and one day¹⁹  should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,²⁰  but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,¹⁴  but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently²¹  it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit²²  for cohabitation.²³

It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man;²⁰  Scripture speaks of one who is fit²³  for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him,²⁴  it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.²³

R. Nahman said: Dropsy is a manifestation of lewdness.

Similarly, it is said, And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him;²⁹  whence did they know it?³⁰  R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate!³¹  — R. Kahana son of R. Nathan replied: It is written, for acceptance,³²  for acceptance but not for punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also!³³  R. Ashi replied: It is written, 'unto them', implying unto them³⁴  for acceptance but not for punishment; unto idolaters,³⁵  however, even for punishment.³⁶

R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.³⁷  Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this³⁷  explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,³⁸  and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.³⁹  The other⁴⁰  replied:⁴¹  I heard it explicitly. And what [matters it] if it⁴²  was learned by deduction?⁴³  — It is possible that there⁴⁴  it was different; since the marriage had already taken place he sanctioned it; for, indeed, both Rab and R. Johanan stated: A priest may not marry one who is adolescent or 'wounded', but if already married, he may continue to live with her. How now! There it is quite correct [to sanction the marriage since in any case] she would ultimately become adolescent while she⁴⁵  will be with him,⁴⁶  and she would also ultimately become a be'ulah while with him;⁴⁶  but here, would she ultimately become a harlot⁴⁷  while with him?⁴⁸  R. Safra taught [that he⁴⁰  arrived at it]⁴²  by deduction, and, having raised the difficulty,⁴⁹  answered it in the same way.⁵⁰

A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this?⁵¹  — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai.⁵²  'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'.⁵³

It was taught: And so did R. Simeon b. Yohai state

1. One divorced is not fit for a High Priest!
2. Defilement by a common priest.
3. [H] sing.
4. To exclude the one and include the other.
5. R. Simeon who, in respect of the betrothed, expressed the same opinion as R. Jose (supra 60a).
6. So BaH. Cur. edd., 'since he left his colleague'. R. Simeon only is mentioned in the case of the wounded.
7. That the priest may defile himself for her.
8. The exclusion of the betrothed.
9. By R. Jose.
10. Permission to marry the wounded.
11. Only when her condition was due to the action of a man is she forbidden.
12. Supra 59a. One who is adolescent is no more a perfect virgin.
13. She is not regarded as a harlot.
14. Num. XXXI, 18.
15. Who was a priest.
16. How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?
17. Not for matrimony.
18. That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.
19. So long as she has 'not known man'.
20. Num. XXXI, 17.
21. To reconcile the contradiction.
22. I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.
23. Not one who had actually experienced it.
24. Implying that any grown-up woman is not to be spared, even if she hath not known man.
25. Which of the Midianite women, referred to in the texts quoted, was, or was not fit for cohabitation.
26. Cur. [edd.], 'Huna'.
27. [H] the gold plate which was worn by the High Priest on his forehead. V, Ex. XXVIII, 36ff.
28. Lit., '(sickly) green'.
29. Judges XXI, 12.
30. Cf. supra n. 1 mutatis mutandis.
31. As was done in the case of the Midianites (v. supra).
32. Ex. XXVIII, 38, referring to the front-plate.
33. Why then was the test there performed before the plate?
34. Israelites, as were the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead.
35. As were the Midianites.
36. By the front-plate.
37. That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
38. And was married to a priest.
39. I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband.
40. R. Jacob b. Idi.
41. To R. Zera.
42. V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
43. From the incident in the Palestinian city. Why then was R. Zera anxious to ascertain the manner whereby the ruling was obtained?
44. The incident in Palestine.
45. Even if she were now virgo intacta.
46. The union is consequently allowed to remain.
47. Which is the prohibition under which a priest may not marry the proselyte mentioned.
48. Obviously not. Hence, it may well be concluded that were she not allowed to marry a priest, the union would have had to be dissolved even after marriage had taken place.
49. Mentioned supra. that an ex post facto may be different.
50. Had it not been permitted originally the marriage would have had to be annulled even ex post facto.
51. I.e., on what authority did you contract the marriage.
52. V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
53. He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi.