Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth
A hybrid, terefah,1 one that was extracted through the abdominal wall,2 the tumtum and the hermaphrodite can neither become sacred nor can they impart sanctity to others;3 and Samuel explained: They neither become sacred by means of exchange,4 nor do they impart sanctity [to any other beast]5 by causing it to become an exchange.6 This proves [what has been said].
R. ELIEZER STATED … THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. It was taught: Rabbi related, 'When I went to learn Torah at [the school of] R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, his disciples combined against me like the cocks of Beth Bukya7 and did not let me learn more than this single thing in our Mishnah: R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE.
MISHNAH. SOME WOMEN ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBLDDEN8 TO THEIR LEVIRS,9 OTHERS ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS, OTHERS ARE PERMITTED TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER, WHILE OTHERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO THE FORMER AS WELL AS TO THE LATTER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE WOMEN10 ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR LEVIRS: IF A COMMON PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST; IF A HALAL11 WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS12 HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS;13 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN7 TO THEIR LEVIRS.
THE FOLLOWING10 ARE PERMITTED8 TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN8 TO THEIR HUSBANDS: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW14 HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST; IF ONE OF LEGITIMATE STATUS13 WHO MARRIED A HALALAH11 HAD A BROTHER A HALAL;11 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR HUSBANDS.
THE FOLLOWING15 ARE FORBIDDEN16 TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER;17 IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST, OR IF A COMMON PRIEST OF LEGITIMATE STATUS18 WHO MARRIED A HALALAH19 HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS,18 OR IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE FORBIDDEN16 BOTH TO THE FORMER AND THE LATTER.17 ALL OTHER WOMEN ARE PERMITTED16 TO BOTH THEIR HUSBANDS AND THEIR LEVIRS.
[IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE, [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES,20 A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR,21 IS FORBIDDEN TO THE HUSBAND AND PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR; [A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND IS FORBIDDEN TO THE LEVIR AND PERMITTED TO THE HUSBAND; [WHILE ONE WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER. SHE CANNOT CLAIM EITHER KETHUBAH,19 OR USUFRUCT,22 OR ALIMONY, OR HER WORN CLOTHES.23 [SHOULD A] CHILD [BE BORN HE] IS ELIGIBLE [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]; BUT THE HUSBAND MUST BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. A WIDOW, HOWEVER, WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH24 WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN24 OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO HER KETHUBAH.
GEMARA. What was the point in teaching MARRIED?25 He could have taught: 'Betrothed'!26 And were you to reply that the reason [for the prohibition27 is only] because he MARRIED, since [in that case]28 a positive29 as well as a negative30 precept is involved,31 but where betrothal only took place the positive precept27 does override the negative;32 but [it could be retorted] the whole of our section deals with a positive,33 versus a negative precept.34 and the positive nevertheless does not override the negative! — As it was desired to state in the final clause, A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, [who is forbidden]35 only where [the High Priest] MARRIED her, since in that case he caused her to be a halalah, but [not where he only] betrothed [her in which case] she is permitted [to his brother],36 he taught in the first clause also: MARRIED.
But why should the expression37 be determined by38 the final clause? Let it be determined by39 the middle clause: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST!40 — The determining factor,41 rather, is the case immediately following in the same context.42 As it was desired to teach, IF A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS, where the reason [for her prohibition43 is] because [the halal] MARRIED her and thus caused her to become a halalah, but where he had only betrothed her she would have been permitted to him; MARRIED was, therefore, taught [here also].44
What point, however, was there in teaching, A widow? He should have taught: 'A virgin'!45
And should you reply that this Tanna holds the opinion that the original marriage1 causes the subjection;2 behold, [it may be pointed out, the case of] the HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS3 where it is not said that 'the original marriage causes the subjection'!4 — This5 is certainly due to the final clause. As it was desired to teach in the final clause, IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST OR A COMMON PRIEST, where [the prohibition6 applies to] a WIDOW only7 but [not to] a virgin who is eligible to marry him,8 therefore, WIDOW was taught [here also].9
R. Papa demurred: If the law is in agreement with the following ruling10 which R. Dimi, when he came,11 reported in the name of R. Johanan, viz., that if an Egyptian of the second generation married an Egyptian woman of the first generation her son is regarded as belonging to the second generation,12 [our Mishnah] should also have taught: If an Egyptian of the second generatlon married two Egyptian women, one of the first, and the other of the second generation, and he had sons from the first and from the second, [the wives of these sons], if they13 married in the proper manner,14 are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs,15 and if they married in the reverse order16 [the wives] are permitted to their levirs17 and forbidden to their husbands;18 proselyte women19 are permitted to the one as well as to the other,20 and women who are incapable of procreation are forbidden to the one as well as the other!21 — He taught some cases and omitted others. What else did he omit that he should have omitted this also? — He omitted [the case of the man] wounded in the stones.22 If this is all that can be pointed out,23 the case of the man wounded in the stones cannot be regarded as an instance of an omission, since those that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts were [already] mentioned!24 — Were not several specific cases mentioned25 of those that are subject to the penalty of negative precepts? Surely it was stated, IF A COMMON PRIEST MARRIED A WIDOW and then again IF A HALAL MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS!26 That case27 was required [for the specific purpose] of informing us [that the law is] in agreement with [the ruling] Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth.28
But, surely, he taught regarding A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS and then again regarding AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE AND HE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD!29 — This also is not a repetition of what was already taught, since thereby he taught us [first] regarding a negative precept which is not applicable to all30 and then he taught us regarding a negative precept which is applicable to all. But did he not teach31 IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE!32 Con sequently33 it must be concluded that he taught some cases while others he omitted. This proves it.
[Reverting to] the main text, 'Rab Judah reported in the name Of Rab: Women of legitimate [priestly] status were not forbidden to be married to men of tainted birth'. Might it be suggested that the following provides support for his view? [It was stated], A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS; does not [this refer to] a priestess (who was fitting unto him);34 and is not the meaning of35 LEGITIMATE STATUS eligible for priesthood!36 — No; [it might refer to] the daughter of an Israelite, and LEGITIMATE STATUS means35 eligible for the assembly.37 If so, HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS would also [mean] 'eligible for the assembly', from which it would follow that he himself is ineligible for the assembly!38 Consequently it must refer to a priest; and since he is a priest she also must be a priestess.39 What an argument! Each phrase may bear its own peculiar interpretation.40
Rabin b. Nahman raised an objection: They shall not take … they shall not take41 teaches42 that the prohibition was addressed to the woman through the man!43 — Raba replied, [This is the meaning]: Where the prohibition is applicable to him it is also applicable to her, but where it is not applicable to him it is also inapplicable to her.44 Is this,45 however, deduced from this text? Surely it was deduced from a text which Rab Judah expounded in the name of Rab! For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab and so it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit;46 Scripture compared the woman to the man in respect of all the punishments in the Torah!47 — If deduction had been made from that [text]46 it might have been assumed [to apply only to] a prohibition that is equally applicable to all, but not to a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all.48
- To Next Folio -