## Yevamot Daf 44b

###### Yevamot 44b:1
[Yevamot 44b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:1)

שֶׁהַוָּלָד פָּגוּם לַכְּהוּנָּה. מַאן הַכֹּל מוֹדִים — שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי: אֵין מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, נְהִי דְּמַמְזֵר לָא הָוֵי, פָּגוּם מִיהָא הָוֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that the offspring,** even if not a *mamzer*, **has flawed** lineage and, if the offspring is a girl, is unfit **to** marry into the **priesthood.** The Gemara clarifies: **Who** is included by saying: **All agree?** It is **Shimon HaTimni, as although Shimon HaTimni said** that the offspring of relations **for which one is liable for** violating **a prohibition is not a *mamzer*,** nevertheless, **granted** that Shimon HaTimni holds that **he is not a *mamzer*;** he would agree, **however,** that **he is** of **flawed** lineage.


###### Yevamot 44b:2
[Yevamot 44b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:2)

מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מֵאַלְמָנָה. וּמָה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — בְּנָהּ פָּגוּם, זוֹ, שֶׁאִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבְּנָהּ פָּגוּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is derived **through an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the *halakha* pertaining to **a widow,** as follows: **Just as** in the case of **a widow** who is married **to a High Priest, where the prohibition** that pertains **to her is not equally applicable to all,** i.e., only a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow, and nevertheless **her child** from that union will **have flawed** lineage, then so too with regard to **this** divorcée, who married another man and is therefore prohibited from marrying her original husband, **where the prohibition** that pertains **to her is equally applicable to all** Jews, as the prohibition to remarry one’s divorcée after she was married to another man applies to all Jews, **isn’t it logical that her child** from that union will have **flawed** lineage?


###### Yevamot 44b:3
[Yevamot 44b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:3)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ מִתְחַלֶּלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a number of objections: The logic of this *a fortiori* inference **can be refuted: What** is true with regard **to a widow, where** her union with a High Priest is what makes **her herself disqualified** from subsequently marrying any priest and, if she is the daughter of a priest, from eating *teruma*, is not true with regard to a remarried divorcée, where her remarriage to another man is permitted and is not the cause of any further disqualification. Therefore, one case cannot be deduced from the other.


###### Yevamot 44b:4
[Yevamot 44b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:4)

וְעוֹד: ״הִיא תּוֹעֵבָה״ כְּתִיב, וְאֵין בָּנֶיהָ תּוֹעֲבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, “She is an abomination”** (Deuteronomy 24:4) **is written** with regard to remarrying with one’s divorcée, and the emphasis on the word “she” teaches that only she is considered so, **but her children are not abominations** and they have unflawed lineage.


###### Yevamot 44b:5
[Yevamot 44b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:5)

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא חֲלוּצָתוֹ וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, וְהִיא פְּסוּלָה, וּוְלָדָהּ פָּסוּל, וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין, וּצְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, וְהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה וּוְלָדָהּ כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who remarries his divorcée, and one who marries his *ḥalutza*, and one who marries a relative of his *ḥalutza*, Rabbi Akiva says** that **one’s betrothal of such** women **is not** effective. **And** therefore, even if he attempts to do so, it is meaningless and **she does not require a bill of divorce from him** in order to separate from him. **And** if she has relations with him **she is** rendered **unfit and her child is unfit, and we force him to send** her **away. The Rabbis say** that **one’s betrothal of such** women **is** effective, **and** therefore if he betrothed her **she requires a bill of divorce from him, and** if she has relations with him **she** remains **fit and her child is fit.**


###### Yevamot 44b:6
[Yevamot 44b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:6)

לְמַאן, לָאו לִכְהוּנָּה? לָא, לַקָּהָל. אִי הָכִי, הִיא כְּשֵׁרָה, לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לַקָּהָל — פְּשִׁיטָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּזַנְּיָא אִפַּסְלָה לַקָּהָל?! אֶלָּא לָאו לִכְהוּנָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: When the *baraita* states she and her child are rendered unfit, **to whom** are they unfit to be married? **Is it not to the priesthood? No,** it is **to the congregation** of Israel. **If so,** when the *baraita* states **she is fit, to whom** is she fit to be married? **If we say** it is **to the congregation** of Israel, **this is obvious;** could it be that **because she engaged in forbidden sexual relations that she is rendered unfit from** marrying into **the congregation** of Israel? Although by doing so she is rendered a *zona*, that can disqualify her only from marrying a priest. **Rather, is it not** that the intention is that she is fit **to** marry into **the priesthood?**


###### Yevamot 44b:7
[Yevamot 44b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:7)

וּמִדְּהִיא לִכְהוּנָּה, וְלָדָהּ נָמֵי לִכְהוּנָּה! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And since** in reference **to her** the word fit in the *baraita* means fit **for the priesthood,** it follows that for **the child as well,** the word fit means fit **for the priesthood.** The Gemara objects: **Are these cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is,** and although the two cases are juxtaposed in the *baraita* they need not be relating to the same issue. Rather, when referring to the mother the *baraita* mentions fitness for the priesthood, and when referring to the child it mentions fitness for the congregation of Israel.


###### Yevamot 44b:8
[Yevamot 44b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: הִיא פְּסוּלָה וּוְלָדָהּ פָּסוּל. הִיא פְּסוּלָה לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לַקָּהָל, מִשּׁוּם דְּזַנְּיָא אִפַּסְלָה לֵיהּ לַקָּהָל?! אֶלָּא לָאו לִכְהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **So, too, it is reasonable** to assume that the two clauses concern different issues, **as the first clause teaches** in the name of Rabbi Akiva: **She is unfit and her child is unfit.** When that first clause states: **She is unfit, to whom** is she unfit to be married? **If we say** it is **to the congregation** of Israel, could it be that **because she engaged in forbidden sexual relations she is rendered unfit to** marry into **the congregation** of Israel? **Rather, is it not** that the intention is that she is rendered unfit **to** marry into **the priesthood?**


###### Yevamot 44b:9
[Yevamot 44b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:9)

וּוְלָדָהּ פָּסוּל, לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לִכְהוּנָּה: הָא לַקָּהָל כָּשֵׁר? הָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לַקָּהָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And then when the first clause continues and states: **And her child is unfit, to whom** is she unfit to be married? **If we say** that it is **to** the **priesthood, that** would imply that the child **is fit to** marry into **the congregation** of Israel. However, this is untenable because **didn’t Rabbi Akiva** himself **say** in the mishna here that **the offspring is a *mamzer*** and is unfit from entering the congregation of Israel? **Rather, it is obvious** that the intention of the *baraita* is that the child is unfit even **to** marry into **the congregation** of Israel.


###### Yevamot 44b:10
[Yevamot 44b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:10)

וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא, סֵיפָא נָמֵי הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And since** in **the first clause** of the *baraita* it is apparent that, although two cases are juxtaposed, **this** case is **as it is and that** case is **as it is,** in **the latter clause as well** one should assume that **this** case is **as it is and that** case is **as it is.**


###### Yevamot 44b:11
[Yevamot 44b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:11)

וְ״הִיא תּוֹעֵבָה״ נָמֵי — הִיא תּוֹעֵבָה וְאֵין צָרָתָהּ תּוֹעֵבָה, אֲבָל בָּנֶיהָ תּוֹעֲבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having resolved the objection raised from the *baraita*, the Gemara returns to its preceding objection: **And** the objection raised from the verse: **“She is an abomination,”** in which the Gemara suggested that the emphasis on “she” teaches that only she is an abomination but her children are not, can **also** be resolved, as the emphasis on “she” could be interpreted differently to teach: **“She is an abomination” but her rival wife is not an abomination,** and if they both fell together for levirate marriage, the *yavam* may consummate the levirate marriage with her rival wife. **However,** it is possible that **her children are** in fact **abominations** and are unfit to marry into the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 44b:12
[Yevamot 44b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:12)

אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה קַשְׁיָא: מָה לְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ מִתְחַלֶּלֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **However,** although two of the objections were resolved, the objection to the logic of the *a fortiori* inference from the case of **a widow** remains **difficult,** as the Gemara noted earlier: **What** is true with regard **to a widow, where** her union with a High Priest is what makes **her herself disqualified** from subsequently marrying any priest and, if she is the daughter of a priest, from eating *teruma*, is not true with regard to a remarried divorcée, where her remarriage to another man is permitted and is not the cause of any further disqualification. Therefore, there is no basis for assuming that the child of one who remarries his divorcée after she had been married to another man will have flawed lineage.


###### Yevamot 44b:13
[Yevamot 44b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:13)

אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת שֶׁהַוָּלָד פָּגוּם. מַאן הַכֹּל מוֹדִים, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֵין מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, נְהִי דְּמַמְזֵר לָא הָוֵי — פָּגוּם מִיהָא הָוֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** this **was stated,** it **was stated as follows: Rav Yosef said** that **Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **said: All agree with regard to one who engages in intercourse with** a forbidden relation **for which one is liable to** receive ***karet* that the offspring has flawed** lineage. The Gemara clarifies: **Who** is included by saying: **All agree?** It is **Rabbi Yehoshua, as although Rabbi Yehoshua said** in the mishna (49b) **that** the offspring born **from** a union **for which one is liable to** receive ***karet* is not a *mamzer*,** nevertheless, **granted** that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that **he is not a *mamzer*;** he would agree, **however,** that **he is of flawed** lineage.


###### Yevamot 44b:14
[Yevamot 44b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:14)

מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מֵאַלְמָנָה: וּמָה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה — בַּכֹּל בְּנָהּ פָּגוּם, זוֹ שֶׁאִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבְּנָהּ פָּגוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is derived **through an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the *halakha* of **a widow,** as follows: **Just as** in the case of **a widow** who is married **to High Priest, where the prohibition** that pertains **to her is not equally applicable to all,** i.e., only a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow, and nevertheless **her child** from that union will **have flawed** lineage, then so too with regard to **this** woman, **where the prohibition** that pertains **to her is equally applicable to all** Jews, **isn’t it logical that her child** from that union should **have flawed** lineage?


###### Yevamot 44b:15
[Yevamot 44b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:15)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: מָה לְאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ מִתְחַלֶּלֶת — הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּעָלָהּ, עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the logic of this *a fortiori* inference could be refuted in a manner similar to the suggestion above that **what** is true with regard **to a widow, who is herself disqualified** from marrying a priest, is not true with regard to a woman who is forbidden by a prohibition for which one is liable to *karet*, that is not correct because **here, too, once he has engaged in intercourse with her he renders her a *zona*,** and as such she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 44b:16
[Yevamot 44b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:16)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּעֶבֶד וְגוֹי הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara considers the status of other children born from forbidden unions: **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree with regard to a slave or a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman that the offspring** born from such a union **is a *mamzer*.**


###### Yevamot 44b:17
[Yevamot 44b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/44b:17)

מַאן ״הַכֹּל מוֹדִים״ — שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי. דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אֵין מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין — הָנֵי מִילֵּי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Who** is included by saying: **All agree?** It is **Shimon HaTimni, as although Shimon HaTimni said** that the offspring of relations for **which one is liable for** violating **a prohibition is not a *mamzer*, this applies** only