## Yevamot Daf 56a

###### Yevamot 56a:1
[Yevamot 56a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:1)

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נְשִׁיקָה, וּפָטוּר עָלֶיהָ. וּפְלִיג אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From this** point **forward,** insertion of anything less than the corona **is only** considered **a kiss, for which he is exempt. And** this statement **disagrees with** that of **Shmuel,** who maintains that one is liable to receive punishment for external contact of the sexual organs.


###### Yevamot 56a:2
[Yevamot 56a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:2)

אֶחָד הַמְעָרֶה וְאֶחָד הַגּוֹמֵר — קָנָה. מַאי קָנָה? רַב אָמַר: קָנָה לַכֹּל, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא לִדְבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה: לִירַשׁ בְּנִכְסֵי אֶחָיו, וּלְפוֹטְרָהּ מִן הַיִּיבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that **both one who** merely **engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes** the act of intercourse **have** thereby **acquired** the *yevama*. The Gemara asks: **What** does it mean that he has **acquired** his *yevama*? **Rav said:** He has **acquired** her **for everything.** In other words, she is considered his wife in all regards. Therefore, if he is a priest, she may partake of *teruma*. **And Shmuel said he has only acquired her with regard to the matters stated in the chapter** of levirate marriage, i.e., **to inherit his brother’s property and to exempt her from levirate marriage** if he then dies and leaves behind children from another wife.


###### Yevamot 56a:3
[Yevamot 56a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:3)

מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין — לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָכְלָה, דְּהָא הֲוָת קָאָכְלָה מֵעִיקָּרָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי מִן הָאֵירוּסִין. רַב אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, דְּהָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא בִּיאַת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: If she was a *yevama* **from marriage, everyone agrees** that she may **partake** of *teruma* after the initial stage of intercourse, **as she was** already **partaking at the outset,** when she was married to the deceased brother. Therefore, even a minimal act of intercourse is enough to allow her to continue to partake of *teruma*. **When they disagree** it **is** with regard to a *yevama* **from betrothal. Rav said:** She **may partake, as the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse** and the other forms of intercourse listed in the mishna, and considers them **like intentional** intercourse.


###### Yevamot 56a:4
[Yevamot 56a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:4)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כִּי רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא, לְאוֹקְמֵיהּ בִּמְקוֹם בַּעַל, לְאַלּוֹמֵי מִבַּעַל — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said: When the Merciful One includes** these forms of intercourse, He does so only **to establish** the *yavam* **in place of** the **husband,** but **to strengthen** him more **than** the **husband, no.** Since she was merely betrothed to the deceased brother, she was not permitted to partake of *teruma*, and therefore she may not partake of *teruma* at this point either.


###### Yevamot 56a:5
[Yevamot 56a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:5)

וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁהַבַּעַל מַאֲכִיל — יָבָם מַאֲכִיל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מַאֲכִיל — יָבָם אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Shmuel follows his** regular line of **reasoning,** as **Rav Naḥman said** that **Shmuel said:** In **any** case **where the** woman’s marriage to her original **husband entitles** her **to partake** of *teruma*, intercourse with the ***yavam*** in any of the manners described in the mishna also **entitles** her **to partake** of *teruma*, **and any** case **where** her relationship with her original **husband does not entitle** her **to partake** of *teruma*, i.e., if she had been betrothed but not married, intercourse with the ***yavam*** in the manners described in the mishna also **does not entitle** her **to partake** of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 56a:6
[Yevamot 56a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּקַּחַת שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן פִּקֵּחַ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְכוֹנְסָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. מֵת, וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יָבָם חֵרֵשׁ — אוֹכֶלֶת, וּבָזוֹ יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַיָּבָם מִכֹּחַ הַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the following *baraita*: In the case of **a** mentally **competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute** and was no longer mentally competent, **she may not partake** of *teruma*, as marriage to a deaf-mute does not enable a woman to partake of *teruma*. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently **died and** the *yevama* **happened before a deaf-mute *yavam*** for levirate marriage, **she** may **partake** of *teruma*. **And in this** regard **the strength of the *yavam* is greater than the strength of the husband.**


###### Yevamot 56a:7
[Yevamot 56a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:7)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב נִיחָא — אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according Rav,** this **works out well,** as intercourse with the deaf-mute *yavam*, which is comparable to the unwitting intercourse mentioned in the mishna because the deaf-mute is not mentally competent, effects the levirate marriage and allows her to partake of *teruma* despite the fact that she could not do so during the lifetime of her first husband. **However, according to Shmuel,** this is **difficult,** as he maintains that a *yavam* cannot have more rights than the deceased husband due to intercourse undertaken without intent to perform levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 56a:8
[Yevamot 56a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:8)

אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל, אֵימָא הָכִי: וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְכוֹנְסָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, כָּנַס וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרֵשׁ — אוֹכֶלֶת. מֵת וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יָבָם חֵרֵשׁ — אוֹכֶלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Shmuel** could have **said to you:** Amend the *baraita* and **say as follows:** If **he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake of *teruma*.** If **he married her and afterward became a deaf-mute, she** may **partake** of *teruma*. If he then **died, and** she **happened before a deaf-mute *yavam*** for levirate marriage, **she** may **partake** of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 56a:9
[Yevamot 56a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:9)

וּמַאי ״בָּזוֹ״? דְּאִילּוּ בַּעַל חֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא — לֹא אוֹכֶלֶת. וְאִילּוּ יָבָם חֵרֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא — אָכְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** is the meaning of the phrase: **In this** regard the strength of the *yavam* is greater than the strength of the husband? It means to say **that if** the original **husband** was a **deaf-mute from the outset,** i.e., before consummating the marriage, **she would not** have been allowed to **partake** of *teruma*, **whereas if the *yavam*** was a **deaf-mute from the outset** she may **partake** of *teruma* once they perform levirate marriage, because she had been fully married to the deceased brother.


###### Yevamot 56a:10
[Yevamot 56a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:10)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִן הָאֵירוּסִין — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא אָכְלָה, דְּהָא לָא אָכְלָה בְּחַיֵּי בַעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** a different version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel: If she was a *yevama* **from betrothal,** i.e., her marriage with the deceased brother had never been completed, and she and the brother-in-law engaged in an inferior form of intercourse as described in the mishna, **everyone agrees** that she may **not partake** of *teruma*, **as she did not partake** of *teruma* **in her husband’s lifetime.**


###### Yevamot 56a:11
[Yevamot 56a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:11)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. רַב אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, דְּהָא הֲוָת אָכְלָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, כִּי רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא בִּיאַת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד — לִדְבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה, אֲבָל לְכֹל מִילֵּי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they disagree,** it is with regard to a *yevama* **from marriage. Rav says: She** may **partake** of *teruma* **as she was** permitted to **partake** of *teruma* **initially,** while married to the deceased brother. **And Shmuel says** she **may not partake** of *teruma*, because **when the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse** and considers it **like intentional** intercourse, it was only with regard to **the matters stated in the chapter** of levirate marriage, **but for every** other **issue, no.**


###### Yevamot 56a:12
[Yevamot 56a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:12)

וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁהַבַּעַל מַאֲכִיל — יָבָם מַאֲכִיל! אֵימָא: כׇּל בִּיאָה שֶׁהַבַּעַל מַאֲכִיל בָּהּ — יָבָם מַאֲכִיל בָּהּ, וְכׇל בִּיאָה שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מַאֲכִיל בָּהּ — אֵין הַיָּבָם מַאֲכִיל בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Didn’t Rav Naḥman say** that **Shmuel** himself **said:** In **any** case **where the** woman’s marriage to her original **husband entitles** her to **partake** of *teruma*, intercourse with the ***yavam*** in one of the manners listed in the mishna also **entitles** her to **partake** of *teruma*? The Gemara answers: Emend the wording and **say** as follows: With regard to **any** act of **intercourse through which the husband entitles** her to **partake** of *teruma*, **a *yavam*** also **entitles** her to **partake** of *teruma*; **and** with regard to **any** act of **intercourse through which the husband does not entitle** her to **partake** of *teruma*, **a *yavam*** also **does not entitle** her to **partake** of *teruma*. Just as betrothal cannot be performed via an unwitting act of intercourse, this act does not entitle a *yevama* to partake of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 56a:13
[Yevamot 56a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:13)

מֵיתִיבִי: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּקַּחַת שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן פִּקֵּחַ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְכוֹנְסָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. מֵת, וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יָבָם חֵרֵשׁ — אוֹכֶלֶת. וּבָזוֹ יָפֶה כֹּחַ יָבָם מִכֹּחַ בַּעַל. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב — מְתָרֵץ כִּדְתָרֵיץ מֵעִיקָּרָא. אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the following *baraita*: In the case of **a** mentally **competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute** and was no longer mentally competent, **she may not partake** of *teruma*. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently **died, and** the *yevama* **happened before a deaf-mute *yavam*** for levirate marriage, **she** may **partake** of *teruma*. **And in this** regard **the strength of the *yavam* is greater than the strength of the husband. Granted, according to Rav, he** can **answer as** Shmuel **answered initially,** i.e., according to the first version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. **However, according to Shmuel,** it is **difficult.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is **difficult.**


###### Yevamot 56a:14
[Yevamot 56a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּקַּחַת שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן פִּקֵּחַ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְכוֹנְסָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. נוֹלַד לָהּ בֵּן — אוֹכֶלֶת. מֵת הַבֵּן, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֶלֶת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** In the case of **a** mentally **competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a** mentally **competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute** and was no longer mentally competent, **she may not partake** of *teruma*. **If a son was born to her** from this priest, **she** may **partake** of *teruma* on account of her son. If **the son died, Rabbi Natan says she may** continue to **partake** of *teruma*, **and the Rabbis say she may not** continue to **partake** of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 56a:15
[Yevamot 56a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:15)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי נָתָן? אָמַר רַבָּה: הוֹאִיל שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְכֹהֵן וּמִית לֵיהּ, תֵּיכוֹל, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה! אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּמִית לֵיהּ, פְּקַעָ לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ מִינַּהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּמִית לֵיהּ, פְּקַעָ קְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ מִינַּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Natan? Rabba said: Since she has** already **partaken of** *teruma* in a permitted manner, she may continue. **Abaye said to him: However, if** that is **so,** in the case of the **daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, and he died** childless, she **should** be allowed to **partake** of *teruma*, **as she has** already **partaken of** it in the past. **Rather,** it must be that **since he has passed away, his** priestly **sanctity has left her,** and she is considered a regular Israelite in all regards. **Here too, since** the son **has passed away, his** priestly **sanctity has left her,** and therefore she should not be entitled to partake of *teruma*. Rabba’s explanation should consequently be rejected.


###### Yevamot 56a:16
[Yevamot 56a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קָסָבַר רַבִּי נָתָן נִשּׂוּאֵי חֵרֵשׁ מַאֲכִילִין בִּתְרוּמָה, וְלָא גָּזְרִינַן נִשּׂוּאֵי חֵרֵשׁ אַטּוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי חֵרֵשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, נוֹלַד לָהּ בֵּן לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Natan holds** that **the marriage of a deaf-mute** who was competent when he betrothed his wife **entitles her to partake of *teruma*, and we do not** issue a **decree** against the wife partaking of *teruma* through **marriage** to **a deaf-mute due to** the case of **betrothal** to **a deaf-mute.** Although the betrothal of a deaf-mute does not take effect, his consummation of a marriage does take effect and entitles his wife to partake of *teruma*. **Abaye said to him: If so, why do I** need the *baraita* to specify that **a son was born to her?** She should be entitled to eat *teruma* even if she did not have a son. Rav Yosef responded: That case is mentioned **due to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that she is entitled to partake of *teruma* only if she has a child.


###### Yevamot 56a:17
[Yevamot 56a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:17)

וְלִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי נָתָן עֲלַיְיהוּ בְּרֵישָׁא! שָׁבֵיק לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן עַד דִּמְסַיְּימִי מִילְּתַיְיהוּ וַהֲדַר פְּלִיג עֲלַיְיהוּ. אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי: מֵת הַבֵּן אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֶלֶת! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye asks further: **And let Rabbi Natan disagree with them in the first clause** of the *baraita* as well. Rav Yosef responds: Rabbi Natan **left the Rabbis until they finished their statement, and then disagreed with them** with regard to their entire statement. The Gemara asks: **If so, let** the *baraita* first **teach** that if **the son died** she **may not partake** of *teruma*, and subsequently state: **Rabbi Natan said** she **may eat.** Why is Rabbi Natan’s opinion mentioned before the Rabbis finished stating their opinion? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this **is difficult** according to Rav Yosef.


###### Yevamot 56a:18
[Yevamot 56a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/56a:18)

וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: הָא מִלְּתָא אֲמַר לַן רַב שֵׁשֶׁת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna: **And so too, one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden** by **the Torah** in any form is liable to receive punishment. **Rav Amram said: This matter was said** to us by **Rav Sheshet,**