## Yevamot Daf 58b

###### Yevamot 58b:1
[Yevamot 58b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:1)

שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם קָרֵית לַהּ? אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעַלְּיָא הִיא, דְּהָא אָמַר רַב: קָנָה לַכֹּל! כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא לִדְבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**do you call her a widow waiting for her *yavam*?** Once they have engaged in intercourse, **she is his proper wife, as Rav said** that one who has intercourse with his *yevama*, even without intending to thereby perform levirate marriage, **has acquired her for all** matters. The Gemara responds: This is in accordance **with** the opinion of **Shmuel, who said** that he **has acquired her only with regard to the matters stated in the chapter** of levirate marriage, but not with regard to other matters, and therefore she is not considered his wife with regard to the *halakhot* of *sota*.


###### Yevamot 58b:2
[Yevamot 58b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:2)

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַב. הָא אָמַר רַב: קָנָה לַכֹּל. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The only reason** this proof was presented is to support the opinion of **Rav,** who is the one who holds that there is legal significance to a priest entering the wedding canopy with a woman who is unfit to marry him. **Didn’t Rav say he has acquired her for all** matters? The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here? For example,** a case where the *yavam* **performed levirate betrothal with her** and afterward had intercourse with her for the sake of promiscuity. **And this is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal acquires** a *yevama* in **a full-fledged** manner and removes the levirate bond. Therefore, when they have intercourse, they do not become fully married.


###### Yevamot 58b:3
[Yevamot 58b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:3)

אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ אֲרוּסָה? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, נְשׂוּאָה וּכְנוּסָה לָאו חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא?! אֶלָּא: נְשׂוּאָה דִּידֵיהּ, וּכְנוּסָה דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: אֲרוּסָה דִּידֵיהּ, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם דְּחַבְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** the case of the *yevama* who was betrothed **is** the same as the case of **a betrothed** woman. What is the difference between the two cases? The Gemara responds: **And according to your reasoning,** are the examples in the mishna of **a married** woman **and a fully married** woman **not a single matter? Rather,** the mishna must be referring to two very similar cases, with the following difference: **A married** woman means **his own** wife **and** a fully **married** woman is referring **to that of his fellow,** i.e., his brother’s wife who became his wife through levirate marriage. **Here too,** the case of **a betrothed** woman is referring to **his own** wife **and** the case of **a widow waiting for her *yavam*** is **that of his fellow,** i.e., his *yevama*, who is now betrothed to him.


###### Yevamot 58b:4
[Yevamot 58b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:4)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מְקַנִּין לָהּ לָאֲרוּסָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אֲבָל מְקַנִּין אוֹתָהּ לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** Rava’s question can be resolved in a manner unrelated to the question about a priest entering the wedding canopy with a woman unfit for him. The *baraita* he cited **is** in accordance with **this *tanna*,** who does not require the man to be clear of iniquity, **as it is taught in a** *baraita*: **One cannot be jealous over a betrothed** woman and warn her not to seclude herself with a particular man in order **to cause her to drink** the *sota* waters **when she is betrothed, but one can be jealous over her to cause her to drink** the *sota* waters **when she is married,** even if she secluded herself with the man when she was still betrothed.


###### Yevamot 58b:5
[Yevamot 58b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:5)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: עַל יְדֵי גִלְגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** The question never arises at all, as the oath is formulated **by means of extension.** The woman cannot be forced to drink the *sota* waters for events that took place while she was betrothed. However, if she is obligated to drink due to events that took place when she was married, the oath may be extended to include any possible acts of infidelity when she was betrothed.


###### Yevamot 58b:6
[Yevamot 58b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:6)

שְׁלַח רַב חֲנִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָעוֹשֶׂה מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ [וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח], אֲפִילּוּ הוּא כֹּהֵן וְהִיא כֹּהֶנֶת — פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥanina sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who performs levirate betrothal with his *yevama* and he has a brother, even if he is a priest and she is** the daughter of **a priest, he has disqualified her from** partaking of ***teruma*.** By Torah law, the other brother may still have intercourse with her and thereby perform levirate marriage, but by rabbinic law only the brother who betrothed her may perform levirate marriage. Due to the fact that she is considered to be waiting for levirate marriage even vis-à-vis the brother who is rabbinically prohibited from marrying her, she is classified as a woman who is waiting for an invalid act of intercourse. Consequently, she may not partake of *teruma* until the consummation of the levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 58b:7
[Yevamot 58b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:7)

לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה לָא אָכְלָה מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּרַבָּנַן מִי אָמַר? וְאֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. הַשְׁתָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָכְלָה — דְּרַבָּנַן מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to whom** did Rabbi Yoḥanan make this statement? **If we say** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, say that Rabbi Meir said** that a woman who is **reserved for an invalid** act of **intercourse may not eat** *teruma* when the act of intercourse is prohibited **by Torah** law. However, if the act of intercourse is prohibited **by rabbinic** law, **did** Rabbi Meir actually **say** that the woman is disqualified from eating *teruma*? **Rather,** if we say it is **in accordance with** the opinions of **Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, now** that they hold that even a woman who is **reserved for intercourse prohibited by Torah** law **may partake of** *teruma*, **is it necessary** to state that she may partake of *teruma* if she is reserved for intercourse prohibited **by rabbinic** law**?**


###### Yevamot 58b:8
[Yevamot 58b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:8)

אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָכְלָה, יֵשׁ לוֹ אָח חָלָל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ גֵּט. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael **he said** an accurate version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: If a *yavam* who **performed levirate betrothal with his *yevama*** has a brother, **all agree** that the *yevama* **may partake** of *teruma*. If **he has a brother** who is **a *ḥalal*,** e.g., his mother was a divorcée and therefore unfit to marry his father, who was a priest, **all agree** that the *yevama* **may not partake** of *teruma*, as she is considered reserved for an invalid act of intercourse. **They disagreed only** in a case when **he gave her a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said she may partake of** *teruma*, as she is considered to have returned to her father’s house, while **Reish Lakish said** that **she may not partake of** *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 58b:9
[Yevamot 58b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:9)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אוֹכֶלֶת — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל דְּרַבָּנַן — אָכְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the two opinions: **Rabbi Yoḥanan said she may eat** *teruma* because **even according to Rabbi Meir, who said** in the mishna that **she may not partake** of *teruma*, **this applies only** when she is **waiting for intercourse** that is **invalid by Torah** law, **but** if the intercourse is prohibited **by rabbinic** law, **she may partake** of *teruma*. In this case, since they have not yet performed *ḥalitza*, the levirate bond still applies by Torah law, but they are prohibited by rabbinic law from consummating the levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 58b:10
[Yevamot 58b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:10)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת — אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמְרִי אוֹכֶלֶת, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאֵין לוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish said: She may not partake** of *teruma* **because even according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say** in the mishna that **she may partake** of *teruma*, **this applies only** to a case of betrothal, **as** a priest **can entitle** a woman **to partake** of *teruma* **in another case** via betrothal. **But here,** where he gave her a bill of divorce, **since he cannot entitle** a woman **to partake** of *teruma* **in** any **other case** by giving her a bill of divorce, **no.**


###### Yevamot 58b:11
[Yevamot 58b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחוֹזֶרֶת — חוֹזֶרֶת פָּסְקָה מִינֵּיהּ, וּקְרוֹבָה לְבֵי נָשָׁא, אֲבָל הָא אֲגִידָא בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And lest you say here too,** in the case of a bill of divorce, **he can entitle her to partake of** *teruma* **when she returns** to her father’s house, this case is different for the following reason: A woman **who returns** to her father’s house **has been severed from** her husband **and she is close to her** father’s **house [*bei nasha*],** and therefore she may once again partake of *teruma* on her father’s account. **However, this** *yevama* who has received a bill of divorce **is** still **bound to** her *yavam* until they perform *ḥalitza*, and she is therefore disqualified from eating *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 58b:12
[Yevamot 58b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/58b:12)

נִתְאַרְמְלוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ וְכוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה וּבָגְרָה תַּחְתָּיו,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that in the case of women who married priests despite the fact that they were unfit to do so, if **they were widowed or divorced** from that marriage, they are disqualified from eating *teruma*, but if they were widowed or divorced while they were only betrothed, they are fit to partake of *teruma*. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Shmuel:** In the case of **a High Priest who betrothed a minor and she matured under him,** i.e., while betrothed to him,