## Yevamot Daf 60a

###### Yevamot 60a:1
[Yevamot 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:1)

שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס בִּמְפוּתָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that he does not pay the fine of a seduced** woman. One who seduced a woman and does not wish to marry her must pay a fine (see Exodus 22:14–15). Since in this case he did marry her, he is not liable to pay the fine even though he is required to divorce her.


###### Yevamot 60a:2
[Yevamot 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:2)

אֲזַל רַב גְּבִיהָה מִבֵּי כָתִיל, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בּוֹגֶרֶת וּמוּכַּת עֵץ — לֹא יִשָּׂא, וְאִם נָשָׂא — נָשׂוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that when **Rav Geviha went from Bei Ketil he stated** this ***halakha* before Rav Ashi,** who **said to him: Isn’t it Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan who both say:** A High Priest **may not marry a grown woman and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally, but if he married** one of them **he is married?**


###### Yevamot 60a:3
[Yevamot 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:3)

אַלְמָא: סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת בּוֹגֶרֶת תַּחְתָּיו, סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת מוּכַּת עֵץ תַּחְתָּיו. הָכָא נָמֵי: סוֹפָהּ לִהְיוֹת בְּעוּלָה תַּחְתָּיו. קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently,** the reason for this *halakha* is that since **she will eventually be a grown woman under him,** i.e., while married to him, and **she will eventually be a woman whose hymen was torn under him,** as she will not remain a virgin, they are permitted to remain married after the fact. **Here too,** in the case of a High Priest who married a woman he raped or seduced, since **she will eventually be a non-virgin under him,** the *baraita* should be understood as stating that they may remain married. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is **difficult** for Rav Huna.


###### Yevamot 60a:4
[Yevamot 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:4)

אֲנוּסַת חֲבֵירוֹ וּמְפוּתַּת חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא יִשָּׂא. וְאִם נָשָׂא — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַוָּלָד חָלָל, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* cited above taught: With regard to a woman who was **raped by another** man **and** a woman **seduced by another** man, the High Priest **may not marry** her. **And if he married** her, **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says** that **the child** born from this union **is a *ḥalal*, and the Rabbis say** the lineage of **the offspring is unflawed. Rav Huna said** that **Rav said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. And, so too, Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.**


###### Yevamot 60a:5
[Yevamot 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:5)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of this statement. **Rav Huna said that Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? He holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman has thereby caused her to become a *zona*. Consequently, since the other man had intercourse with this woman outside of the context of marriage, she is a *zona*.


###### Yevamot 60a:6
[Yevamot 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:6)

וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָתֵיהּ? וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן: מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב קַב וְנָקִי. וְאִילּוּ בְּהָא אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Does** he really **hold in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? **Don’t we maintain** that **the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov** measures **a *kav* but is clean,** i.e., not many of his rulings have been recorded, but those that have been recorded are considered authoritative, and the *halakha* is always in accordance with his opinion? **However, with regard to this** ruling of Rabbi Elazar, **Rav Amram said that Rav said** that **the *halakha* is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.** The Gemara comments: This is indeed **difficult.**


###### Yevamot 60a:7
[Yevamot 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:7)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּיֵשׁ חָלָל מֵחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: יֵשׁ חָלָל מֵחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין חָלָל מֵחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** This is not the reason for the dispute. Rather, they **disagree with regard to whether there is a *ḥalal* from** a relationship for which the man and woman are **liable for** transgressing **a positive mitzva.** The marriage of a High Priest to a non-virgin is a violation of the mitzva that a High Priest marry a virgin, but it is not expressed in the Torah as a prohibition against a High Priest marrying a non-virgin. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds** that **there is a *ḥalal* from** a relationship for which the man and woman are **liable for** violating **a positive mitzva, and the Rabbis hold** that **there is no *ḥalal* from** a relationship for which the man and woman are **liable for** violating **a positive mitzva.**


###### Yevamot 60a:8
[Yevamot 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:8)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — דִּכְתִיב: ״אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״, אַכּוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? As it is written: “A widow, or one divorced, or a *ḥalala*, or a *zona*, these shall he not take; but a virgin** of his own people shall he take for a wife” (Leviticus 21:14), **and it states** subsequently: **“And he shall not profane his seed among his people”** (Leviticus 21:15). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains that this profanation is referring **to all of them,** i.e., he profanes his seed by marrying any woman unfit for him, including a non-virgin.


###### Yevamot 60a:9
[Yevamot 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:9)

וְרַבָּנַן: ״אֵלֶּה״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: ״אֵלֶּה״ לְמַעוֹטֵי נִדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** what do **the Sages** hold? The word **“these” concluded** discussion of **that matter.** Consequently, only the prohibitions listed before the phrase “these shall he not take” result in the offspring being a *ḥalal*. **And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said:** The word **“these”** comes **to exclude a menstruating woman.** If a priest has relations with a menstruating woman, the offspring is not a *ḥalal*, as this is not a prohibition specific to priests.


###### Yevamot 60a:10
[Yevamot 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:10)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: מֵ״אֵלֶּה״ אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה חָלָל, וְאִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה חָלָל מִנִּדָּה. כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, נִכְתְּבֵיהּ לְ״אֵלֶּה״ לְבַסּוֹף? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which is taught** in the following *baraita*: **From** the prohibitions preceding the phrase **“these** shall he not take” **you cause** your offspring to be **a *ḥalal*, but you do not cause** your offspring to be **a *ḥalal*** by having a child **with a menstruating woman. In accordance with whose** opinion is it? **It is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.** The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, let** the verse **write** the word **these at the end,** after stating that a High Priest must marry a virgin, in order to make it clear that if he marries a non-virgin their child is a *ḥalal*. The Gemara responds: Indeed, this is **difficult.**


###### Yevamot 60a:11
[Yevamot 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֲחוֹתוֹ אֲרוּסָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. אֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. וּמוּכַּת עֵץ — אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to a priest’s **betrothed sister, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He** must **become impure for her** upon her death. **Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: He** may **not become impure for her.** With regard to his sister who has been **raped or seduced, all agree** that **he may not become impure for her** upon her death. With regard to his sister **whose hymen was torn accidentally, he may not become impure for her;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon would say** the following principle: If his sister was **fit for a High Priest, he** must **become impure for her,** but if she was **not fit for a High Priest, he may not become impure for her.**


###### Yevamot 60a:12
[Yevamot 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:12)

וּבוֹגֶרֶת — מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, דִּבְרֵי כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if his sister was **a grown woman, he** must **become impure for her according to everyone.** Even those who hold that a High Priest may not marry a grown woman because her hymen is no longer whole agree that with regard to a priest becoming impure, she is considered a virgin and he must therefore become impure for her upon her death.


###### Yevamot 60a:13
[Yevamot 60a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:13)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — דְּדָרְשִׁי הָכִי: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה״ — פְּרָט לַאֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **What is the reason of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda? They expound** the verse **as follows:** “And for his virgin sister, who is near to him, who has had no man, for her must he defile himself” (Leviticus 21:3). **“And for his virgin sister” excludes** one who has been **raped or seduced,** as they are not virgins.


###### Yevamot 60a:14
[Yevamot 60a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:14)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף מוּכַּת עֵץ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ״. מִי שֶׁהֲוָיָיתָהּ עַל יְדֵי אִישׁ, יָצְאָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין הֲוָיָיתָהּ עַל יְדֵי אִישׁ. ״הַקְּרוֹבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת הָאֲרוּסָה. ״אֵלָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought **that I should exclude even a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally** via a foreign object. **The verse** therefore **states: “Who has had no man,”** to include only **one whose becoming** a non-virgin was caused **by a man,** i.e., through intercourse. **This** case of a woman **whose becoming** a non-virgin **was not** caused **by a man** but rather by an object is thereby **excluded** from the category of a non-virgin, and her brother does become impure for her. **“Who is near”;** this is **to include a betrothed** sister. **“To him”;** this is **to include a grown woman.**


###### Yevamot 60a:15
[Yevamot 60a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:15)

הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת בְּתוּלָה מַשְׁמַע! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״בְּתוּלָה״ ״בְּתוּלָה״ מֵהָתָם: מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי נַעֲרָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I need a verse** to include a grown woman? **Didn’t Rabbi Meir say** that the word **“virgin” indicates even** a woman who is **partly a virgin,** i.e., a grown woman, whose hymen is partially intact? Consequently, when the verse states that the priest becomes impure for his virgin sister, a grown woman is included. The Gemara answers: The derivation from the verse is **necessary,** as it might **enter your mind to say** that **we should derive** a verbal analogy from the word **“virgin”** in this context and the word **“virgin” from there,** the context of a High Priest: In the analogy, **just as there** the virgin referred to is **a young woman and not a grown woman, so too here** she must be **a young woman.** The verse therefore **teaches us** that a priest becomes impure for his sister even if she is a grown woman.


###### Yevamot 60a:16
[Yevamot 60a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/60a:16)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ — דָּרְשִׁי הָכִי: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה״ — פְּרָט לַאֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה וּמוּכַּת עֵץ, ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה״ — פְּרָט לַאֲרוּסָה, ״הַקְּרוֹבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֲרוּסָה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה, ״אֵלָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת. ״הַקְּרוֹבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֲרוּסָה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? They expound as follows: “And for his virgin sister” excludes** a woman who was **raped or seduced and a woman whose hymen was torn accidentally,** who is also not considered a virgin. **“Who has had no** man” **excludes a betrothed** sister, although she is not yet fully married. **“Who is near”;** this is **to include a betrothed** woman **who was** then **divorced,** as she is once again near to her brother. **“To him”;** this is **to include a grown woman.** The Gemara asks: Can the term **“who is near”** come **to include a betrothed** woman **who was divorced?**