## Yevamot Daf 68a

###### Yevamot 68a:1
[Yevamot 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:1)

דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בַּהֲוָיָה. וְאִי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הִיא — לֹא מַאֲכִיל לָהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּעוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as he acquired her by means of betrothal. And if she is an Israelite woman** betrothed **to a priest, he does not enable her to partake** of *teruma* **due to** the reason given by **Ulla:** Although by Torah law a priest’s betrothed partakes of *teruma*, the Sages rendered it prohibited for her to do so, lest she allow other members of her family to eat it.


###### Yevamot 68a:2
[Yevamot 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:2)

וְהַחֵרֵשׁ. אִי בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא — פָּסֵיל לַהּ, דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן. וְאִי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הִיא — לָא מַאֲכֵיל, ״קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר קִנְיָן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **also** taught in the mishna that **a deaf-mute** disqualifies a woman from partaking of *teruma* and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara elaborates: **If she is the daughter of a priest** married to a deaf-mute **Israelite, he disqualifies her, as he acquired her through** marriage sanctioned by **an ordinance of the Sages.** Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is invalid by Torah law, the Sages instituted an ordinance validating this type of marriage. **And if she is an Israelite woman** married **to** a deaf-mute **priest, he does not enable** her **to partake** of *teruma*, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“The purchase of his money,** he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11), **and this** deaf-mute **is not capable of acquisition** by Torah law, as he is not legally competent.


###### Yevamot 68a:3
[Yevamot 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:3)

וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם לְבֶן תֵּשַׁע וְיוֹם אֶחָד. לְמַאי? אִי לְמִיפְסַל — קָטָן נָמֵי מִיפְסָל פָּסֵיל, אִי לְאוֹכוֹלֵי — גָּדוֹל נָמֵי לֹא מַאֲכִיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is **also** taught in the mishna that **a nine-year-old** boy disqualifies a woman from partaking of *teruma* and does not enable her to partake. **It enters our mind** that the mishna is referring **to a widow waiting for her *yavam*,** who is **nine** years **and one day old.** The Gemara therefore inquires: With regard **to what** is this taught? **If** it is with regard **to disqualifying** her from partaking of *teruma*, **a younger** *yavam* **also disqualifies** her, as a levirate bond was created and she cannot return to her father’s house. And **if** it was with regard **to enabling** her **to partake** of *teruma*, **an older** *yavam* **does not enable** her **to partake either,** as discussed above.


###### Yevamot 68a:4
[Yevamot 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּיָבָם בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ עָסְקִינַן. דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ וּבִיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה, אֵימָא לוֹכֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּמַאֲמָר בְּגָדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a nine-year-and-one-day-old *yavam* who** already **engaged in intercourse with his *yevama*, as she was** thereby **acquired by him by Torah** law. It might **enter your mind to say** that **since by Torah** law **she was acquired by him, as** the legal status of **his** act of **intercourse is** that of **intercourse,** perhaps **he enables** her **to partake** of *teruma*. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that the Sages **rendered the** legal status of the **intercourse of a nine-year-and-one-day-old** boy **like** that of **levirate betrothal** by means of money or a document performed **by an adult man,** which is not sufficient for her to partake of *teruma*. Since levirate betrothal is effective only by rabbinic law, the *yevama* is not considered the acquisition of his money by Torah law and may not partake of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 68a:5
[Yevamot 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: סָפֵק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ — הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי בֶּן תֵּשַׁע לֹא מַאֲכִיל, סָפֵק מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: If so,** consider **the latter clause** of the mishna, **which teaches** that a boy with regard to whom there is **uncertainty** whether **he is nine years and one day old** and **uncertainty** whether **he is not,** disqualifies a woman from partaking of *teruma*, and he does not enable her to partake. **Now** that, according to your explanation, one who is **definitely nine** years **old does not enable** her **to partake** of *teruma*, **is** it **necessary** to teach the same concerning a boy with regard to whom there is **uncertainty** as to whether or not he reached that age?


###### Yevamot 68a:6
[Yevamot 68a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד דְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלִים קָתָנֵי, דְּפָסְלִי בְּבִיאָתָן. וְכִדְתַנְיָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, גֵּר, עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי, נָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל כֹּהֶנֶת לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית — פְּסָלוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that the mishna **is teaching** this *halakha* **with regard to a nine-year-and-one-day-old** boy who is one **of those unfit** males listed in a *baraita*, **who disqualify** a woman from marrying a priest **by their intercourse,** as they are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **A nine-year-and-one-day-old** boy who is **an Ammonite or a Moabite convert;** or who is **an Egyptian or an Edomite** convert; or who is either **a Samaritan [*kuti*], a Gibeonite, a *ḥalal*, or a *mamzer*,** when he **engaged in intercourse with a priestess,** i.e., the daughter of a priest, **a Levite, or an Israelite,** he thereby **disqualified her** from marrying a priest, and, in the case of the daughter of a priest, from partaking of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 68a:7
[Yevamot 68a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:7)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִן לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִים, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בִּפְסוּלִים עָסְקִינַן! רֵישָׁא פְּסוּלֵי קָהָל, סֵיפָא פְּסוּלֵי כְהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty **from** the fact **that the latter clause,** the next mishna (69a), **teaches** that **if** men who **are unfit to enter** the assembly of **Israel** by marriage engage in extramarital intercourse with women, **they disqualify** them from marrying into the priesthood: **It may be inferred that** in **the first clause,** the mishna above, **we are dealing not with unfit** individuals but with men fit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage. The Gemara answers: That inference is incorrect. **The first clause** of the mishna is dealing with those **unfit to** enter **the assembly** of Israel by marriage, while **the latter clause** is dealing with those who are merely **unfit for** the **priesthood.** That is why the mishna is referring to them separately. Accordingly, Rava’s explanation that the mishna is referring to an unfit nine-year-old boy is viable.


###### Yevamot 68a:8
[Yevamot 68a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:8)

גּוּפָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, גֵּר, עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי, נָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל כֹּהֶנֶת לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית — פְּסָלוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara addresses the matter **itself** and cites the complete *baraita*. **A nine-year-and-one-day-old** boy who is **an Ammonite or a Moabite convert;** or who is **an Egyptian or an Edomite** convert; or who is either **a Samaritan, a Gibeonite, a *ḥalal*, or a *mamzer*,** when he **engaged in intercourse with a priestess,** or **a Levite, or an Israelite,** he thereby **disqualified her** from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 68a:9
[Yevamot 68a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:9)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says:** Of the individuals mentioned above, **anyone whose offspring is unfit** to enter the assembly of Israel, **disqualifies** a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. However, **anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify** a woman through intercourse. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow,** even if you are a priest. Anyone whose daughter may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage does not disqualify a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. **And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow** if you are a priest.


###### Yevamot 68a:10
[Yevamot 68a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:10)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ — פְּסָלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of *teruma* and marry a priest? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: The verse states: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man [*ish zar*],** she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred” (Leviticus 22:12). It may be derived that **since she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualified her** from marrying into the priesthood, as the literal meaning of the expression *ish zar* is a man who is excluded.


###### Yevamot 68a:11
[Yevamot 68a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:11)

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא בַּת כֹּהֵן דְּמִינַּסְבָא לְזָר — לָא תֵּיכוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **That** verse **is necessary** to teach the *halakha* **that the Merciful One says: The daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest,** even one that she is permitted to marry, **may not partake** of *teruma*. Therefore, it cannot be the source for the *halakha* that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of *teruma* and marry a priest.


###### Yevamot 68a:12
[Yevamot 68a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:12)

הָהִיא, מִ״וְּשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל״ נָפְקָא. מִדְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ ... תֹּאכֵל״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא אָכְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** prohibition **is derived from** the verse “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, **and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (**Leviticus 22:13). **From the fact that the Merciful One says: “And is returned to her father’s house…she may eat,” it may be inferred that initially,** while married to a non-priest, **she** was **not** permitted to **eat.** Therefore, the prohibition against a woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man partaking of *teruma* may be derived from the former verse, as it is not necessary for this *halakha*.


###### Yevamot 68a:13
[Yevamot 68a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/68a:13)

אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הַאי לְלָאו. [לָאו] מִ״וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this answer: **If** the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest partaking of *teruma* had been derived only **from that** latter verse, **I would have said** that it is a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, as it is stated in positive form, and according to the principle that **a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is a positive mitzva,** she would not be liable to receive a court-imposed punishment. **The Merciful One** therefore **writes that** former verse, **to** establish an explicit **prohibition.** The Gemara counters: The **prohibition** against the wife of a non-priest partaking of *teruma* **is derived from** a different verse: **“No common man may eat of the sacred”** (Leviticus 22:10).