## Yevamot Daf 68b

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

הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! תְּרֵי ״וְכׇל זָר״ כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this assertion: **That** verse **is necessary to** teach **its own** basic *halakha*, that a non-priest is prohibited from partaking of *teruma*. The Gemara responds: **Two** prohibitions with regard to **a “common man” are written,** one in the verse previously cited and the other in Leviticus 22:13: “But there shall no common man eat of it.” One of them prohibits a non-priest from partaking of *teruma*, while the other is referring to the daughter of a priest married to a non-priest.


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

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: ״וְכׇל זָר״ — זָרוּת אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא אֲנִינוּת! דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִן ״זָר״ ״וְכׇל זָר״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: One of these verses **is still necessary to** teach another *halakha* **that** is taught **by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said** that the phrase **“no common man”** indicates that **I,** God, **said to you** that **commonness,** i.e., non-priesthood, renders one unfit to partake of *teruma*, **but acute mourning,** i.e., mourning on the day when one’s close relative died, does **not** render one unfit to eat *teruma*. The Gemara answers: This teaching **of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, is derived from** a superfluous word in the verse, as it could have stated: **A common man** may not eat of the holy thing, and it actually states: **“No common man.”**


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

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת — חוֹזֶרֶת לִתְרוּמָה וְאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: מַאי קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״ — לֹא תֹּאכַל בַּמּוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The verse “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man” (Leviticus 22:12), from which Rav derived the *halakha* being discussed, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of *teruma* and marry a priest, **is still necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **When** a priest’s daughter **returns** to her father’s house after the death of her Israelite husband, **she resumes** partaking of ***teruma*, but she does not resume** partaking of the **breast and** the right **hind leg** of sacrificial offerings. **And Rav Ḥisda said** that **Ravina, son of Rav Sheila, said: What is the verse** from which this is derived? **As it is written: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred”** (Leviticus 22:12). This implies that even after her husband’s death, **she may not partake of the** portion **separated from consecrated** offerings. Therefore, the verse cannot be the source for the above *halakha*.


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

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״הִיא בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכַל״. מַאי ״בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if this is the only *halakha* derived from this verse, **let the verse** merely **write: She may not eat of the sacred. What is** the significance of the seemingly superfluous expression **“that which is set apart from the sacred”? Conclude from this** that the prohibition is referring to **two** deeds: The daughter of a priest who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man may not partake of *teruma*, and if she weds a non-priest she may not partake of the priestly portion of offerings, the breast and right hind leg.


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

אַשְׁכְּחַן כֹּהֶנֶת — לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית מְנָלַן? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב — ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״, הָכָא נָמֵי — ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for **a priestess; from where do we** derive the same *halakha* with regard to **a Levite or an Israelite** woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man, i.e., that they do not partake of *teruma* even if they marry a priest? The Gemara answers that it is **as Rabbi Abba** said that **Rav said:** The verse states: **“But** if a priest’s **daughter** be a widow, or divorced” (Leviticus 22:13). It could have begun: If a priest’s **daughter.** The word “but,” the prefix *vav*, is seemingly superfluous, and therefore it may indicate the expansion of the prohibition to include additional women. **Here too,** it may be derived from the distinction between the phrase: If a priest’s **daughter,** and the phrase: **“And** if a priest’s **daughter,”** which utilizes the prefix *vav*, that Levite and Israelite women are subject to the prohibition as well.


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

כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּדָרֵישׁ וָוִין? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כּוּלֵּיהּ ״וּבַת״ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this exposition possible? It is **in accordance** only **with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, as** he **derives** *halakhot* from the prefix ***vav*,** which means “and” or “but.” The Gemara responds: **Even** if **you say** it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** who do not derive *halakhot* from the prefix *vav*, **the entire** phrase: **“And** if a priest’s **daughter,” is superfluous** in the **verse,** as the previous verse already mentioned the priest’s daughter. Therefore, the inclusion of Levite and Israelite women in the prohibition may be derived from the entire expression.


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

אַשְׁכְּחַן לִתְרוּמָה, לִכְהוּנָּה מְנָלַן? אַטּוּ לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית לָא לִכְהוּנָּה מְרַבֵּינַן לְהוּ? דְּאִי לִתְרוּמָה, בְּנוֹת מֵיכַל תְּרוּמָה נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the woman’s disqualification from partaking of ***teruma*; from where do we** derive that she is disqualified **from** marrying into the **priesthood?** The Gemara counters: **Is that to say** that **we did not include a Levite and an Israelite woman** in the verse “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, etc.” (Leviticus 22:13), with regard to their marriage **to** a member of **the priesthood?** The derivation that a Levite and an Israelite woman are included in this verse was clearly with regard to their marriage to a priest; **as if** the inclusion was with regard **to *teruma*, are** these women **fit to partake of *teruma*** at all, regardless of their having engaged in intercourse with an unfit man? Clearly, their inclusion pertains to their marriage to a priest and their partaking of *teruma* as his wife.


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

אַלְּמָה לָא, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּקָאָכְלָה בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this assertion: **Why not?** Why can’t the inclusion be referring to the partaking of *teruma* exclusively? **You find that** possibility **when she partakes** of *teruma* **due to her son.** If an Israelite woman has a son from a priest, she may partake of *teruma*. Therefore, it is necessary to include a Levite or Israelite woman in the prohibition against partaking of *teruma* if she engaged in intercourse with an unfit man.


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

בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כֹּהֶנֶת, דְּבִקְדוּשָּׁה דְנַפְשַׁהּ אָכְלָה — פָּסֵיל לָהּ, לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית, דְּלָא אָכְלָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The *halakha* that this woman does not partake of *teruma* **due to her son is** deduced through **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If a priestess, who partakes** of *teruma* **by** virtue of **her own sanctity, is disqualified** from partaking of *teruma* by an unfit man who engaged in intercourse with her, then with regard to **a Levite or Israelite woman, who partakes** of *teruma* **only due to her son,** is it **not all the more so** that it should be prohibited for her to partake of *teruma* after this act?


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

וְהִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: כֹּהֶנֶת דְּקַדִּישׁ גּוּפַהּ — פָּסֵיל לַהּ, הָא, דְּלָא קַדִּישׁ גּוּפַהּ — לָא פָּסֵיל לַהּ. אֶלָּא לִכְהוּנָּה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִגְּרוּשָׁה: וּמָה גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת בִּתְרוּמָה — אֲסוּרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, זוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בִּתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁפְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that response: **But that provides** support for the contrary reasoning. It is logical that **a priestess, who is herself sacred, is disqualified** by intercourse with an unfit man. However, with regard to **this** woman, **who is not sacred herself,** and who eats *teruma* only due to her son, intercourse with an unfit man should **not disqualify her. Rather,** the prohibition against these women marrying **into the priesthood** is derived by **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a divorcée: If a divorcée** who is the daughter of a priest, **who is permitted to** partake of ***teruma*, is** nevertheless **prohibited** from marrying **into the priesthood,** as is written in the Torah (Leviticus 21:7), then with regard to **this** woman, for **whom** it **is prohibited to** partake of ***teruma*, is it not right that** she should be **disqualified** from marrying **into the priesthood?**


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

וְכִי מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין? גִּלּוּי מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to that inference: **But do we warn,** i.e., do we deduce a prohibition through **logical derivation?** The Gemara answers: This is not a new prohibition; rather, **it is merely a revelation** of the above prohibition’s scope. In other words, the prohibition against marrying a priest is subsumed under the prohibition against partaking of *teruma*.


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

וְאֵימָא נִבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ — חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, ״כִּי תִהְיֶה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: הָנָךְ דְּאִית בְּהוּ הֲוָיָה. חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת לָאו בְּנֵי הֲוָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Now that the source has been established, the Gemara asks: **And** perhaps you should **say** that this *halakha* pertaining to a woman who **engaged in intercourse with** a man **unfit for her** applies only to **those liable to receive *karet*** for their act of intercourse, but not to intercourse with a man who is unfit to marry into the assembly of Israel. The Gemara answers that **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“If** a priest’s daughter **be married”** (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that this *halakha* is referring to **those who** can **have** a valid **marriage,** while **those liable to receive *karet*** for their act of intercourse **are not fit for marriage.**


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

אִי הָכִי, גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד לָא לִיפְסְלוּ! הָנָךְ פָּסְלִי מִדְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִנַּיִן לְגוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כֹּהֶנֶת וּלְוִיָּה, שֶׁפְּסָלוּהָ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְגוֹ׳״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, a gentile or a slave** who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman **should not have disqualified** her from marrying into the priesthood, as they cannot marry her. The Gemara answers: **These disqualify** her, **as** derived **by Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where** is it derived with regard **to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, or with a priestess, or a Levite woman, that they have disqualified her? As it is stated: “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).