## Yevamot Daf 69a

###### Yevamot 69a:1
[Yevamot 69a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:1)

מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, יָצְאוּ גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This verse is referring to a man **who has** potential **widowhood and divorce with her, excluding a gentile and a slave, who do not have widowhood and divorce** with her, as they cannot marry Jews at all. Therefore, they disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood through sexual intercourse, even if she does not have a child with them.


###### Yevamot 69a:2
[Yevamot 69a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We have found** a source for the *halakha* that a gentile and a slave disqualify **a priestess. From where do we** derive this with regard to **a Levite and an Israelite woman?** The Gemara answers: It is **as Rabbi Abba** said that **Rav said:** The verse **“But** if a priest’s **daughter** be a widow, or divorced” (Leviticus 22:13) could have begun with the words: If a priest’s **daughter.** The word “but,” the prefix *vav*, expands 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 as it actually appears in the verse: **“But** if a priest’s **daughter,”** that Levite and Israelite women are subject to the prohibition as well.


###### Yevamot 69a:3
[Yevamot 69a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:3)

כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּדָרֵישׁ וָוֵי? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן — כּוּלֵּהּ ״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*.** The Gemara responds: **Even** if **you say** it is accordance with **the Rabbis, the entire** phrase: **“But** if a priest’s **daughter,” is superfluous** in the **verse,** as the previous verses had 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 69a:4
[Yevamot 69a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:4)

וְאֵימָא: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, כִּי לֵית לֵיהּ זֶרַע — קָאָכְלָה, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ זֶרַע — לָא אָכְלָה. מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַלְמְנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין בָּהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ זֶרַע נָמֵי תֵּיכוֹל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But** perhaps you should **say** a different interpretation of the mention of widowhood and divorce in the verse: In the case of **one who has** potential **widowhood and divorce with her, if he does not have offspring** from her **she may partake** of *teruma* upon her widowhood or divorce, whereas **if he does have offspring** from her **she does not partake.** However, in the case of **one who does not have widowhood and divorce with her, even if she has offspring** from him, **she should** be allowed to **partake** of *teruma*, as the offspring is not considered his.


###### Yevamot 69a:5
[Yevamot 69a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:5)

אִם כֵּן, רַבּוֹיֵי לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so, why do I** need to **include a Levite and an Israelite woman?** If the daughter of a priest is not disqualified from *teruma* due to intercourse with a gentile or slave, certainly a Levite or Israelite woman is not. The fact that the verse indicates inclusion of Levite and Israelite women proves that the *halakha* that is derived from it is a stringency and not a leniency.


###### Yevamot 69a:6
[Yevamot 69a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:6)

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וּמַאי ״כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״ — כִּי תִּיבָּעֵל, אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said** that **betrothal of those** who may not engage in intercourse, as they are **liable for** violating **a prohibition, does not take effect, and** therefore the meaning of the phrase **“And if** a priest’s daughter **be [*tihye*] to a common man”** (Leviticus 22:12) is not: If she marries him, but rather: **If she engages in intercourse** with him, **why do I** need the Torah to mention the phrase **“a widow, or divorced”** in the verse: “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced…she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13)? It is not necessary for this phrase to teach that a gentile and a slave disqualify a woman from marrying into the priesthood through sexual intercourse, as suggested by Rabbi Yishmael, as they are included in the prohibition proscribing a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man who is unfit for her.


###### Yevamot 69a:7
[Yevamot 69a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:7)

אַלְמָנָה לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ, וּגְרוּשָׁה לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ. וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אַלְמָנָה: אַלְמָנָה הוּא דְּכִי לֵית לַהּ זֶרַע — אָכְלָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּחַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה. אֲבָל גְּרוּשָׁה, דְּלָא חַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה, אֵימָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לַהּ זֶרַע — לָא אָכְלָה. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גְּרוּשָׁה: גְּרוּשָׁה הוּא דְּכִי אִית לַהּ זֶרַע — לָא אָכְלָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה. אֲבָל אַלְמָנָה, דְּחַזְיָא לִכְהוּנָּה, אֵימָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לַהּ זֶרַע — נָמֵי תֵּיכוֹל, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A widow** is mentioned **to be stringent with her, and a divorcée to be lenient with her, and** both **are necessary. As, had** the Torah **taught us** only the case of **a widow,** you might have assumed that **specifically** if this daughter of a priest is **a widow** she **partakes** of *teruma* **when she does not have offspring because she is fit for the priesthood,** as she may marry a common priest, **but** with regard to **a divorcée, who is not fit for the priesthood** at all, you might **say** that **even if she does not have offspring she does not partake** of *teruma*. **And had it taught us** only the case of **a divorcée,** you might have assumed that only **a divorcée does not partake** of *teruma* **when she has offspring** from a non-priest **because she is not fit for the priesthood, but** with regard to **a widow, who is fit for the priesthood,** you might **say** that **even if she has offspring she should also partake** of *teruma*. It is therefore **necessary** for both cases to be stated.


###### Yevamot 69a:8
[Yevamot 69a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:8)

וְאֵימָא נִבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ אַף מַחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ! ״לְאִישׁ זָר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מִי שֶׁזָּר אֶצְלָהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא. לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי, דְּלֹא זָר אֶצְלָהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** perhaps you should **say** that the category of a woman **who engaged in intercourse with** a man who is **unfit for her** and is therefore disqualified from the priesthood applies **even** to the case of a man **remarrying his divorcée** after she had been married to another man in the meantime, which is prohibited. The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“To a common man [*ish zar*],”** literally, a man who is a stranger, “she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred.” The Gemara understands the notion of a stranger to be one whom she was forbidden to marry and interprets homiletically: Only marriage to one **who was a stranger,** i.e., forbidden, **to her from the outset** precludes her from partaking of *teruma*, **to the exclusion of one who was not a stranger to her from the outset,** such as her ex-husband.


###### Yevamot 69a:9
[Yevamot 69a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:9)

אִי הָכִי, חָלָל, דְּלָאו זָר הוּא מֵעִיקָּרָא, לָא לִפְסוֹל! אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו״, מַקִּישׁ זַרְעוֹ לוֹ, מָה הוּא פּוֹסֵל — אַף זַרְעוֹ נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, a *ḥalal*, who was not excluded at the outset,** as he may marry even the daughter of a priest, **should not disqualify** a woman from marrying into the priesthood. The Gemara answers that **the verse states,** with regard to a priest who marries a woman unfit for the priesthood: **“He shall not profane his seed among his people”** (Leviticus 21:15), thereby **juxtaposing his seed to him. Just as he,** a priest who married a woman forbidden to him, **disqualifies** her from the priesthood, **so too, his seed,** the *ḥalal*, **also disqualifies** a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse.


###### Yevamot 69a:10
[Yevamot 69a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:10)

וְאֵימָא מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה! דּוּמְיָא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה בְּבִיאָה, אַף הַאי נָמֵי בְּבִיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** perhaps you should **say** that a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man unfit for her is disqualified **from the time of** their **betrothal,** even before they engaged in intercourse. The Gemara answers that this is **similar to a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow: Just as a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow** has disqualified her **through intercourse,** not betrothal, **so too, this** unfit man has **also** disqualified her **through intercourse.**


###### Yevamot 69a:11
[Yevamot 69a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:11)

וְאֵימָא: עַד דְּאִיכָּא הֲוָיָה וּבִיאָה?! דּוּמְיָא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה בְּבִיאָה לְחוּדַּהּ, אַף הַאי נָמֵי בְּבִיאָה לְחוּדַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** perhaps you should **say** that he does not disqualify her **until there is** both **betrothal and intercourse.** The Gemara again answers that this is **similar to a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow: Just as a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow** disqualifies her **through intercourse alone, so too, this** man **also** disqualified her **through intercourse alone.**


###### Yevamot 69a:12
[Yevamot 69a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:12)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the *baraita* under discussion (68a) that **Rabbi Yosei says:** Of the men unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, **anyone whose offspring are** also **unfit disqualifies** a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from the priesthood. However, **anyone whose offspring are not unfit does not disqualify** her. The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between the first *tanna*** of the *baraita* **and Rabbi Yosei?**


###### Yevamot 69a:13
[Yevamot 69a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי וַאֲדוֹמִי שֵׁנִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The practical difference **between them** pertains to **a second-**generation **Egyptian and a second-**generation **Edomite.** The children of these men, i.e., the third generation, may marry Jews of unflawed lineage. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosei, they too do not disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse with them. The first *tanna*, however, holds that they have the same status as a first-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, in that they disqualify a woman from the priesthood through intercourse.


###### Yevamot 69a:14
[Yevamot 69a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:14)

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה, שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בַּעֲבֵירָה וּפוֹסֵל — אַף הַאי נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And both** *tanna’im* **derived** their respective opinions **only from** the case of **a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow,** although they reached different conclusions. **The first *tanna* reasoned: Just as** with regard to **a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow, his** act of **intercourse** with her **is a transgression, and** therefore **he disqualifies** her from the priesthood, **so too, this** man, a second-generation Egyptian or Edomite, **also disqualifies** her.


###### Yevamot 69a:15
[Yevamot 69a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:15)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל. לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי דְּאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל. דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei** also **reasoned:** This is **like a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse with a widow. **Just as** the **High Priest’s children are unfit** for the priesthood, **and he** himself **disqualifies** the widow from marrying into the priesthood, **so too, any** man **whose children are unfit** to marry Jews of unflawed lineage **disqualifies** a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. This inference comes **to exclude a second-**generation **Egyptian, whose children are not unfit, as it is written: “The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the assembly of the Lord”** (Deuteronomy 23:9).


###### Yevamot 69a:16
[Yevamot 69a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:16)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is taught in the *baraita* under discussion that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow;** anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow. The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between Rabbi Yosei and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?** They appear to be stating the same principle, that a man disqualifies a woman from the priesthood only if his children are unfit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage as well.


###### Yevamot 69a:17
[Yevamot 69a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:17)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא לְמָדוּהָ אֶלָּא מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** The practical difference **between them** is in the case of **an Ammonite and a Moabite convert. And both of them derived** their respective opinions **from none other than** the case of **a High Priest with a widow. Rabbi Yosei reasoned: Just as** with regard to **a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow, his children are unfit** for the priesthood **and** he himself **disqualifies** the widow, **so too, any** man **whose children are unfit disqualifies** a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse.


###### Yevamot 69a:18
[Yevamot 69a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:18)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: מָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה שֶׁכׇּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, אַף שֶׁכׇּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל. לְאַפּוֹקֵי עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, דְּאֵין כָּל זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל. דְּאָמַר מָר: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית, ״מוֹאָבִי״ וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel reasoned: Just as** in the case of **a High Priest** who engaged in intercourse **with a widow, where all of his children** from her **are unfit** for the priesthood **and he disqualifies** her as well, **so too,** in the case of a man **all of whose children are unfit, he disqualifies** a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse. This is **to the exclusion of an Ammonite or a Moabite** convert, **as not all of his children are unfit** to marry Jews of unflawed lineage, **as the Master said: An Ammonite man** is unfit to enter the assembly **but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man** is unfit **but not a Moabite woman.** Since only the sons of an Ammonite or Moabite convert are unfit, they do not disqualify a woman with whom they engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 69a:19
[Yevamot 69a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69a:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה — לֹא פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין. וְאִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין. כֵּיצַד? (הָיָה) יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who rapes** a woman without marrying her; **or one who seduces** a woman without marrying her; **or an imbecile** who engages in intercourse with a woman, even if he did marry her, if they are non-priests **they do not disqualify** the daughter of a priest from partaking of *teruma*, **and** if they are priests **they do not enable** an Israelite woman **to partake** of *teruma*. **And if they are not fit to enter** the assembly of **Israel** through marriage, **they disqualify** the daughter of a priest from partaking of *teruma*. **How so?** If **it was an Israelite who engaged in** extramarital **intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of *teruma*,** as this act of intercourse does not disqualify her.