## Yevamot Daf 69b

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

עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. נֶחְתַּךְ הָעוּבָּר בְּמֵעֶיהָ — תֹּאכַל. הָיָה כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל. יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. נִמְצָא כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן גָּדוֹל מִשֶּׁל אָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he impregnated her, she may not partake of *teruma*,** as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If **the fetus was cut in her womb,** i.e., she miscarried, **she may partake** of *teruma*. If the man **was a priest who engaged in** intercourse **with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of *teruma*.** If **he impregnated her, she** still **may not partake** of *teruma*, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If **she gave birth she may partake** due to her child, a priest. It is therefore **found** in this case that **the power of the son is greater than** that **of the father,** as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of *teruma*, but the son does.


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

הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה, וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם זֶרַע. כֵּיצַד? בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן, וְהָלַךְ הַבֵּן וְנִכְבַּשׁ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד. הָיְתָה אֵם אָבִיו בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A slave disqualifies** a woman from partaking of *teruma* **due to** his engaging in **intercourse** with her, **and he does not disqualify** a woman **because** he is her **offspring. How so?** In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If **an Israelite woman** was married **to a priest,** or **the daughter of a priest** was married **to an Israelite; and she bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant,** an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; **and she bore him a son,** then **this** son **is a slave.** If the latter’s **father’s mother was an Israelite** who was married **to a priest,** and her husband died, **she may not partake of *teruma*** due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if **she was the daughter of a priest** married **to an Israelite,** and he died, leaving only this grandson, **she may partake of *teruma*,** as the grandson is not considered his father’s offspring.


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

מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. כֵּיצַד? בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַּת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִישֵּׂאת לְעֶבֶד אוֹ לְגוֹי וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה מַמְזֵר. הָיְתָה אֵם אִמּוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *mamzer* disqualifies** a woman from partaking of *teruma*, **and** he also **enables** a woman **to partake** of *teruma*. **How so?** If **an Israelite woman** was married **to a priest, or the daughter of a priest** was married **to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this** son **is a *mamzer*.** If **his mother’s mother was an Israelite woman** married **to a priest,** even if her husband died, **she may partake of *teruma*,** as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is **the daughter of a priest** married **to an Israelite, she may not partake of *teruma*,** even after her Israelite husband’s death, as she has offspring from him.


###### Yevamot 69b:4
[Yevamot 69b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/69b:4)

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל. כֵּיצַד? בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַּת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִיסֵּת לַכֹּהֵן, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאֲכִיל אֶת אִמּוֹ, וּפוֹסֵל אֵם אִמּוֹ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: לֹא כִּבְנִי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Even with regard to **a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies** his grandmother from partaking of *teruma*. **How so?** If **the daughter of a priest** was married **to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this** son **is fit to be a High Priest,** who **stands and serves on the altar.** This son **enables his mother to partake** of *teruma*, as he is a priest. **And** yet, **he disqualifies his mother’s mother** from partaking of *teruma*, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. **This** grandmother can **say** in disapproval: Let there **not** be many **like my** daughter’s **son,** the **High Priest, as he disqualifies me from** partaking of ***teruma*.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים, וּמֵתוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן — פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **We** already **learned that** the marriage of an imbecile is invalid, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **an imbecile and a minor boy who married women and died, their wives are exempt from *ḥalitza* and from levirate marriage.**


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

כֵּיצַד? הָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל. כֵּיוָן דְּעִיבְּרָה לֹא תֹּאכַל? לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא עִיבְּרָה! מִי לָא תְּנַן: מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁמָּא מְעוּבָּרוֹת הֵן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna: **How so? If an Israelite engaged in** extramarital **intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of *teruma*.** If **he impregnated her, she may not partake** of *teruma*. The Gemara asks: **Since** if **he impregnated her she may not partake, let us be concerned** in any case of intercourse between an Israelite and the daughter of a priest **lest he impregnated her,** thereby rendering it prohibited for her to partake of *teruma*. **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna that if two men betrothed two women, and then at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, they accidently switched wives, and engaged in relations with each other’s wives that night, in this case, after the accident is discovered, the court **removes** the wives from their husbands **for three months, lest they are pregnant** from the men they presumed to be their husbands and the fetus is therefore a *mamzer*, although they engaged in intercourse only once (33b)?


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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לְיוּחֲסִין חָשְׁשׁוּ, לִתְרוּמָה לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ. וְלִתְרוּמָה לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם לְמִיתָתִי״ — אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About lineage** the Sages **were concerned,** and they therefore decreed a three-month separation of the husbands and wives, to prevent the possibility of a child being of uncertain lineage. However, **about** the prohibition against a non-priest eating ***teruma* they were not concerned.** The Gemara asks: **And for *teruma* were they not concerned? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if a husband says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce one hour before my death,** if she is an Israelite woman married to a priest **it is prohibited for her to partake of *teruma* immediately,** as the Sages were concerned that her husband might die within the hour?


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בְּנִישּׂוּאִין חָשְׁשׁוּ, בִּזְנוּת לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About** impregnation through an act of **marriage they were concerned,** but **about** impregnation through **licentious intercourse they were not concerned,** as the woman generally takes precautions to ensure that she will not become pregnant.


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

וּבְנִישּׂוּאִין מִי חָשְׁשׁוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וָמֵת — טוֹבֶלֶת, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לְעָרֵב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And about marriage were they concerned? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and** her husband **died** on that same day, **she immerses** to purify herself, as she is ritually impure due to their intercourse, **and she may partake of *teruma* that** same **evening?** Evidently, the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant from the initial act of intercourse, even that of marriage.


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: טוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת עַד אַרְבָּעִים, דְּאִי לָא מִיעַבְּרָא — הָא לָא מִיעַבְּרָא, וְאִי מִיעַבְּרָא — עַד אַרְבָּעִים מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: She immerses and partakes** of *teruma* only **until forty** days after her husband’s death, when there is still no reason for concern, **as if she is not pregnant** then **she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty** days from conception the fetus **is merely water.** It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of *teruma*.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ — תְּהֵא מְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמַפְרֵעַ. מַאי מְקוּלְקֶלֶת — עַד אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: If so, say the latter clause** of the *baraita*: Once **her fetus in her womb is noticeable,** she **is ruined retroactively.** Her prior consumption of *teruma* is retroactively prohibited. Evidently, pregnancy immediately disqualifies her from partaking of *teruma*. Therefore, the reason that she may partake of *teruma* immediately after her husband’s death is that the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant. Rav Ḥisda responded: **What is** the period in which she is retroactively **ruined?** It is from the moment the fetus is noticeable and back in time **until forty** days from the beginning of her pregnancy. During the first forty days of the pregnancy, she is not retroactively ruined, as the fetus is not yet considered a living being.


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

אִיתְּמַר: הַבָּא עַל אֲרוּסָתוֹ בְּבֵית חָמִיו — רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא, אֲבָל לָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא — בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated:** With regard to a man **who engaged in intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house,** i.e., before they got married, **Rav said** that **the offspring is a *mamzer*,** as the future husband is not considered his father. **And Shmuel said** that **the offspring is a *shetuki*,** a child of unknown paternity. **Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason** in a case **where she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others. However,** if **she is not rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others, we cast** the child **after him,** i.e., we assume that the child is the betrothed’s son.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּקָתָנֵי: יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא, יָלְדָה אַמַּאי תֹּאכַל? אֶלָּא לָאו: מִינֵיהּ דָּיְימָא, וְלָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where do I say that?** What is the source for my assertion? The source is the mishna, which **teaches** that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she **gave birth, she may partake** of *teruma* due to her child, who is a priest. **What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others,** even if **she gave birth, why may she partake** of *teruma*? Shouldn’t there be concern that the child’s father is not the priest? **Rather, is it not** a case where **she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with him and is not rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others?**


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

וּמָה הָתָם, דִּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא וּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא — בָּתְרָא דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, הָכָא, דִּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא וּלְהַאי הֶיתֵּירָא — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if there,** in the case of the mishna, **where** for her **to** engage in intercourse with **this** priest is **a prohibition, and to** engage in intercourse with **that** non-priest, with whom she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse, is **a prohibition** of the same degree, nevertheless, **we cast** the child **after** the priest, then **here, where** for her **to** engage in intercourse with **that** man who is not her betrothed is a Torah **prohibition, and to** engage in intercourse with **this** man, her betrothed, **is permitted** by Torah law, is it **not all the more so** that her betrothed should be considered the father? Therefore, Rav’s statement stands to reason only if the woman is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּדָיְימָא מִינֵּיהּ אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא אָמַר רַב הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּאָמְרִינַן: מִדְּאַפְקַרָא נַפְשָׁהּ לְגַבֵּי אָרוּס — אַפְקַרָא נַפְשָׁהּ לְעָלְמָא, וּמַתְנִיתִין שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם חֲבוּשִׁים בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him** in rejection of his proof: **Actually, I** could **say to you** that **anywhere that she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with him,** her betrothed, **even if she is not rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others, Rav said** that **the offspring is a *mamzer*. What is the reason?** It is **that we say** that **since she exposed herself to her betrothed,** although they were not married yet, **she** apparently **exposed herself to others** as well. **And the mishna** that you cited as support for your assertion is referring to a situation **where they were both incarcerated** alone together **in prison.** Therefore, there is no concern that she engaged in intercourse with another man. This is one version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּבָא עָלֶיהָ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ. וְהָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אֲרוּסָה שֶׁעִיבְּרָה, רַב אָמַר: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּלָא דָּיְימָא מִינֵּיהּ וְדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **when** the betrothed admits that **he engaged in intercourse with her, everyone agrees that we cast** the child **after him.** Rather, their dispute **was stated as follows:** In the case of **a betrothed woman who became pregnant,** if her betrothed denies that he engaged in intercourse with her, **Rav said** that **the offspring is a *mamzer*, and Shmuel said** that **the offspring is a child whose father’s identity is not known. Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason** in a case **where** the woman **is not rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with him and she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others.** Therefore, it is assumed that the child is a *mamzer*.