## Yevamot Daf 70a

###### Yevamot 70a:1
[Yevamot 70a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:1)

אֲבָל דָּיְימָא מִנֵּיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא — בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** if **she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with him, even if she is** also **rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others, we cast** the child **after him.**


###### Yevamot 70a:2
[Yevamot 70a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּקָתָנֵי: יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּדָיְימָא מִנֵּיהּ וְלָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא — צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּתֵיכוֹל?! אֶלָּא לָאו — דְּדָיְימָא נָמֵי מֵעָלְמָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where do I say that?** My source is the mishna that **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. **What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with him and she is not rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others, need it be said that she may partake** of *teruma*? It can easily be assumed that the priest is the father. **Rather, is it not** a case **where she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others as well?**


###### Yevamot 70a:3
[Yevamot 70a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if there, where** for her **to** engage in intercourse with **this** priest is in violation of **a prohibition and to** engage in intercourse with **that** non-priest is in violation of **a prohibition** of the same degree, and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with both, 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 in violation of 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 he should be considered the father?


###### Yevamot 70a:4
[Yevamot 70a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָיְימָא מִנֵּיהּ, אֲמַר רַב: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּדְלָא דָּיְימָא כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: Actually, I** could **say to you** that **anywhere that she is rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with others, even if she is** also **rumored** to have engaged in intercourse **with him, Rav said** that **the offspring is a *mamzer*. And the mishna,** which you cited as support for your claim, is referring to a situation **where she is not rumored** to have engaged in intercourse with anyone **at all.** Therefore, if they both concur that he is the father, the child is considered his.


###### Yevamot 70a:5
[Yevamot 70a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:5)

הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **a slave disqualifies** a woman from partaking of *teruma* **due to** his engaging in **intercourse** with her, but not due to his being her offspring. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that he does not disqualify a woman whose offspring he is? **The verse states** with regard to a maidservant married to a Hebrew slave, that when he is released, **“the wife and her children shall be** her master’s” (Exodus 21:4). This indicates that the maidservant’s children are considered her own and are not considered their father’s offspring at all. Therefore, a maidservant’s child does not disqualify his paternal grandmother from partaking of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 70a:6
[Yevamot 70a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:6)

מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעָהּ, זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **a *mamzer* disqualifies** a woman from partaking of *teruma*, **and he** also **enables** a woman **to partake** of *teruma*. **The Sages taught:** The Torah states, “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, **and have no child**…she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). **I have** derived **only** that **her** own **child** disqualifies her from partaking of *teruma*; **from where** do I derive that **her child’s child** disqualifies her as well? **The verse states: “And she has no child [*zera*]” at all,** indicating that even her grandchild disqualifies her, as *zera* means offspring.


###### Yevamot 70a:7
[Yevamot 70a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:7)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר, זֶרַע פָּסוּל מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״, עַיֵּין עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that **an unflawed child** disqualifies her; **from where** do I derive that **an unfit child** disqualifies her as well? **The verse states: “And she has no [*ein la*] child,”** which can be homiletically interpreted as **examine her [*ayyein ala*]** to check if she has any offspring, fit or unfit.


###### Yevamot 70a:8
[Yevamot 70a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:8)

וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְזֶרַע זַרְעָהּ! זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, בְּנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, לְזֶרַע פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t you** already **derive** from that phrase **that her child’s child** disqualifies her? The Gemara answers: To derive the *halakha* with regard to **her child’s child, no verse was necessary,** as **the children of children are** considered **like children. The verse was** therefore **necessary for** deriving the *halakha* of **an unfit child.**


###### Yevamot 70a:9
[Yevamot 70a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בְּגוֹי וְעֶבֶד מוֹדוּ, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: In accordance with whose** opinion is the assumption of the mishna that the child of a Jewess and a slave or a gentile is a *mamzer*? Is it **in accordance** only **with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said** that the offspring of relations **for which** one **is liable** for violating **a prohibition is a *mamzer*?** The Gemara answers: **You** can **even say** that it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** who hold that the offspring is a *mamzer* only if the parents are liable to receive *karet*. This is because **they concede with regard to a slave and a gentile, as when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said in the name of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to **a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a *mamzer*.**


###### Yevamot 70a:10
[Yevamot 70a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:10)

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, פְּעָמִים שֶׁפּוֹסֵל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵינִי כַּפָּרַת בֶּן בִּתִּי כּוּזָא — שֶׁמַּאֲכִילֵנִי בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאֵינִי כַּפָּרַת בֶּן בִּתִּי כַּדָּא — שֶׁפּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that even **a High Priest sometimes disqualifies** his grandmother from partaking of *teruma*. **The Sages taught** that she can say in disapproval: **I am hereby atonement for my daughter’s son, the small jug [*kuza*],** i.e., the *mamzer*. He is dear to me and I am willing to suffer to atone for him, **as he** is my offspring from a priest and therefore **enables me to partake of *teruma*. However, I am not** willing to be **atonement for my daughter’s son, the large jug [*kada*],** the High Priest, **as he** is my offspring from an Israelite and therefore **disqualifies me from** partaking of ***teruma*.**


###### Yevamot 70a:11
[Yevamot 70a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:11)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אַלְמָנָה**


###### Yevamot 70a:12
[Yevamot 70a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:12)

**הֶעָרֵל** וְכׇל הַטְּמֵאִים — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בִּתְרוּמָה. נְשֵׁיהֶן וְעַבְדֵיהֶן יֹאכְלוּ בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **An uncircumcised** priest, e.g., one for whom circumcision was considered too dangerous, **and all** those **who are ritually impure** with any type of impurity, **may not partake of *teruma*,** the portion of produce that must be set aside for the priests. However, **their wives and their slaves may partake of *teruma*.**


###### Yevamot 70a:13
[Yevamot 70a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:13)

פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה — הֵן וְעַבְדֵיהֶן יֹאכֵלוּ, וּנְשֵׁיהֶן לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעָה מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכֵלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to both **a man with crushed testicles** or with other wounds to his genitals **[*petzua dakka*] and one whose penis has been severed [*kerut shofkha*],** it is prohibited for them to marry a woman who was born Jewish. If they are priests **they and their slaves may partake** of *teruma*, as this condition does not disqualify them or their property. However, **their wives may not partake** of *teruma*, because if a priest has relations with his wife after suffering his injury, he renders her a *ḥalala*, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, as he has engaged in forbidden sexual relations with her. **If** such a priest **did not know** his wife, i.e., did not engage in sexual relations with her, **after his testicles were crushed or his penis was severed, she may partake** of *teruma*, as she had married the priest in a permitted manner.


###### Yevamot 70a:14
[Yevamot 70a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:14)

וְאֵי זֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא — כׇּל שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן. וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה — כׇּל שֶׁנִּכְרַת הַגִּיד, וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵעֲטָרָה אֲפִילּוּ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And who is** deemed **a man with crushed testicles?** It is **anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even one of them. And one whose penis has been severed** is **anyone whose** sexual **member has been cut off.** As for the measure that renders him unfit, **if there remains** a portion **of the corona, even** as much **as a hairsbreadth,** he is still **fit.** However, if nothing at all is left of the corona, he is considered as one with a severed penis, for whom it is prohibited by Torah law to marry a Jewish woman.


###### Yevamot 70a:15
[Yevamot 70a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לֶעָרֵל שֶׁאֵין אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה? נֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּתְּרוּמָה. מָה ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ, אַף ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּתְּרוּמָה — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar said: From where** is it derived **that an uncircumcised** priest **may not partake of *teruma*? It is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant** shall not eat thereof” (Exodus 12:45) **with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: “A sojourner** of a priest **and a hired servant** shall not eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10) **with regard to *teruma*. Just as “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to the Paschal lamb** indicates that **an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited** from eating **it, so too, “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to *teruma*** teaches that **an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited** from eating **it.**


###### Yevamot 70a:16
[Yevamot 70a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:16)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — לְרַבּוֹת הֶעָרֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** This proof **is not necessary, as** the verse **states: “Any man [*ish ish*]** from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a *zav* shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word *ish*, meaning man, comes **to include an uncircumcised** man, indicating that he is like one who is ritually impure and therefore may not partake of consecrated food.


###### Yevamot 70a:17
[Yevamot 70a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:17)

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּתְּרוּמָה. מָה ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ, אַף ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּתְּרוּמָה — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita* in detail. **The Master said: Rabbi Eliezer says** that **it is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant” with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant” with regard to *teruma*. Just as “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to the Paschal lamb** indicates that **an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited** from eating **it, so too, “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to *teruma*** teaches that **an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited** from eating **it.**


###### Yevamot 70a:18
[Yevamot 70a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:18)

מוּפְנֶה. דְּאִי לָאו מוּפְנֶה אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְפֶסַח, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. לָאיֵי, אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: The phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” must be **available,** i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. **As, if it is not available,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted** logically, as it is possible to say: **What** is unique **to the Paschal lamb?** It is **that one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **it due to** its being ***piggul*,** an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, or due to its being ***notar*,** the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, **or** due to the one consuming it being **ritually impure.** Therefore, it could be argued that it is owing to the Paschal lamb’s special sanctity and severity that an uncircumcised man may not partake of it. But from where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not eat *teruma*? The Gemara concludes: This is **not so [*la’ei*],** as the phrase **is** in fact **available** for establishing the verbal analogy.


###### Yevamot 70a:19
[Yevamot 70a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:19)

הֵי מוּפְנֶה? אִי דִּתְרוּמָה — מִצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, ״שָׂכִיר״ — זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** of the instances of the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” **is** not needed in its own context and is therefore **available** for establishing a verbal analogy? **If** one would claim that it is that which is stated with regard to ***teruma*,** certainly those words **are necessary, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“A sojourner”; this** is referring to a Hebrew slave who was **acquired as a permanent acquisition** until the Jubilee Year, i.e., a slave who did not wish to terminate his servitude and underwent a ceremony in which his ear was pierced with an awl. **“A hired servant”; this** is referring to a Hebrew slave who was **acquired as an acquisition for** a period of six **years.**


###### Yevamot 70a:20
[Yevamot 70a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:20)

וְיֵאָמֵר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ וְאַל יֵאָמֵר ״שָׂכִיר״, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל — קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **And let** the verse **state** only that **“a sojourner”** may not eat *teruma*, **and not state** anything about **“a hired servant,” and I** would **say** by way of an *a fortiori* inference: If a slave who was **acquired as a permanent acquisition may not partake** of *teruma*, then with regard to one who was **acquired as an acquisition for** only six **years, all the more so** is it **not** clear that he should be prohibited from eating it?


###### Yevamot 70a:21
[Yevamot 70a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:21)

אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ — זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים, אֲבָל קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם — אוֹכֵל, בָּא שָׂכִיר וְלִימֵּד עַל תּוֹשָׁב, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם — אֵין אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: **If it was** written **so, I would have said** with regard to **“a sojourner”** that **this** is referring to a slave who was **acquired as an acquisition for** a period of six **years,** as he may not eat *teruma*; **but** one who was **acquired as a permanent acquisition may** in fact **partake** of *teruma*. Therefore, the term **“a hired servant” comes and teaches** that **“a sojourner”** is referring to a slave who had his ear pierced and must now remain with his master until the Jubilee Year, and **that although he was acquired as a permanent acquisition,** he **may not partake** of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 70a:22
[Yevamot 70a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70a:22)

אֶלָּא דְּפֶסַח מוּפְנֵי. הַאי ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּפֶסַח מַאי נִיהוּ? אִי נֵימָא תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר מַמָּשׁ, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר אִיפְּטַר לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח?! וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן גַּבֵּי תְּרוּמָה דְּלָא אָכֵיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes: **Rather,** it is the phrase with regard to **the Paschal lamb** that **is available** for establishing a verbal analogy. **This** phrase: **“A sojourner and a hired servant,” that the Merciful One writes with regard to the Paschal lamb,** to **what is it** referring? **If we say** that the verse is referring to **an actual sojourner and** to **a hired servant,** i.e., a Hebrew slave who was acquired permanently or for a fixed number of years, can it possibly be that **because he is a sojourner or a hired servant he is exempt from** the mitzva of **the Paschal lamb?** If one answers in the affirmative and argues that a Hebrew slave, like his Canaanite counterpart, is considered his master’s property and is therefore no longer obligated in all the mitzvot like a freeman, this conclusion is difficult, **as we maintain with regard to *teruma* that** a Hebrew slave **may not partake** of it on account of his priestly master.