## Yevamot Daf 84b

###### Yevamot 84b:1
[Yevamot 84b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:1)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא נִישּׂוּאִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מַפִּילִין — הֲרֵי חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֵׁרָה, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן נִישּׂוּאִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מַפִּילִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **this *tanna* holds** that it is her status at the time of **the first marriage** that determines her status when **she happens** before the *yavam* for levirate marriage, and not her status at the time of her husband’s death, and therefore if she had been a virgin when she married she would have been permitted to enter into levirate marriage with a High Priest, that cannot be so, as the mishna cites the case of **a *ḥalal* who married** a woman **fit** to marry a priest, in which case the woman is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her *yavam*. **And** in that case, **we do not say** that **the first marriage** determines her status when **she happens** before him for levirate marriage, as the woman was fit to marry the brother when she married the *ḥalal* and was rendered a *ḥalala* only as a result of her marriage.


###### Yevamot 84b:2
[Yevamot 84b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:2)

הָא וַדַּאי מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנָּשָׂא אֶת הָאַלְמָנָה, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אוֹ כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. דַּוְקָא אַלְמָנָה — אֲבָל בְּתוּלָה חַזְיָא לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי אַלְמָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** fact, that the mishna cited a case where the priest married a widow, is **certainly due to the latter clause** of the mishna, i.e., **due to** the fact **that** the *tanna* **wants to teach** in **the latter clause: A High Priest who married a widow, and he has a brother** who is the **High Priest or a common priest.** In the case where the *yavam* is a common priest, the widow is forbidden to him **specifically** if the High Priest married **a widow,** as by consummating the marriage he rendered her a *ḥalala*. **However,** had she been **a virgin** when the High Priest married her, he would not render her a *ḥalala*, and when the High Priest dies **she** would be **fit for** his brother. It is **due to that** reason that the *tanna* **teaches** the case of **a widow** in the first clause as well.


###### Yevamot 84b:3
[Yevamot 84b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אִם אִיתָא לְהָא דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה — בְּנָהּ שֵׁנִי הָוֵי, לִתְנֵי נָמֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa objects to** the mishna: **If it is so,** that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, **as when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael he reported that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that in the case of **a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, her son is considered a** second-generation Egyptian, as the child’s status in this matter is determined according to the mother, then **let** the *tanna* of the mishna **also teach** the following case:


###### Yevamot 84b:4
[Yevamot 84b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:4)

מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא שְׁתֵּי מִצְרִיּוֹת, אַחַת רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַת שְׁנִיָּיה, וְהָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים מֵרִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּיה. אִי נְסוּב כִּי אוֹרְחַיְיהוּ — מוּתָּרוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן וַאֲסוּרוֹת לְיִבְמֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a second-generation Egyptian who married two Egyptian women, one** of whom was **a first-generation** Egyptian convert **and one** of whom was from the **second** generation, **and he had sons** from both **the first and second** women, **if** these two sons **married in their** proper **way,** meaning that the third-generation Egyptian married an ordinary Jewish woman, and the second-generation convert married another second-generation Egyptian, then it is also true of these women that **they are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their *yevamin*.** The second-generation Egyptian is forbidden to his Jewish *yevama*, while the third-generation Egyptian is an ordinary Jew and therefore prohibited to marry his *yevama*, who is a second-generation Egyptian woman.


###### Yevamot 84b:5
[Yevamot 84b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:5)

וְאִי אֵיפוּךְ וּנְסוּב — מוּתָּרוֹת לְיִבְמֵיהֶן וַאֲסוּרוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן. מוּתָּרוֹת לָאֵלּוּ וְלָאֵלּוּ — גִּיּוֹרוֹת. אֲסוּרוֹת לָאֵלּוּ וְלָאֵלּוּ — אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if they married** in the **reverse** manner, i.e., the third-generation convert married a second-generation Egyptian woman, and the second-generation man married an ordinary Jewish woman, **they are permitted to their *yevamin* and forbidden to their husbands.** Similarly, **they are permitted** both **to these and to those** if these sons married **converts,** for an Egyptian convert is permitted to marry a convert of a different nationality. And there is also a case in which **they are forbidden to these and to those,** namely if they married **sexually underdeveloped women [*ayloniot*].** If an Egyptian married an *aylonit*, she is forbidden to him as a Jewish woman, and she is forbidden to his brother, a third-generation Egyptian convert who is permitted to marry a Jewish woman, because levirate marriage is prohibited with an *aylonit*. The fact that the mishna omits these cases appears to indicate that the *halakha* is not in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Yevamot 84b:6
[Yevamot 84b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:6)

תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. מַאי שַׁיַּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר? שַׁיַּיר פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: There is no proof from here with regard to the *halakha*, as the *tanna* of the mishna did not mention all possible examples. Rather, **he taught** certain cases **and omitted** others. The Gemara asks: **What** else **did he omit that he omitted this?** The *tanna* would not have omitted only one example. The Gemara answers: **He omitted** the case of a **man with crushed testicles** or with other wounds to his genitals. If the husband is such a man, the wife is forbidden to her husband and permitted to her *yavam*. If the *yavam* is such a man, the opposite is true.


###### Yevamot 84b:7
[Yevamot 84b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:7)

אִי מִשּׁוּם פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא — לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא, דְּהָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** this mishna is determined to have taught certain cases and omitted others **due to** the omission of the case **of a man with crushed testicles** or other wounds to his genitals, this **is not an omission, as** in this mishna the *tanna* **taught** a principle that applies to all forbidden relationships for which one is **liable for** violating **a prohibition.** This category includes such a case, and therefore it was not omitted.


###### Yevamot 84b:8
[Yevamot 84b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:8)

אַטּוּ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין מִי לָא קָתָנֵי וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי? וְהָא קָתָנֵי כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמָנָה, וְחָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֵׁרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Is that to say** that with regard to those relationships for which one is **liable for** violating **a prohibition, he does not teach** a principle **and again teach** them in detail? But this is not the case. **He teaches** the case of **a common priest who married a widow** and he had a brother who was a high priest, **and** the case of **a *ḥalal* who married** a woman **fit** to marry a priest and he had a brother who was a priest fit for service, both of whom are forbidden as they are liable for violating a prohibition. Therefore, since the *tanna* did not specifically teach the case of the man with crushed testicles, this constitutes an omission.


###### Yevamot 84b:9
[Yevamot 84b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:9)

הָהוּא, אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **That** clause of the mishna is not merely a specification of the previous general *halakha*, as **it was necessary for** the *tanna* to mention these cases individually in order **to teach us** another *halakha* **that Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav** said, **as Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** It is **not prohibited** for daughters of priests who are **fit** to marry priests to **marry men** who are **disqualified** from the priesthood, although this marriage disqualifies them from subsequently marrying a priest.


###### Yevamot 84b:10
[Yevamot 84b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:10)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי: חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֵׁרָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח מַמְזֵר! הָא נָמֵי, לָא מִהְדָּר מִיתְנָא הִיא, דְּאִשְׁמוּעִינַן לָאו שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, וְקָמַשְׁמַע לַן לָאו הַשָּׁוֶה בַּכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges that answer: **But** the mishna also **teaches** these cases: **A *ḥalal* who married** a woman **fit** to marry a priest; **and an Israelite** of unflawed lineage **who married an Israelite woman** of unflawed lineage, **and he has a brother** who is **a *mamzer*.** These are specifications that do not teach additional *halakhot*. The Gemara answers: **This too is not** a case of the *tanna* **going back and teaching** additional examples of the same *halakha* without adding anything, **as he teaches us** something new through each of these two examples. The first example is referring to **a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all,** such as one concerning priests, and the second example is referring to **a prohibition that is equally applicable to all,** such as one involving a *mamzer*.


###### Yevamot 84b:11
[Yevamot 84b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:11)

הָא קָתָנֵי: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח יִשְׂרָאֵל (וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ אָח יִשְׂרָאֵל), אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges the answer: **But** the mishna also **teaches** the case of **an Israelite** of unflawed lineage **who married a *mamzeret* and who has a brother** who **is an Israelite** of similar lineage, **and** the example of **a *mamzer* who married a *mamzeret* and he has a brother** who **is an Israelite** of unflawed lineage. Consequently, the *tanna* does in fact teach the same *halakha* several times with regard to a prohibition that is equally applicable to all. **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from it** that **he taught and omitted** certain cases and did not list all possible examples? The Gemara concludes: **Indeed, conclude from it** that this is the case, and therefore there is no proof from here that the *halakha* is not in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Yevamot 84b:12
[Yevamot 84b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:12)

גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֵׁרָה, מַאי לָאו כֹּהֶנֶת [הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ], וּמַאי ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ — כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהוּנָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to a statement cited incidentally above, in order to discuss **the** matter **itself: Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** It is **not prohibited** for daughters of priests who are **fit** to marry priests to **marry** men who are **disqualified** from the priesthood, although this marriage would disqualify them from subsequently marrying a priest, and they may do so even *ab initio*. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that** the following statement of the mishna **supports his** opinion: **A *ḥalal* who married** a woman who is **fit,** and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service, this woman is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her *yavam*. **What, is it not** referring to **a priestess,** i.e., a priest’s daughter, **who is appropriate to** marry **him? And what is** the meaning of: **Fit?** This means that **she is fit for the priesthood,** and yet the mishna says she is permitted to her husband, the *ḥalal*.


###### Yevamot 84b:13
[Yevamot 84b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:13)

לָא, יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. וּמַאי ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ — כְּשֵׁרָה לַקָּהָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** it is possible that the mishna is speaking of **an Israelite woman. And what is** the meaning of: **Fit?** It means that **she is fit to** enter **the congregation** of the Jewish people, through marriage. According to this explanation, there is no proof from the mishna about daughters of priests.


###### Yevamot 84b:14
[Yevamot 84b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:14)

אִי הָכִי: ״יֵשׁ לוֹ אָח כָּשֵׁר״, נָמֵי כָּשֵׁר לַקָּהָל, מִכְּלָל דְּהוּא פָּסוּל לַקָּהָל! אֶלָּא לָאו — כֹּהֵן, וּמִדְּהוּא כֹּהֵן, הִיא כֹּהֶנֶת! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא — הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** consider the phrase: A *ḥalal* who married a woman fit to marry a priest, and **he has a brother** who **is** also **fit.** Consistency demands that here **too** it means that the brother **is fit to** enter **the congregation.** Can it not therefore be deduced **by inference that he,** the deceased *ḥalal*, was **unfit to** enter **the congregation?** But such an inference would be an error, as a *ḥalal* is disqualified only from the priesthood. **Rather, is it not** referring to a **priest, and from the fact that he** must **be a priest, she** too must be **a priestess?** The Gemara rejects this claim: **Are the cases comparable? This** case, of the *ḥalal*, is **as it is,** i.e., he is fit for the priesthood. **And that** case, of the woman, is **as it is,** i.e., she is fit to enter the congregation.


###### Yevamot 84b:15
[Yevamot 84b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:15)

מֵתִיב רָבִין בַּר נַחְמָן: ״לֹא יִקָּחוּ ... לֹא יִקָּחוּ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מוּזְהֶרֶת עַל יְדֵי הָאִישׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravin bar Naḥman raised an objection** against Rav’s ruling from the following *baraita*: The verse states about priests: **“They may not take** a woman who is a harlot [*zona*], or profaned [*ḥalala*]” (Leviticus 21:7). The same verse says: **“They** also **may not take** a woman divorced from her husband.” This repetition of “they may not take” **teaches** us **that the woman is** also **prohibited by means of** the prohibition addressed to **the man.** Therefore, we can conclude that there is a prohibition for a daughter of a priest to marry a *ḥalal*.


###### Yevamot 84b:16
[Yevamot 84b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּהוּא מוּזְהָר — הִיא מוּזְהֶרֶת, וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּהוּא לֹא מוּזְהָר — הִיא לֹא מוּזְהֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Ravin bar Naḥman’s objection is not valid. All that the *baraita* teaches is that **anywhere that a prohibition** of sexual intercourse applies to **him,** i.e., to a man, the same **prohibition** applies to **her,** his female partner. **And anywhere that a prohibition does not** apply to **him, the prohibition does not** apply to **her** either. It does not, however, indicate that since it is prohibited for a priest to marry a *ḥalala* it is also prohibited for the daughter of a priest to marry a *ḥalal*.


###### Yevamot 84b:17
[Yevamot 84b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:17)

וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב נָפְקָא! דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם״ — הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the *baraita* itself: **And is this** matter **derived from here? It is derived from** a different statement that **Rav Yehuda** said that **Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael similarly taught:** The verse states: **“When a man or woman** shall **commit any sin** that **people** commit” (Numbers 5:6). **The verse** here **equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments of the Torah.** Consequently, the *halakhot* of forbidden marriages apply equally to women and to men. Why then do we need to learn the same thing from the repetition of “they may not take”?


###### Yevamot 84b:18
[Yevamot 84b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/84b:18)

אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָאו הַשָּׁוֶה בַּכֹּל. אֲבָל לָאו שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** it was derived only **from that** verse, **I would say** that this principle is true of **a prohibition that is equally** applicable **to all, but** with regard to **a prohibition that is not equally** applicable **to all,** such as the prohibitions pertaining to priests, this is **not** the case. Since these prohibitions only apply to priests, we might have thought that they do not extend to women. The verse therefore teaches that the prohibition applies to women in the same manner as men.