## Yevamot Daf 85a

###### Yevamot 85a:1
[Yevamot 85a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:1)

וַהֲרֵי טוּמְאָה, דְּלָאו שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, וְטַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת, מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** there is the prohibition for priests to contract **ritual impurity** from a corpse, **which is a prohibition that is not equally** applicable **to all,** as only priests are bound by this prohibition, **and the reason** that this command applies only to male priests is **that the Merciful One writes:** “Speak to the priests **the sons of Aaron,** and say to them: None shall defile himself” (Leviticus 21:1), from which it is inferred: **The sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron. Therefore,** were it **not** for **this** specific derivation, **I would say** that **women** from priestly families **are** also **obligated** to avoid becoming ritually impure. **What is the reason** for this? Is it **not due to** the principle that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav** said, that women are equated to men with regard to all punishments in the Torah, including those that are not equally applicable to all?


###### Yevamot 85a:2
[Yevamot 85a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:2)

לָא, דְּגָמְרִינַן מִ״לֹּא יִקָּחוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** that initial assumption, that the daughters of priests might be obligated to avoid ritual impurity, is not due to the *halakha* that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, but rather it is something that **we learn** through tradition **from** the words **“they may not take.”** This phrase teaches that women are included in the marital prohibitions of the priesthood, and we might therefore have thought that they are included in all *halakhot* pertaining to priests.


###### Yevamot 85a:3
[Yevamot 85a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:3)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: קִיחָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְמַר מִטּוּמְאָה — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** a different version of this answer: With regard to that verse about **taking,** it **was necessary for him** to mention this explicitly, for **it might enter your mind to say: We should learn** this *halakha* **from** the prohibition of **impurity** and conclude that just as only male descendants of Aaron are prohibited from contracting **ritual impurity,** the restrictions of marriage also apply only to men. The verse therefore **teaches us,** with the words “they may not take,” that this is not the case.


###### Yevamot 85a:4
[Yevamot 85a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:4)

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אִיקְּלַעוּ לְהִינְצְבוּ, לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין. בְּעוֹ מִינַּיְיהוּ: הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, arrived at** the town of **Hintzevu, to the place** of **Rav Idi bar Avin.** The townspeople **asked them:** Is it **prohibited** for daughters of priests who are **fit** to marry priests to **marry** men **disqualified** from the priesthood **or not?**


###### Yevamot 85a:5
[Yevamot 85a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:5)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: עֲשָׂרָה יוּחֲסִין עָלוּ מִבָּבֶל: כֹּהֲנִים, לְוִיִּם, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, חֲלָלִים, גֵּרִים, וַחֲרוּרִים, וּמַמְזֵרִים, נְתִינִים, שְׁתוּקֵי, וַאֲסוּפֵי. כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם יִשְׂרְאֵלִים — מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. לְוִיִּם, יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, חֲלָלִים, גֵּרִים, חֲרוּרִים — מוּתָּרִין לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. גֵּירֵי, חֲרוֹרֵי, וּמַמְזֵרֵי, נְתִינֵי, שְׁתוּקֵי, וַאֲסוּפֵי — מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְאִילּוּ כֹּהֶנֶת לְחָלָל — לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to them: You learned it** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 69a): People of **ten** types of **lineages ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, *ḥalalim*, converts, and freed** slaves, **and *mamzerim*, Gibeonites, children of unknown paternity [*shetukim*], and foundlings.** With regard to **Priests, Levites,** and **Israelites,** they **are permitted to marry** into **one another’s** families; **Levites, Israelites, *ḥalalim*, converts,** and **freed** slaves **are permitted to marry** into **one another’s** families; **converts, freed** slaves, **and *mamzerim*, Gibeonites, *shetukim*, and foundlings are permitted to marry** into **one another’s** families; **whereas** the *tanna* **does not teach** that **priestesses,** i.e., daughters of priests, are permitted **to** marry **a *ḥalal*.** This must mean they are forbidden to them.


###### Yevamot 85a:6
[Yevamot 85a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּהָנֵי נָסְבִי מֵהָנֵי וְהָנֵי נָסְבִי מֵהָנֵי — קָתָנֵי. כֹּהֵן, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ בָּעֵי לְמִינְסַב חֲלָלָה אֲסִירָא לֵיהּ — לָא קָתָנֵי. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּרְדְּקֵי, הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא הוּזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לִינָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him:** There is no proof from here, for **he teaches** the *halakha* **anywhere that these** men **may marry those** women, **and** there is also a parallel case where **these** women **may marry those** men. With regard to the case of **a priest,** however, **since if he wants to marry a *ḥalala* this is prohibited** to him, the *tanna* **does not teach** this *halakha*. Consequently, there is no proof from this mishna that daughters of priests who are fit to marry priests are warned against marrying men disqualified from the priesthood. **They came before Rav Idi bar Avin** and told him about the question and their debate about the matter. **He said to them: Children, this** is what **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** Daughters of priests who are **fit** to marry priests **are not warned against marrying** men **disqualified** from the priesthood.


###### Yevamot 85a:7
[Yevamot 85a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:7)

שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְכוּ׳. בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ בְּנֵי בֵירֵי מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם, יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מִיָּבָם אוֹ לָא? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן — לֵית לַהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ We learned in the mishna that **secondary** forbidden **relatives,** whose status is established **by rabbinic law,** are sometimes forbidden to the husband and sometimes to the *yavam*. **The residents of** the town of **Biri inquired of Rav Sheshet:** Is a woman who is **a secondary** forbidden **relative of the husband but not a secondary** forbidden **relative of the *yavam*** entitled to **a marriage contract from the *yavam* or not?** The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Perhaps, **since the Master said** that in a levirate marriage, the payment of **her marriage contract is** due **from the property of her first husband,** and this woman, who was a secondary relative of her first husband, does not receive a marriage contract from him, **she** consequently **does not have** the right to one from the *yavam* either.


###### Yevamot 85a:8
[Yevamot 85a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:8)

אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ לֵית לַהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן, תַּקִּינוּ לַהּ רַבָּנַן מִשֵּׁנִי — אִית לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps, since** there is a principle in levirate marriage **that if she does not have** a marriage contract **from** the **first** husband, e.g., he died without leaving behind any property, **the Sages instituted** a marriage contract **for her from** the **second** one, we should say that **she has** a marriage contract from the *yavam*?


###### Yevamot 85a:9
[Yevamot 85a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:9)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. וְאִם הָיְתָה שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל — אֲפִילּוּ מִיָּבָם אֵין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it** in a *baraita*: Payment of **her marriage contract is** due **from the property of her first husband, and if she was a secondary** forbidden **relative of the husband, she does not have** one **even from the *yavam*.** This *baraita* clearly answers the question.


###### Yevamot 85a:10
[Yevamot 85a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:10)

מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא דְּאִית לַהּ מִיָּבָם? חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כְּתוּבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאִי לֵית לַהּ מֵרִאשׁוֹן — תַּקִּינוּ לַהּ מִשֵּׁנִי. וְאִם הָיְתָה שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל — אֲפִילּוּ מִיָּבָם אֵין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Can it be concluded **by inference** from the *baraita* **that there is** a case of a woman in a levirate marriage **who** does **have** a marriage contract **from the *yavam*?** The Gemara answers: The *baraita* **is incomplete and this is** what **it is teaching:** Payment of **her marriage contract is** due **from the property of her first husband, and if she does not have** anything **from the first husband** because he died without property, **they instituted** a marriage contract **for her from the second** one. **And if she was a secondary** forbidden **relative of the husband, she does not have** one **even from the *yavam*.**


###### Yevamot 85a:11
[Yevamot 85a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:11)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, יֵשׁ לָהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת? הֵיכִי דָמֵי: אִילֵּימָא דְּיָתְבָה תּוּתֵיהּ, בַּ״עֲמוֹד וְהוֹצֵא״ קָאֵי, מְזוֹנוֹת אִית לַהּ? לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהָלַךְ הוּא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְלָוְתָה וְאָכְלָה. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** Do women in cases like **a widow** married **to a High Priest** and **a divorcée or a *ḥalutza*** married **to a common priest have** rights to payment for their **sustenance** from their husbands, **or do they not have** a right to **sustenance?** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the case under discussion? **If we say that** she **is dwelling under his** roof, he **stands in** a position where he is obligated to **arise and divorce** her. In such a situation, does **she have** a right to **sustenance?** It is obvious that she does not. The Gemara clarifies: **No,** it is **necessary** to ask this question with regard to a case **where he went overseas** and therefore is not present to divorce her, **and** in the meantime **she borrowed** money for her sustenance **and ate. What is** the *halakha* in that case?


###### Yevamot 85a:12
[Yevamot 85a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:12)

מְזוֹנֵי תְּנַאי כְּתוּבָה נִינְהוּ, מִדְּאִית לַהּ כְּתוּבָה אִית לַהּ מְזוֹנֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כְּתוּבָּה דִּלְמִשְׁקַל וּמִיפַּק — אִית לַהּ, מְזוֹנֵי, דִּלְמָא תִּיעַכַּב גַּבֵּיהּ — לֵית לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Is it correct to say that **sustenance is a stipulation in the marriage contract,** and **since she has a marriage contract she** also **has** a right to **sustenance,** and therefore the husband must pay her debt? **Or perhaps** there is a difference between the cases: Concerning **a marriage contract, which** gives her motivation to **take** the money **and leave** him, **she has** rights to it, as the Sages wanted to motivate her to seek divorce and end the prohibited marriage. However, with regard to **sustenance,** we are worried that if he provides for her sustenance, **perhaps she might tarry with him,** as she would have no reason to rush the divorce, and consequently **she** does **not have** rights to it. **He said to him: She does not have** a right to sustenance.


###### Yevamot 85a:13
[Yevamot 85a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:13)

וְהָתַנְיָא: יֵשׁ לָהּ! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **she does have** a right to sustenance? The Gemara answers: **When that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is referring to sustenance she receives **after** his **death.** At that point, she is no longer in violation of a prohibition, while the obligation to sustain her remains intact.


###### Yevamot 85a:14
[Yevamot 85a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:14)

אִית דְּאָמַר: אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תַּנְיָא: יֵשׁ לָהּ. הָא בַּ״עֲמוֹד וְהוֹצֵא״ קָאֵי? וְאֶלָּא, הָתַנְיָא יֵשׁ לָהּ! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא, לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of the discussion, which is that **he said to him:** It **is taught** in a *baraita* that **she has** a right to sustenance. He replied: He **stands in** a position where he is obligated to **arise and divorce** her. He should not be required to provide for her sustenance. He again asked: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **she has** a right to sustenance? He responded: **When that** *baraita* **is taught** it is referring to the period **after** his **death.**


###### Yevamot 85a:15
[Yevamot 85a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה, פֵּירוֹת, מְזוֹנוֹת, בְּלָאוֹת, וְהִיא פְּסוּלָה, וּוְלָדָהּ פָּסוּל, וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים — אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה, לֹא פֵּירוֹת, לֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא בְּלָאוֹת, וְהִיא כְּשֵׁירָה, וּוְלָדָהּ כָּשֵׁר, וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: A widow** married **to a High Priest,** or **a divorcée or a *ḥalutza*** married **to a common priest has** the right to receive payment for her **marriage contract;** and for the **produce of** her property that her husband used; and **sustenance;** and she gets back her **worn clothes** and other objects she brought to the marriage; **and she is disqualified** as a *ḥalala* from marrying a priest; **and her offspring is disqualified** from the priesthood as a *ḥalal*; **and** the court **forces him to divorce** her. A woman who is **a secondary relative** prohibited **by rabbinic law has neither a marriage contract; nor** payment for the **produce** of her property; **nor sustenance; nor** does she get back her **worn clothes; and she is fit** to marry a priest **and her offspring is fit** for the priesthood; **and** the court **forces him to divorce** her.


###### Yevamot 85a:16
[Yevamot 85a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/85a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל וְהִיא פְּסוּלָה. וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל וְהִיא פְּסוּלָה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: For what** reason did they **say** that **a widow** married **to a High Priest has a marriage contract? Because he is disqualified** from the priesthood by his marriage to her, as a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him is barred from the Temple service until he divorces her and agrees not to remarry her, **and she is** rendered a *ḥalala* and **disqualified** from the priesthood by intercourse with him, **and any place where he is disqualified and she is disqualified,**