וּגְזַרוּ רַבָּנַן קְטַנָּה מִשּׁוּם גְּדוֹלָה And, although there is no possibility for her to become pregnant, the Sages issued a rabbinic decree requiring the three month waiting period for a female minor due to this requirement for a female adult who engaged in promiscuous sexual acts.
וּמִי גָּזְרִינַן קְטַנָּה מִשּׁוּם גְּדוֹלָה וְהָתְנַן אִם הָיוּ קְטַנּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לֵילֵד מַחְזִירִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה מִכְּלָל דַּהֲוַאי אֶלָּא כְּהוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה וְחִילּוּף לָא שְׁכִיחַ The Gemara asks: And do we issue a decree with regard to a female minor due to the ruling for a female adult? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If they were female minors who could not bear children, we return them immediately to their husbands? This indicates that there is no concern for pregnancy, and the Sages did not issue a decree in this case. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: This was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances, and therefore one cannot extrapolate from the case in the mishna to other situations. The Gemara wonders: Can one assume by inference that there was such an occurrence? It would seem from the mishna that this was merely a possibility and not an actual occurrence, for if it actually happened it would have been appropriate for the mishna to relate the actual case. Rather, the ruling in the mishna is like a provisional edict in that switching of wives, such as described in the mishna, is uncommon, and in cases that are not common, the Sages do not issue a decree. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, the female minors were not required to wait.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל כּוּלָּן צְרִיכוֹת לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים חוּץ מִגִּיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת גְּדוֹלָה [אֲבָל] קְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים בְּמַאי אִי בְּמֵיאוּן הָאַמְרַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל חֲדָא זִימְנָא אִי בְּגֵט הָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל דְּבָעֲיָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מֵיאֲנָה בּוֹ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אֶלָּא בִּזְנוּת וּזְנוּת בִּקְטַנָּה לָא שְׁכִיחַ Some say another version of what was taught: Shmuel said: All women must wait three months, except for a female convert who is an adult and a freed maidservant who is an adult; these women need not wait. However, an Israelite female minor need not wait three months in any case. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what situation is this statement referring? If it is referring to a female minor released from her marriage by refusal, it would be superfluous, as didn’t Shmuel already state this halakha one time? If it is referring to a woman released by a bill of divorce, but didn’t Shmuel say that in that case she is required to wait, as Shmuel said: If she refused him she need not wait three months, but if he gave her a bill of divorce, she must wait three months? Rather, this is referring to cases of promiscuous sexual intercourse, and an occurrence of promiscuous sexual intercourse with female minors is uncommon, and the Sages did not issue rabbinic decrees in uncommon instances.
גִּיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת דִּשְׁכִיחַ בְּהוּ זְנוּת לִיגְזוֹר הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּתַנְיָא הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ צְרִיכוֹת לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר לֵיאָרֵס וְלִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד אָמַר רַבָּה מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָסָבַר אִשָּׁה מְזַנָּה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּמוֹךְ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְעַבֵּר The Gemara suggests: Let the Sages issue a decree requiring a female convert and a released maidservant to wait three months, as at the time that one was a gentile and the other a maidservant, promiscuous sexual intercourse was common for them. The Gemara responds: Shmuel stated his halakhic ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of the female convert; and the captured woman, who is suspected of having been raped during her imprisonment; and the maidservant, who were redeemed or who were converted or who were released, must wait three months prior to marriage. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei allows them to be betrothed and married immediately. Rabba said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei? He holds that a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse uses a contraceptive resorbent that she places at the opening of her womb so as not to become impregnated. Therefore, there is no concern that she might be pregnant.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי בִּשְׁלָמָא גִּיּוֹרֶת כֵּיוָן דְּדַעְתַּהּ לְאִיגַּיּוֹרֵי מְנַטְּרָה נַפְשַׁהּ כְּדֵי לְהַבְחִין בֵּין זֶרַע שֶׁנִּזְרַע בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וּבֵין זֶרַע שֶׁנִּזְרַע שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שְׁבוּיָה וְשִׁפְחָה נָמֵי דְּשָׁמְעִי מִמָּרַיְיהוּ וּמְנַטְּרִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ אֶלָּא יוֹצֵאת בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ Abaye said to him: Granted, a female convert does this. Since she is determined to convert, she guards herself so as not to be impregnated while still a gentile in order to distinguish between children conceived in sanctity, i.e., after her conversion, and children conceived out of sanctity. A captured woman and a maidservant would also be cautious because they hear from their masters that they are about to be redeemed or that they are about to be released, and they guard themselves so as not to be impregnated. However, with regard to a maidservant who is released due to damage caused her by her masters, i.e., loss of one of her extremities such as a tooth or an eye, how can you find a case where there is no concern for her becoming impregnated? Since she could not have known in advance that she would be released, she would have had no reason to be careful not to become pregnant.
וְכִי תֵּימָא כֹּל דְּמִמֵּילָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהָתְנַן אֲנוּסָה וּמְפוּתָּה צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר לֵיאָרֵס וְלִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד And if you would say that in any case where the situation occurs by itself, as in the case where a woman was unaware of her pending release, Rabbi Yosei concedes that she must indeed wait, this is difficult. But didn’t we learn in a mishna: A woman who was raped and a woman who was seduced must wait three months as perhaps she became pregnant; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits her to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Clearly, a woman who was raped could not have prepared herself ahead of time so as not to become pregnant.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי אִשָּׁה מְזַנָּה מִתְהַפֶּכֶת שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְאִידַּךְ חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִתְהַפְּכָה יָפֶה יָפֶה Rather, Abaye said: A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse turns over following intercourse, trying to prevent the absorption of the semen, so as not to become pregnant. Maidservants act in a similar manner. The Gemara asks: If indeed she tries not to become pregnant, how then would the other opinion, that of Rabbi Yehuda, explain why she must wait three months? The Gemara responds: We are concerned that perhaps she did not turn over well enough and therefore became pregnant.
וְאִם הָיוּ כֹּהֲנוֹת כּוּ׳ כֹּהֲנוֹת אִין יִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת לָא אֵימָא אִם הָיוּ נְשֵׁי כֹהֲנִים נְשֵׁי כֹהֲנִים אֵין נְשֵׁי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים לָא § With regard to the case of two betrothed women who were switched at the time they entered the wedding canopy, the mishna states: And if they were daughters of priests, they are disqualified from partaking in teruma. The Gemara asks: Does this indicate that with regard to the daughters of priests, yes, they are disqualified from partaking in teruma, but with regard to the daughter of an Israelite, no, she would not be disqualified? It would seem that an Israelite woman married to a priest should most certainly be disqualified from eating of her husband’s teruma. The Gemara answers: Rather, say: If they were the wives of priests then they are disqualified. The Gemara questions this formulation: Does this indicate that with regard to the wives of priests, yes, they are disqualified, but with regard to the wives of Israelites, no, they are not disqualified, and if their husbands died, they would be suitable for marriage to the priests?
וְהָאָמַר רַב עַמְרָם הָא מִילְּתָא אֲמַר לַן רַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ לְעַיְינִין מִמַּתְנִיתִין אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ פְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה The Gemara objects to this: But didn’t Rav Amram say: Rav Sheshet said this matter to us, and he lit our eyes by showing us that this ruling is indicated from what was stated in the mishna (Yevamot 53b). He said: The wife of an Israelite who was raped, even though she is permitted to return to her husband, she is nevertheless disqualified from the priesthood. If her husband later dies, she may not marry a priest, for although she is permitted to her husband the rape disqualified her for matters of priesthood.
אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי קָאָמַר אִם הָיוּ כֹּהֲנוֹת נְשׂוּאוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִפְסְלוּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה דְּבֵי נָשַׁיְיהוּ Rava resolved this and said: This is what the tanna is saying in the mishna: If they were daughters of priests who were married to an Israelite, they are disqualified from the teruma that is from the household of their fathers, so that if their husbands die while they are childless, they may not go back to eat of the teruma in the house of their fathers. While other childless daughters of priests are again qualified to eat of the teruma the moment they leave their Israelite husbands, these women were disqualified by their act of forbidden sexual intercourse.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין