Yevamot 84a:3יבמות פ״ד א:ג
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Yevamot 84a:3"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
84aפ״ד א

הכלאים וטרפה ויוצא דופן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושין ולא מקדשין

Forbidden crossbred livestock, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], an animal delivered through the abdominal wall, and an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite do not become sacred and do not render another animal sacred in their place.

ואמר שמואל לא קדושין בתמורה ולא מקדשין בעושה תמורה ש"מ:

And Shmuel said: They do not become sacred by way of substitution, i.e., if one had an animal that had been designated as an offering, and he wished to substitute one of these animals for it, the substituted animal does not become sacred. And they themselves do not render another animal sacred when it is made a substitute for them. If one designated one of these animals as an offering and he wished to substitute another animal for it, it does not become sacred. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rabbi Eliezer does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a proper male.

ר' אליעזר אומר חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר: תניא א"ר כשהלכתי ללמוד תורה אצל ר' אלעזר בן שמוע חברו עלי תלמידיו כתרנגולים של בית בוקיא ולא הניחוני ללמוד אלא דבר אחד במשנתינו רבי אליעזר אומר אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר:

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male. It is taught on this matter in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When I went to learn Torah from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, his students joined together against me like the roosters of Beit Bukya, highly aggressive animals that do not allow other creatures to remain among them, and they did not let me learn there. Therefore, I managed to learn only one thing in our mishna, which is that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male.



הדרן עלך הערל

מתני׳ יש מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן מותרות לאלו ולאלו ואסורות לאלו ולאלו

MISHNA: There are women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin, while others are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands. Certain women are permitted both to these and to those, and others are forbidden to both these and to those.

ואלו מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן כהן הדיוט שנשא את האלמנה ויש לו אח כ"ג חלל שנשא כשרה ויש לו אח כשר

The mishna elaborates: And these are cases of women who are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin: In the case of a common priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is the High Priest, the widow, who was permitted to her husband, is forbidden to her yavam, as it is prohibited for the High Priest to marry a widow. The same is true in the case of a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [ḥalal], e.g., the son of a priest and a divorcée, who married a woman fit to marry a priest, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service. That woman was permitted to marry the ḥalal but is forbidden to his brother. Having engaged in intercourse with the ḥalal, she is rendered a ḥalala, a woman disqualified from marrying a priest.

ישראל שנשא בת ישראל ויש לו אח ממזר ממזר שנשא ממזרת ויש לו אח ישראל מותרות לבעליהן ואסורות ליבמיהן

Another example is the case of an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married an Israelite woman of similar lineage, and he has a brother who is a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer]; or a mamzer who married a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret], and he has a brother who is an Israelite of unflawed lineage. A mamzer is permitted to marry a mamzeret, but neither is per-mitted to a Jew of unflawed lineage. In each of these cases, these women are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their yevamin.

ואלו מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן כ"ג שקידש את האלמנה ויש לו אח כהן הדיוט כשר שנשא חללה ויש לו אח חלל ישראל שנשא ממזרת ויש לו אח ממזר ממזר שנשא בת ישראל ויש לו אח ישראל מותרות ליבמיהן ואסורות לבעליהן

And these are cases of women who are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands: For example, there is the case of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest, whom she is permitted to marry. This is true only if the High Priest merely betrothed her. However, if he consummated the marriage, he rendered her a ḥalala forbidden to all priests, including her yavam. The additional cases are a priest fit for service who married a ḥalala and he has a brother who is a ḥalal; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is a mamzer; and a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is, similarly, an Israelite of unflawed lineage. All of these women are permitted to their yevamin and forbidden to their husbands.

ואלו אסורות לאלו ולאלו כהן גדול שנשא את האלמנה ויש לו אח כהן גדול או כהן הדיוט כשר שנשא חללה ויש לו אח כשר ישראל שנשא ממזרת ויש לו אח ישראל ממזר שנשא בת ישראל ויש לו אח ממזר אסורות לאלו ולאלו ושאר כל הנשים מותרות לבעליהן וליבמיהן

And these are cases where women are forbidden both to these and to those: A High Priest who married a widow, and he has a brother who is a High Priest or a common priest; a priest fit for service who married a ḥalala, and he has a brother who is a priest fit for service; an Israelite of unflawed lineage who married a mamzeret, and he has a brother who is similarly an ordinary Israelite, or a mamzer who married an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage, and he has a brother who is a mamzer. All of these women are forbidden both to these and to those. And all other women are permitted to their husbands and to their yevamin.

שניות מד"ס שנייה לבעל ולא שנייה ליבם אסורה לבעל ומותרת ליבם שנייה ליבם ולא שנייה לבעל אסורה ליבם ומותרת לבעל שנייה לזה ולזה אסורה לזה ולזה

With regard to secondary relatives, who are forbidden by rabbinic law, if the woman is a secondary relative to the husband but not a secondary relative to the yavam, she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. Conversely, if she is a secondary relative to the yavam but not a secondary relative to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she is a secondary relative both to this man and to that man, she is forbidden to this one and to that one.

אין לה לא כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות והולד כשר וכופין אותו להוציא

Furthermore, if a man marries a woman forbidden to him as a secondary relative, she does not have the right to receive payment for her marriage contract if divorced or widowed, nor is she entitled to payment from her husband for the produce of her property that he used, nor is she entitled to provisions for her sustenance from his estate, nor does she get back her worn clothes or other objects she brought with her to her marriage. And the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and the court forces him to divorce her.

אלמנה לכ"ג גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לנתין ולממזר יש להן כתובה:

In contrast, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite of unflawed lineage, and an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer all have the right to receive payment for their marriage contract, although it was prohibited for them to marry.

גמ׳ מאי איריא דתני נשא ליתני קידש

GEMARA: As an example of a woman who is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her yavam, the mishna cites the case of a widow married to a common priest whose brother was a High Priest. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna specifically teach a case where the priest married the widow? Let him teach that he betrothed her, as even if she is widowed after betrothal she requires levirate marriage or ḥalitza.

וכ"ת טעמא דנשא דהוה ליה עשה ולא תעשה אבל קידש אתי עשה ודוחה לא תעשה והא כולה פירקין עשה ולא תעשה הוא ולא אתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה

And if you would say: The reason that the tanna cited the case where they were married is that in this case there is a positive mitzva that the High Priest marry a virgin and also a prohibition to marry a widow, and therefore she is forbidden to him. However, if he betrothed her, the positive mitzva of levirate marriage comes and overrides the prohibition against marrying a widow. To counter this argument, the tanna states: But that cannot be the case, as the entire chapter discusses cases involving the positive mitzva of levirate marriage and prohibitions, and in all those cases, the positive mitzva does not come and override the prohibition, even in the absence of an additional positive mitzva.

משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא כ"ג שנשא את האלמנה דוקא נשא דשוייה חללה אבל קידש שריא ליה תנא נמי רישא נשא

The Gemara answers: The mishna could have cited a case where the priest betrothed the widow. Instead, the mishna cites a case where the priest married a widow, due to the fact that the tanna wants to teach in the latter clause of the mishna the case of a High Priest who married a widow who has a brother who is a common priest. That case is specifically if he married her, because he thereby rendered her a ḥalala. However, if he only betrothed her, she is permitted to his brother who is a common priest, as it is permitted for him to marry a widow. Therefore, the tanna also taught in the first clause the case where the priest married her.

ואדתני משום סיפא ליתני משום מציעתא כ"ג שקידש את האלמנה ויש לו אח כהן הדיוט אלא משום בת בוקתא דקבעי למיתני חלל שנשא כשרה טעמא דנשא דשוייה חללה אבל קידש שריא ליה משום הכי קתני נשא

The Gemara asks: But rather than teaching a case where she was married in the first clause due to the latter clause of the mishna, let him teach a case where she was betrothed in the first clause due to the middle clause, which speaks of a High Priest who betrothed a widow, and he has a brother who is a common priest. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the reason the tanna taught the case where the priest married the widow is due to the halakha that is its neighbor [bat bukta], i.e., due to the fact that in the adjacent case he wants to teach the case of a ḥalal who married a woman fit to marry a priest. There, the reason that the woman is forbidden to his brother is specifically that the ḥalal married her, as he rendered her a ḥalala by consummating the marriage. However, if the ḥalal merely betrothed her, she is permitted to him. Due to that reason, the tanna teaches the case where the priest married the widow.

ומאי איריא דקתני אלמנה ליתני בתולה

The Gemara asks: And why does the tanna specifically teach the case of a common priest who married a widow? Let him teach that the priest married a virgin. Since in any case she becomes a widow upon his death, what difference is there whether she was previously a widow?