Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 68

1) DISQUALIFYING A BAS YISRAEL FROM EATING TERUMAH

QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites sources to show that a woman who had relations with a man who was Asur to her with an Isur Lav becomes prohibited from eating Terumah. The Gemara then searches for a source that such a relationship invalidates the woman from marrying a Kohen as well.

The Gemara first attempts to prove that the woman becomes prohibited to a Kohen because the verse goes out of its way to show that even a Bas Yisrael becomes prohibited if she had relations with a man who was Asur to her with an Isur Lav. The verse must mean that she becomes prohibited to marry a Kohen, because she is already prohibited to eat Terumah. The Gemara responds that it is possible for a Bas Yisrael to have been eating Terumah -- if she was once married to a Kohen and she has children from him. Perhaps it is that Terumah which she loses if she has relations with a man who is prohibited to her with an Isur Lav.

There are several difficulties with this Gemara.

(a) First, why did the Gemara not say that the Bas Yisrael loses Terumah if she had relations with an Isur Lav *while she was married* to a Kohen? Why did the Gemara propose that the case where she loses the right to eat Terumah is when she had relations with an Isur Lav *after* she was married to, and divorced (or widowed) from, a Kohen?

(b) Second, why does the Gemara not say that the case of a Bas Yisrael who loses the right to eat Terumah is when she had relations with an Isur Lav and then *later* she married a Kohen?

ANSWERS:

(a) The Gemara does not want to suggest that she was married to a Kohen at the time she had relations with an Isur Lav, because the verse says "Ki Siheyeh," which the Gemara (later in the Sugya) understands to mean that the man with whom she had relations must be someone with whom Kidushin can take effect. If she was married, Kidushin cannot take effect with any other man!

(b) To answer the second question, the ARUCH LA'NER answers that the verse implies that she is losing the right to eat Terumah that she is *presently* eating (and not the Terumah that she might eat at a future time), similar to the Bas Kohen mentioned in the verse who would lose the Terumah that she is presently eating.

(In any case, the Gemara's rejection of this approach and its final conclusion would have been the same even had the Gemara given these cases.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the source for why a woman becomes invalidated from eating Terumah when she had relations with a man who was prohibited to her with an Isur Lav, and when she had relations with an Eved or a Nochri (see Chart #20). What, though, is her status if she had relations with a man who was prohibited to her with an Isur Kares?

(a) RASHI on 13b writes that she is permitted to eat Terumah, since there is no source that prohibits her when she had relations with an Isur Kares. Rashi there is following the approach of his first explanation in our Sugya. Rashi seems to follow this opinion in a number of other places in Yevamos as well. In numerous places he explains the expression "Pesulah l'Kehunah" (when said with regard to a woman who had relations with an Isur Kares) to mean that she is invalidated from *marrying* a Kohen, and not from eating Terumah (44b, v'Hi Pesulah [as well as 69a DH v'Eima Niv'elah, see TOSFOS 44b DH Hi and Insights to 69:2:b] and ibid., DH Asa'ah Zonah; 53b, DH Pesalah, 81a DH Pesulah; see also Rashi 57b DH Min ha'Pesulin [and Nidah 44b/Sanhedrin 55b DH Ba Aleha] , where he conspicuously leaves out Chayavei Kerisus from a list of men that invalidate a woman from eating Terumah).

(b) However, Rashi on 15b (DH Hi Atzmah) rules that having relations with an Isur Kares indeed invalidates her from eating Terumah, because an Isur Kares is included in the category of Eved and Nochri, which are derived from the verse of "Almanah u'Gerushah" which includes any man with whom Kidushin cannot take effect. This explanation is not consistent with what Rashi wrote earlier (13b), as TOSFOS there (DH Beis Hillel Poslim) points out. Rashi on 15b follows his second explanation in our Sugya, which he prefers here as well. This is also the way Rashi presents the Halachah on 35a (DH Nifselu). (Apparently, these comments were added after Rashi finished writing his commentary on Yevamos. Instead of going back to change his comments every time he discussed the issue, he just added a few lines to reflect his newer perspective on the matter.)

(c) TOSFOS (44b, DH Hacha Nami) writes that the source is the verse "Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar," the verse from which we know that she becomes invalidated by having relations with an Isur Lav. Even though the Gemara explains that the word "Ki *Siheyeh*" shows that the verse is discussing having relations with a man with whom Kidushin can take effect, the simple meaning of the verse is that any man with whom she becomes a Zonah through living with him, and living with him is a severe Isur (an Isur Kares, as opposed to the Isur of having relations with an Eved and Nochri) is called a "Zar." Having relations with an Isur Lav is then derived from the verse through a Derashah.

(d) The RI suggests another explanation there (44b, and in greater length on 35a, DH Af Al Pi). He says that having relations with an Isur Kares is not included in "Ki Siheyeh" if that Isur is one that comes about through marriage (that is, the man is Asur to the woman only because of a marriage that took place -- for example, he was married to her sister). The reason for this is because the word "Zar" implies that the person was *always* prohibited to this woman (Gemara, 69a -- "Zar m'Ikara").

Rather, the source that she is invalidated from eating Terumah after having relations with any of the Arayos is that the Torah calls her a Zonah (like the Chachamim say on 61b). Since both the Isur of Zonah and the Isur of Chalalah are mentioned in the same verse, it may be deduced that the Torah means to compare the two types of woman. Just like a Chalalah becomes prohibited from eating Terumah (as the verse states), so, too, a woman who is a Zonah is not only prohibited to marry a Kohen but is also prohibited from eating Terumah.

QUESTIONS: RASHI concludes that a woman who has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares becomes invalidated from eating Terumah because of the verse, "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah" (Vayikra 22:13). Rashi says that this Halachah cannot be learned from the verse which teaches that relations with an Isur Lav invalidate a woman from eating Terumah, because that verse is only discussing the type of forbidden relationship with which Kidushin can be effected.

When the Gemara asks for the source that having relations with an Eved or a Nochri will invalidate a woman from eating Terumah even though Kidushin does not take effect with those men, the Gemara could just as well have asked for the source that Isurei Kares invalidate a woman from Terumah, and the answer would have been the same (that both are derived from the verse "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah"). This is the explanation that Rashi prefers.

(a) Why should Isurei Kares not be included in the verse that tells us that Isurei Lavim invalidate a woman from Terumah? Rashi himself writes later that there is a Kal v'Chomer: if Isurei Lavim invalidate a woman from Terumah, then certainly Isurei Kares invalidate her! Why, then, do we need a new verse to teach us that Isurei Kares invalidate a woman from Terumah? (MAHADURA BASRA)

(b) Rashi continues and says that a Zonah cannot eat Terumah, and that having relations with a man who is prohibited to her with an Isur Kares will make a woman a Zonah. Why, then, should we need a new verse to teach that an Isur Kares will invalidate a woman from Terumah? We know that she will be invalidated from Terumah from the fact that she is a Zonah!

ANSWERS:

(a) To answer the first question, the YASHRESH YAKOV explains that even if we were to derive Chayavei Kares from Chayavei Lavim, we would only know that an Isur Kares invalidates her from Terumah when the man was a "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara," when they were prohibited to each other from birth. If they became related to each other through marriage, then it cannot be learned from a Kal v'Chomer that they will invalidate her from Terumah, because even Chayavei Lavim do not invalidate her from Terumah if they are not "Zar Etzlah m'Ikara." The Gemara is looking for a source that teaches that *all* Isurei Kares invalidate her from Terumah. (TOSFOS on 35a, DH Af Al Pi, gives a similar explanation; see previous Insight letter (d).)

(b) As far as why an Isur Kares does not invalidated her from Terumah because they make her a Zonah, the Gemara (56b) records a Machlokes (between two Leshonos) whether being raped (as an Eshes Ish) can make a woman a Zonah or not. Rashi here is following the opinion that she becomes a Zonah only when she has relations willfully. When Rashi writes that Isurei Kares invalidate a woman from Terumah because of Zonah, he means to say that when they have relations willfully, they certainly invalidate her from Terumah. Nevertheless, we still need a source that even when done against her will they can invalidate her from Terumah. That is why Rashi says that the source is from the verse "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah." This also seems to be the intention of the MILCHAMOS (56b; 18b of pages of the Rif) and the RASHBA here.

68b