Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 69

1) A WOMAN WHO HAS A CHILD FROM A YISRAEL

QUESTION: The Gemara suggests that the verse of "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah" (Vayikra 22:13) might be teaching that when a Bas Kohen has children from a normal Jew (a non-Kohen), she may no longer eat Terumah (even after her husband dies), but if she has children from an Eved or a Nochri, the children do not invalidate her from eating Terumah since Kidushin cannot take effect with those men. The Gemara rejects this suggestion, because if that is indeed what the verse is teaching us, then there would be no purpose in the additional verse (the extra word, "u'Vas") that teaches us this Halachah with regard to a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi (since they do not eat Terumah).

Rashi explains that even if the Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi has a child from a Kohen, and therefore she may eat Terumah (see 68b), there would be no need to tell us that if she has another child from a Yisrael that she stops eating Terumah. If we already know that a Bas *Kohen* stops eating Terumah because of her child from a Yisrael, then certainly (Kal v'Chomer) a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi stops eating Terumah in such a situation. We do not need an extra verse to teach that! It is not necessary either to teach that a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi *may eat* Terumah when she has a child from a Nochri, because if a Bas *Kohen* may eat Terumah even when she has a child from a Nochri, then certainly a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi may eat Terumah!

Why does the Gemara assume that there is a Kal v'Chomer that a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi will become invalidated from eating Terumah because of a child born from a Yisrael? The Gemara (68b) explained that there is *more* reason for a Bas *Kohen* to become Pesulah than for a Bas Yisrael to become Pesulah, since a Bas Kohen has inherent Kedushah, and therefore relations with an "Ish Zar" can make her Pesulah easier than it can invalidate a Bas Yisrael! Consequently, perhaps a child from a Yisrael will invalidate the Bas Kohen from eating Terumah, but such a child will *not* invalidate a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi, and thus we still need the additional verse!

Moreover, Rashi himself here seems to be relying on this logic when he writes that if a child from a Nochri does not invalidate the Bas Kohen from eating Terumah, then certainly such a child will not invalidate a Bas Yisrael. Rashi implies that it is easier for the Bas Kohen to become Pesulah than it is for the Bas Yisrael! Why, then, does the Gemara say that it would not be necessary to teach that a child from a Yisrael invalidates the Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi from eating Terumah? (MAHARSHA)

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA answers that the Bas Kohen could become Pesulah easier only through something that is a direct contradiction to her Kedushah. For example, when the Gemara (68b) discusses having relations with someone who is Asur to a Bas Kohen, such relations detract from her Kedushah, and thus in such cases it is indeed easier for her to become Pesulah. Similarly, if she has a child from an Eved or Nochri, since the child was born through prohibited relations, it should affect her more than it would affect a Bas Yisrael or Bas Levi.

However, if she has a perfectly legitimate child from a relationship with a Yisrael (which is a completely valid relationship), the fact that her child from a Yisrael invalidates her from eating Terumah in no way detracts from her *Kedushah*. Rather, the fact that she has a connection to a Yisrael through that child that takes away her right to eat Terumah. If so, the Gemara is justified in asserting that in such a case, certainly a Bas Yisrael and Bas Levi lose their rights to eat Terumah for that reason.

QUESTION: RASHI (DH v'Eima Niv'alah) cites a Beraisa (44b) that states that when a man remarries his ex-wife in a case of Machzir Gerushaso, "she is Kesheirah and her child is Pasul." Rashi explains that this means that she is Kesheirah *to marry a Kohen*, and certainly she may eat Terumah.

How can the Beraisa be saying that she may marry a Kohen? She is a Gerushah, and a Gerushah is prohibited to a Kohen! (MAHARSHA)

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHA answers that when Rashi says that she is "Kesheirah l'Kehunah," he is referring to the daughter that is born from the union. When the Beraisa says that she herself is Kesheirah, it must be referring to eating Terumah, as Tosfos says earlier (44b, DH Hi).

(b) The ARUCH LA'NER (44b) explains that Rashi does not mean that the woman may actually marry a Kohen, but rather he means that the woman is not a Zonah.

Why does the Gemara use the word "Kesheirah," then, if she is not really Kesheirah to marry a Kohen? The Aruch la'Ner explains that the Chachamim in the Beraisa are replying to Rebbi Akiva, who said that in a case of relations with Machzir Gerushaso the woman is Pesulah, meaning that aside from the Pesul of Gerushah, she is also a Zonah. To that, the Chachamim replied, "Hi Kesheirah," meaning that she does not have that Pesul of Zonah.

(Alternatively, they use the word "Kesheirah" because they argue with Rebbi Akiva about a number of cases at once, and one of those cases is "Kerovas Chalutzaso," who is neither a Gerushah nor a Chalutzah and has no Isur to marry a Kohen. Of her, it is appropriate to say that she is Kesheirah to marry a Kohen. Therefore, the Chachamim said that she is "Kesheirah l'Kohen" (and not a Zonah) with regard to all of the cases, even though the case of Machzir Gerushaso will have a separate Pesul of Gerushah which invalidates her from marrying a Kohen.)

As for why Rashi insisted on explaining that she is Kesheirah "l'Kehunah" and not "l'Terumah," it seems that Rashi there is following the logic of his *first* explanation on the previous Daf (68b DH Iy Hachi). He holds that a Zonah is not invalidated from eating Terumah, but only from marrying a Kohen. When Rebbi Akiva argues and says "Hi Pesulah," he must mean that she is a Zonah and may not *marry a Kohen* and when the Chachamim argue and say "Hi Kesheirah," it means that she *may* marry a Kohen. (See Insights to 68:2:a)

69b