Daf Yomi - Yevamos 57 - Highlights

The Mishna states: If a widow (daughter of a Yisroel) becomes married to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or chalutzah becomes married to a regular Kohen; from the time of erusin, they are not allowed to eat terumah. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon allow her to eat terumah (she has not become disqualified yet; after cohabitation, she would become disqualified).

If these women become widowed or divorced; if they were divorced or widowed from a state of nisuin, they are disqualified from Kehunah (since they engaged in a forbidden cohabitation). However, if they were divorced or widowed from a state of erusin, they are still qualified for Kehunah. (Even Rabbi Meir, the Tanna Kamma of our Mishna would agree to this. The daughter of a Kohen cannot eat terumah while she is an arusah to a Kohen because she is awaiting a forbidden cohabitation; however, after she is divorced or widowed from the Kohen, she returns to her qualified state.) (56b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Meir said: I can support my ruling through a kal vachomer. If a permissible kiddushin (a daughter of a Yisroel to a Yisroel) does not entitle her to eat terumah, certainly a forbidden kiddushin (a widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or chalutzah to a regular Kohen) should not allow her to eat terumah.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon raise their objection to this kal vachomer. A permissible kiddushin does not entitle her to eat terumah because a Yisroel never has the ability to entitle his wife to eat terumah; however, a forbidden kiddushin can entitle her to eat terumah because he has the ability elsewhere to entitle her to eat terumah (if the Kohen marries a permitted woman). (56a)

Rabbi Elozar said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: If a Kohen (petzua daka) with wounded or crushed testicles (who is forbidden to marry a Jewess) performs an erusin with a daughter of a Yisroel; her ability to eat terumah would be dependent on the argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one who is awaiting a forbidden cohabitation is forbidden to eat terumah, this woman also cannot eat terumah. According to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that one who is awaiting a forbidden cohabitation is permitted to eat terumah, this woman also may eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon would not allow this woman to eat terumah. A Kohen who betroths a divorcee can entitle her to eat terumah because he has the ability elsewhere to entitle a woman to eat terumah (if the Kohen marries a permitted woman); however, a Kohen with wounded or crushed testicles cannot entitle his arusah to eat terumah because he never has that ability (since he cannot marry anyone).

Perhaps you will respond by saying that a Kohen with wounded or crushed testicles does have the ability to entitle his wife to eat terumah elsewhere; namely, if he marries a convert (although a convert is a full-fledged Jew, they are not included in the prohibition against a maimed Kohen marrying someone from the “congregation”). This is not a valid response because Rabbi Yochanan inquired of Rabbi Oshaya regarding this precise issue, and Rabbi Oshaya did not resolve this for him. (It is evident that Rabbi Oshaya was uncertain if a Kohen with wounded or crushed testicles entitles his wife, a convert to eat terumah.) (56b – 57a)

The Gemora presents two responses to the objection to the comparison (between a maimed Kohen and a Kohen marrying a divorcee). Abaye said: A Kohen with wounded or crushed testicles does have the ability to entitle his wife to eat terumah when he becomes a petzua daka after his marriage, providing that he does not cohabit with his wife. (She remains permitted to eat terumah.) Rava said: A Kohen with wounded or crushed testicles does have the ability to entitle others to eat terumah in the case of a Canaanite slave or slavewoman. (Abaye and Rava offer cases where the petzua daka entitles someone to eat terumah, and therefore they can be compared to the case of a Kohen marrying a divorcee, who also entitles his wife to eat terumah elsewhere.)

Abaye did not present Rava’s case because he wanted to compare two cases of kiddushin. Rava did not present Abaye’s case because there she may continue eating terumah only because she originally had permission (prior to her husband’s injury). We are searching for a case where the maimed Kohen entitles someone to eat terumah. (57a)

We stated before: Rabbi Yochanan inquired of Rabbi Oshaya: Does a Kohen with wounded or crushed testicles have the ability to entitle his wife, a daughter of a convert to eat terumah? Rabbi Oshaya was quiet and did not resolve this for him. Afterwards, another great man arrived and inquired of Rabbi Oshaya regarding a different topic, and Rabbi Oshaya resolved this for him. Who was this great man? It was Rish Lakish. Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah asked Rabbi Oshaya: Isn’t Rabbi Yochanan also a great man (doesn’t he too deserve an answer)? Rabbi Oshaya replied: He asked me something that I do not know the answer to. (57a)

The Gemora attempts to resolve this inquiry. If this inquiry is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion; then whether a maimed Kohen retains his sanctity, or whether he loses his sanctity, he should not have the ability to entitle his wife, the daughter of a convert to eat terumah. If he retains his sanctity, she should not be entitled to eat terumah because Rabbi Yehudah states that the daughter of a male convert is just like the daughter of a male chalal (they are both forbidden to a Kohen, and therefore she would not be able to eat terumah). If he loses his sanctity, she should not be entitled to eat terumah because Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the congregation of converts is considered the congregation of Hashem, and therefore a maimed Kohen would be prohibited from marrying her.

The Gemora continues: If this inquiry is in accordance with Rabbi Yosi’s opinion; then whether a maimed Kohen retains his sanctity, or whether he loses his sanctity, he should have the ability to entitle his wife, the daughter of a convert to eat terumah. If he retains his sanctity, she should be entitled to eat terumah because Rabbi Yosi states that the daughter of a male and female convert is qualified to marry a Kohen. If he loses his sanctity, she should be entitled to eat terumah because Rabbi Yosi maintains that the congregation of converts is not considered the congregation of Hashem, and therefore a maimed Kohen would be permitted to marry her.

The Gemora concludes: The inquiry must be in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinion. He maintains that a daughter of a convert cannot be married by a Kohen unless her mother is a Jewess. The inquiry is: Although she is qualified to marry a Kohen, perhaps she is not included in the congregation of Hashem. Thus, a maimed Kohen would be permitted to marry her, and she would be entitled to eat terumah. Or perhaps she is included in the congregation of Hashem, and therefore would be forbidden to a maimed Kohen, thereby disqualifying her from eating terumah.

The Gemora says: Come and learn from the braisa which Rav Acha bar Chinana brought with him from the south. The braisa states: How do we know that a Kohen who has wounded or crushed testicles that marries the daughter of a convert, that she is allowed to eat terumah? It is written [Vayikra 22:11]: And a Kohen who shall acquire a person, an acquisition of his money etc. he may eat of it.

The Gemora analyzes this braisa: According to whose opinion is this braisa following? It cannot be Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, for he maintains that whether a maimed Kohen retains his sanctity, or whether he loses his sanctity, he does not have the ability to entitle his wife, the daughter of a convert to eat terumah. It cannot be representing Rabbi Yosi’s opinion, for what why would we need a special verse to teach us that she can eat terumah; Rabbi Yosi holds that whether a maimed Kohen retains his sanctity, or whether he loses his sanctity, he has the ability to entitle his wife, the daughter of a convert to eat terumah. It is evident that the braisa is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinion. We can learn from this braisa that although she is qualified to marry a Kohen, she is not included in the congregation of Hashem. Thus, a maimed Kohen would be permitted to marry her, and she would be entitled to eat terumah. (57a)

The Gemora states: Rav maintains that all the Tannaim listed in our Mishna would hold that there is a legal significance for a Kohen’s chupah (the entry of a bride into the husband’s domain for the purpose of nisuin) to those women who are disqualified from the Kehunah. (Rav maintains that entering into a chupah disqualifies a daughter of a Kohen from the Kehunah even though it does not effect any kinyan at all; chupah is a preparation for cohabitation and the Rabbis decreed that she becomes disqualified.)

Shmuel maintains that all the Tannaim listed in our Mishna would hold that there is no legal significance for a Kohen’s chupah to those women who are disqualified from the Kehunah.

Shmuel said: Abba (Rav) will concede to me regarding a girl less than three years old that there is no legal significance to her chupah (and she will be permitted to eat terumah). Since cohabitation with a girl of that age has no legal significance, her chupah is not recognized either.

Rava said: There is a Mishna that can be cited to support Shmuel’s statement. The Mishna states: A girl who is at least three years old can be betrothed with cohabitation, and if a yavam cohabits with her, he has acquired her, and if she is married and someone else cohabits with her, he would be liable for cohabiting with a married woman, and if she is a niddah and someone cohabits with her, he will become tamei. If a Kohen marries her (with nisuin), she is entitled to eat terumah, and if she is a daughter of a Kohen and a disqualified person cohabits with her, she becomes disqualified from eating terumah.

It can be inferred from this Mishna that only if she is three years old can she become disqualified through cohabitation, and therefore can become disqualified through chupah as well; however, if she is under three years of age, she cannot become disqualified through cohabitation, she cannot become disqualified through chupah either. (57a – 57b)

[END]