Parallel
יבמות 68
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
since he acquires her by the betrothal; and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was betrothed] to a priest, the betrothal cannot bestow the privilege upon her, owing to the ruling of 'Ulla. A DEAF-MUTE, for if [the woman] is the daughter of a priest [who was married] to [him who is] an Israelite, he deprives her of the privilege, since he acquired her by virtue of a Rabbinical enactment; and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to [him who is] a priest, he cannot bestow the privilege upon her, because the All Merciful said, The purchase of his money, while he is not eligible to execute any kinyan. AND A BOY WHO IS NINE YEARS etc. This was assumed to refer to the case of a yebamah who was awaiting the decision of a levir who was nine years and one day old. Now, in what respect? If in respect of depriving her of the privilege, a younger child would also equally deprive her of the privilege! And if in respect of bestowing the privilege, a grownup levir also cannot bestow this privilege! — Abaye replied: We are dealing here with a levir of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabited with his yebamah who, according to Pentateuchal law, becomes his kinyan. Since it might have been assumed that, as Pentateuchally she becomes his kinyan, and his cohabitation also is legal, he should be entitled to bestow the privilege upon her, hence we were taught that the cohabitation of a boy who is nine years and one day old has been given the same validity only as that of a ma'amar by an adult. Said Raba to him: If so, [why] is it stated in the final clause, [EVEN WHEN] IT IS A MATTER OF DOUBT WHETHER THE BOY IS NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD, OR NOT? If a boy who is certainly of the age of nine cannot bestow the privilege, is there any need to speak of a boy whose age is in doubt! — No, said Raba, [the Mishnah] deals with a boy of the age of nine years and one day belonging to one of the classes of disqualified persons who, by their cohabitation, deprive a woman of the privilege of eating terumah; as it was taught: An Ammonite, a Moabite, an Egyptian, or an Idumean proselyte, a Cuthean, a nathin, a halal or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priests of a Levite or of an Israelite, disqualifies her. But since it is stated in the final clause, 'If they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel they render [a woman] unfit', it may be inferred that the first clause does not deal with such disqualified persons! — The first clause speaks of those who are disqualified to enter the assembly, while the latter clause speaks of those who are disqualified to marry the daughter of a priest. [To turn to] the main text: An Ammonite, a Moabite, an Egyptian or an Idumean proselyte, a Cuthean, a nathin, a halal or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priest, of a Levite or of an Israelite disqualifies her. R. Jose said: Anyone whose children are disqualified causes disqualification; he whose children are not disqualified does not cause disqualification. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whenever you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, and whenever you may not marry his daughter you may not marry his widow. Whence are these rulings deduced? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture stated, And if a priest's daughter be married unto to a strange man, as soon as she has had connubial relations with a disqualified person the latter disqualified her. But the text cited is surely required [for another] purpose, viz., that the All Merciful ordained that the daughter of a priest who was married to a layman may not eat terumah! — That may be deduced from the text, And is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread. Since the All Merciful ordained, And is returned unto her father's house … she may eat, it follows that prior to that she was not permitted to eat. But if [deduction were to be made] from that text, [it may be objected] one might have assumed that as a negative precept which is derived from a positive one it has only the force of a positive precept, hence did the All Merciful write the other text to [indicate that it is] a negative precept! — [That it is] a negative precept may be deduced from, There shall no strange man eat of the holy things.
—
But that text is required for its own purpose! The expression, 'There shall no strange man', is written twice. But still is not this required for the exposition of R. Jose b. Hanina? For R. Jose b. Hanina stated: There shall no strange man implies, 'I have imposed upon you a prohibition concerning non-priests only but not concerning onan'! — R. Jose b. Hanina's exposition may be deduced from the Scriptural use of the longer expression 'And there shall no strange man' instead of 'strange man'. But still is not this, required for the following which was taught: When she returns, she returns only to [the privilege of eating] terumah, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and shoulder. And R. Hisda stated in the name of Rabina b. R. Shila, 'What Scriptural text proves this? It is written, but if a priest's daughter be married unto a strange man, she shall not eat of the terumah of the holy things, she must not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things'! — If so, Scripture should have written. She shall not eat of the holy things'. why [then the longer expression], of the terumah of the holy things? Two deductions may, consequently be made. We have now deduced [the law relating to] a priest's daughter; whence, however, is this deduced in respect of the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite? — As R. Abba stated in the name of Rab [that deduction is made from the Scriptural use of] 'But a daughter' [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used]. so here also [deduction is made from the use of] 'and a daughter' [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used]. In accordance with whose view? Is it Only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who bases expositions on [superfluous] Wawin! — It may be said to have been made even according to the view of the Rabbis, because the entire Scriptural expression, And a daughter is superfluous. [Thus the disqualification] in respect of terumah has been proved; whence, [however, is it deduced that the disqualification extends also] to the prohibition of marrying a priest? — Has not the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite been included in respect of priestly marriage only? For, as regards terumah, neither of them is ever eligible to eat it. Are they never eligible? Such eligibility surely occurs when [a mother] eats terumah by virtue of the rights of her son! — [The case of a mother, who eats terumah] by virtue of the rights of her son, may be deduced by inference a minori ad majus: If the daughter of a priest who eats the terumah by virtue of her own sanctity becomes disqualified how much more so the daughter of a Levite or of an Israelite who eats it only by virtue of the rights of her son. [On the contrary], this [very point] provides the reason: A priest's daughter whose body is sacred is rightly disqualified, this woman, however, whose own body is not sacred might not become disqualified! — The fact is rather, that the prohibition to marry a priest may be deduced a minori ad majus from a divorced woman: If a divorced woman who is permitted to eat terumah is nevertheless forbidden to marry a priest, how much more reason is there that such a woman who is forbidden to eat terumah should be disqualified from marrying a priest. May a prohibition, however, be deduced by logical argument! This is a mere elucidation [of the law]. Might it not be suggested [that the statement,] 'she had connubial relations with a disqualified person' [refers to persons cohabitation with whom is] subject to the penalty of kareth! — The All Merciful said, If … be married, only those with whom marriage is valid; with those who are subject to the penalty of kareth marriage is not valid. If so, no idolater or slave should cause disqualification! — These cause disqualification in accordance with a ruling of R. Ishmael. For R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Ishmael: Whence is it deduced that if an idolater or a slave cohabits with the daughter of an Israelite, of a priest or of a Levite, he disqualifies her? — It was stated in, But if a priest's daughter be a widow or divorced etc.,
—