(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yevamos 59

YEVAMOS 46-60 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef asked Shmuel whether a Kohen Gadol who betrothed a Ketanah, who then became a Bogeres (six months after she becomes a Na'arah), is permitted to marry her. The She'eilah is - whether the Torah (when it required the Kohen Gadol to take a Besulah) was referring to the marriage (in which case, he may not), or to the betrothal (and he may).

(b) Shmuel tries to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Nis'armelu O Nisgarshu: min ha'Nisu'in Pesulos, min ha'Eirusin, Kesheiros' - from which we see that, when it comes to Pesulei Kehunah, the Torah goes after the marriage.

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef rejects Shmuel's proof - on the grounds that he never had any doubts about the Din of making her a Chalalah, seeing as that depends on Bi'ah, which only occurs after the marriage. His Safek was how to explain the Pasuk "ve'Hu Ishah bi'V'sulehah *Yikach*" (whether "Yikach" refers to the betrothal or the marriage, as we explained above).

(a) Shmuel then tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah later in the Perek 'Ireis es ha'Almanah, ve'Nismaneh Lihyos Kohen Gadol, Yichnos', from which it is clear that we go after the time of the betrothal, and not after the marriage. We learn this from the word "Ishah" in the Pasuk in Emor "Ki Im Besulah me'Amav Yikach Ishah" - which is superfluous.

(b) Despite the fact that the above Pasuk precludes both a widow and a Bogeres, we nevertheless conclude that "Ishah" includes a widow that he betrothed before becoming a Kohen Gadol - who did *not experience any physical change*, but precludes a Besulah who then became a Bogeres, who *did*.

(a) There is no difference between an Almanah from the marriage and an Almanah from the betrothal - as regards the Isur of Almanah le'Kohen Gadol.

(b) According to the Tana Kama, a Bogeres is prohibited to a Kohen Gadol. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon say - that she is permitted.

(c) He is also forbidden to marry a Mukas Eitz - a girl who lost her Besulim, not through Bi'ah, but through a stick.

(a) When the Torah writes "Almanah Lo Yikach", it does not distinguish between an Almanah min ha'Eirusin and an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in. We initially try to learn (from a 'Giluy Milsa' - an indication) from Tamar, where the Torah also uses the word "Almanah" (and who was an Almanah from the Nisu'in), that the Torah is referring specifically to an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in.

(b) But we nevertheless conclude that it also incorporates an Almanah min ha'Eirusin - because the Torah juxtaposes it beside "Gerushah" (thereby creating a Hekesh), where there is definitely no difference between the two.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of our Mishnah), "ve'Hu Ishah *Besulah* Yikach" - would have implied that as long as there is some Besulim left (i.e. a Bogeres), the Kohen Gadol is permitted to marry her. By writing "Besulehah", the Torah comes to include a Bogeres in the Isur.

(b) And from the extra 'Beis' ("*bi*'Vesulehah") - he learns that it is only through a natural Bi'ah that she is forbidden, but not through an unnatural one.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, "Besulah" would mean - a complete Besulah. The Torah writes "Besulehah" to permit a Bogeres.

(d) And from the extra 'Beis' - they learn that there is no difference whether she loses her Besulim through a natural Bi'ah or through an unnatural one, she is forbidden.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disqualifies a young girl who lost her Besulim through unnatural relations, from marrying a Kohen Gadol (like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon). She is permitted however, to marry a Kohen Hedyot - because the Isur of Zonah only pertains to a Bi'ah that she performs with a man who is forbidden to her.

(b) The Beraisa precludes a Kohen Gadol who raped a widow from the obligation of "ve'Lo Sihyeh le'Ishah" (Ki Seitzei) because "le'Ishah implies a woman whom he is permitted to marry. Rava proves that the Tana must be speaking when the Bi'ah that the Kohen Gadol performed was an unnatural one - because otherwise, why would he need to come on to the fact that she was a widow, seeing as she is a Be'ulah, and would be forbidden to him in any case?

(c) Nevertheless, the Tana forbids her because of Almanah, but not because of Be'ulah. Rav, who considers a girl with whom an unnatural Bi'ah was performed to be a Be'ulah, has no problem with this Beraisa - because the author is Rebbi Meir, whereas *he* follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon.




(a) If Rav holds like Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, as we just concluded, he ought to forbid her not just because of Be'ulah, but also because of Zonah, seeing as Rebbi Elazar holds 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah she'Lo le'Sheim Ishus, As'ah Zonah'. Rav should then have ascribed the prohibition to the Isur of Zonah, rather than to that of Be'ulah - because Zonah applies to a Kohen Hedyot too, whereas that of Be'ulah does not.

(b) Rav Yosef tries to answer that Rav is speaking about a girl who had relations, not with a person, but with an animal - in which case she would be a Be'ulah, but not a Zonah (because, as we shall see shortly, 'Ein Z'nus li'Beheimah').

(c) Abaye disagrees with Rav Yosef - on the grounds that if Z'nus with an animal renders her a Be'ulah, then it should also render her a Zonah, and if it does not render her a Zonah, then it should not render her a Be'ulah either.

(a) We cannot answer Abaye's Kashya by comparing an unnatural Bi'ah with an animal to a Mukas Eitz, which Rebbi Elazar (too) forbids in our Mishnah, and which would make her a Be'ulah, but not a Zonah - because if the assumption that an unnatural Mukas Eitz would render her a Be'ulah, then no girl would ever be fit to marry a Kohen Gadol seeing as in those days, they would use (in the bathroom) clods of earth to clean themselves (instead of toilet-paper), in which case it is inevitable for a girl not to be a Mukas Eitz.

(b) Rebbi Zeira therefore resolves the Kashya on Rav by establishing him (still according to Rebbi Elazar, but) by a Mema'enes (a Ketanah who makes Miy'un) - in which case, she is still a Be'ulah (a fact that is irreversible), but not a Zonah, a Gerushah or an Almanah (since the marriage was uprooted retroactively).

(a) Rav Shimi bar Chiya says - that a woman who had relations with an animal (may have transgressed a Chiyuv S'kilah; nevertheless she) is Kasher to marry a Kohen (Hedyot - because there is no Z'nus by an animal).

(b) She is permitted even to a Kohen Gadol - because she is like a Mukas Eitz, and those who permit Mukas Eitz, will permit this case too (see Rashash).

(c) When a young girl was raped by a dog whilst she was sweeping the house, Rebbi permitted her to marry a Kohen Gadol. This text cannot be correct - because in the time of Rebbi, there was no Beis ha'Mikdash, no Avodah and no Kohen Gadol. Consequently, we must re-word Rebbi's statement to read - that he declared her *fit* to marry a Kohen Gadol.

(d) This ruling applied specifically to an unnatural Bi'ah - because it is only in such a case that everyone agrees that she is permitted (according to the Rashash that we just referred to, it is only in such a case that anyone agrees that she is permitted .

(a) The Torah forbids "Esnan Zonah u'M'chir Kelev. The definition of ...
1. ... "Esnan Zonah" is - the wages paid to a prostitute for her services.
2. ... "M'chir Kelev" is - an animal that one received in exchange for a dog.
(b) Rav Ashi extrapolates from the Pasuk " ... Gam Sh'neihem" - that 'Esnan Kelev' and 'M'chir Zonah' are permitted.

(c) The definition of ...

1. ... an 'Esnan Kelev' is - the lamb that one gives to someone to have relations with his dog (see Hagahos ha'Bach).
2. ... a 'M'chir Zonah' is - the lamb that he received in exchange for a Zonah.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa forbids a Kohen Gadol to marry the girl that he himself raped or enticed.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, any child that is born to a Kohen Gadol from a girl who had been raped or enticed before their marriage, is a Chalal. The Chachamim say - that he is Kasher.

(c) Rav Huna Amar Rav requires a Kohen Gadol to divorce the girl that he himself raped or enticed. Rav then explain the Beraisa, which says 'Im Nasa, Nasuy' - to refer only to when he enticed her, to teach us that the marriage is valid inasmuch as it absolves him from having to pay the fine of fifty Shekalim.

(d) This is very difficult in light of Rav (himself) and Rebbi Yochanan, who said that although a Kohen Gadol is not permitted to marry a Bogeres and a Mukas Eitz - if he did, he may retain her (because anyway she is destined to become a Bogeres and a Mukas Eitz [i.e. a Be'ulah] once she marries him. In that case, using the same logic, the Kohen Gadol ought to be able to remain with the girl whom he raped or enticed, so why did Rav Huna Amar Rav say that she is not?

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,