סקר
מסכת בבא קמא:





 

Steinsaltz

From this point forward, insertion of anything less than the corona is only considered a kiss, for which he is exempt. And this statement disagrees with that of Shmuel, who maintains that one is liable to receive punishment for external contact of the sexual organs.

§ It was taught in the mishna that both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse have thereby acquired the yevama. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that he has acquired his yevama? Rav said: He has acquired her for everything. In other words, she is considered his wife in all regards. Therefore, if he is a priest, she may partake of teruma. And Shmuel said he has only acquired her with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, i.e., to inherit his brother’s property and to exempt her from levirate marriage if he then dies and leaves behind children from another wife.

The Gemara adds: If she was a yevama from marriage, everyone agrees that she may partake of teruma after the initial stage of intercourse, as she was already partaking at the outset, when she was married to the deceased brother. Therefore, even a minimal act of intercourse is enough to allow her to continue to partake of teruma. When they disagree it is with regard to a yevama from betrothal. Rav said: She may partake, as the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse and the other forms of intercourse listed in the mishna, and considers them like intentional intercourse.

And Shmuel said: When the Merciful One includes these forms of intercourse, He does so only to establish the yavam in place of the husband, but to strengthen him more than the husband, no. Since she was merely betrothed to the deceased brother, she was not permitted to partake of teruma, and therefore she may not partake of teruma at this point either.

The Gemara comments: And Shmuel follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: In any case where the woman’s marriage to her original husband entitles her to partake of teruma, intercourse with the yavam in any of the manners described in the mishna also entitles her to partake of teruma, and any case where her relationship with her original husband does not entitle her to partake of teruma, i.e., if she had been betrothed but not married, intercourse with the yavam in the manners described in the mishna also does not entitle her to partake of teruma.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma, as marriage to a deaf-mute does not enable a woman to partake of teruma. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently died and the yevama happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma. And in this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband.

Granted, according Rav, this works out well, as intercourse with the deaf-mute yavam, which is comparable to the unwitting intercourse mentioned in the mishna because the deaf-mute is not mentally competent, effects the levirate marriage and allows her to partake of teruma despite the fact that she could not do so during the lifetime of her first husband. However, according to Shmuel, this is difficult, as he maintains that a yavam cannot have more rights than the deceased husband due to intercourse undertaken without intent to perform levirate marriage.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: Amend the baraita and say as follows: If he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake of teruma. If he married her and afterward became a deaf-mute, she may partake of teruma. If he then died, and she happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma.

And what is the meaning of the phrase: In this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband? It means to say that if the original husband was a deaf-mute from the outset, i.e., before consummating the marriage, she would not have been allowed to partake of teruma, whereas if the yavam was a deaf-mute from the outset she may partake of teruma once they perform levirate marriage, because she had been fully married to the deceased brother.

And some say a different version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel: If she was a yevama from betrothal, i.e., her marriage with the deceased brother had never been completed, and she and the brother-in-law engaged in an inferior form of intercourse as described in the mishna, everyone agrees that she may not partake of teruma, as she did not partake of teruma in her husband’s lifetime.

When they disagree, it is with regard to a yevama from marriage. Rav says: She may partake of teruma as she was permitted to partake of teruma initially, while married to the deceased brother. And Shmuel says she may not partake of teruma, because when the Merciful One includes unwitting intercourse and considers it like intentional intercourse, it was only with regard to the matters stated in the chapter of levirate marriage, but for every other issue, no.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Shmuel himself said: In any case where the woman’s marriage to her original husband entitles her to partake of teruma, intercourse with the yavam in one of the manners listed in the mishna also entitles her to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: Emend the wording and say as follows: With regard to any act of intercourse through which the husband entitles her to partake of teruma, a yavam also entitles her to partake of teruma; and with regard to any act of intercourse through which the husband does not entitle her to partake of teruma, a yavam also does not entitle her to partake of teruma. Just as betrothal cannot be performed via an unwitting act of intercourse, this act does not entitle a yevama to partake of teruma.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma. If the deaf-mute husband subsequently died, and the yevama happened before a deaf-mute yavam for levirate marriage, she may partake of teruma. And in this regard the strength of the yavam is greater than the strength of the husband. Granted, according to Rav, he can answer as Shmuel answered initially, i.e., according to the first version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. However, according to Shmuel, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

§ The Sages taught: In the case of a mentally competent daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a mentally competent priest, and he did not have a chance to marry her before he became a deaf-mute and was no longer mentally competent, she may not partake of teruma. If a son was born to her from this priest, she may partake of teruma on account of her son. If the son died, Rabbi Natan says she may continue to partake of teruma, and the Rabbis say she may not continue to partake of teruma.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Natan? Rabba said: Since she has already partaken of teruma in a permitted manner, she may continue. Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, in the case of the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, and he died childless, she should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she has already partaken of it in the past. Rather, it must be that since he has passed away, his priestly sanctity has left her, and she is considered a regular Israelite in all regards. Here too, since the son has passed away, his priestly sanctity has left her, and therefore she should not be entitled to partake of teruma. Rabba’s explanation should consequently be rejected.

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Natan holds that the marriage of a deaf-mute who was competent when he betrothed his wife entitles her to partake of teruma, and we do not issue a decree against the wife partaking of teruma through marriage to a deaf-mute due to the case of betrothal to a deaf-mute. Although the betrothal of a deaf-mute does not take effect, his consummation of a marriage does take effect and entitles his wife to partake of teruma. Abaye said to him: If so, why do I need the baraita to specify that a son was born to her? She should be entitled to eat teruma even if she did not have a son. Rav Yosef responded: That case is mentioned due to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that she is entitled to partake of teruma only if she has a child.

Abaye asks further: And let Rabbi Natan disagree with them in the first clause of the baraita as well. Rav Yosef responds: Rabbi Natan left the Rabbis until they finished their statement, and then disagreed with them with regard to their entire statement. The Gemara asks: If so, let the baraita first teach that if the son died she may not partake of teruma, and subsequently state: Rabbi Natan said she may eat. Why is Rabbi Natan’s opinion mentioned before the Rabbis finished stating their opinion? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult according to Rav Yosef.

§ It was taught in the mishna: And so too, one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah in any form is liable to receive punishment. Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet,

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר