Комментарий к Иевамот 8:8

הערל – an uncircumcised Kohen whose brotherws died on account of ritual circumcision.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the right of priests, their wives and their slaves to eat terumah if the priests have physical defects that might disqualify them from the priesthood.

אינו אוכל בתרומה – that we derive from the Passover sacrifice, as it is written concerning it (Exodus 12:48): “But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.”

An uncircumcised [priest] and all impure persons may not eat terumah. Their wives and slaves may eat terumah. An uncircumcised priest may not eat terumah. In the Talmud this is derived through an analogy with the passover sacrifice, which also may not be eaten by anyone who is uncircumcised (Exodus 12:44-48). Impure persons may not eat terumah. This refers to someone who is ritually impure, through anything that ritually defiles, such as scale disease, gonorrhea etc. This halakhah is stated explicitly in Leviticus 22:4-6. However, the wife and slaves of an uncircumcised priest and an impure person may eat terumah. This means that these men are priests, but that they themselves are disqualified from eating terumah due to their lack of circumcision or purity. This lack does not effect their household.

ונשיה ועבדיהם יאכלו – for this is on account of the uncircumcised membrum and ritual uncleanness are not excluded from the community of [Kohanim] but rather, they themselves lack a remedy.

[A priest] whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off, as well as their slaves, may eat terumah, but their wives may not. If, however, he did not know her after the his testes were crushed or his member was cut off, the wives may eat [terumah]. According to Deuteronomy 23:2, a man whose testes are crushed or whose member (penis) is cut off, may not enter into the assembly of God. This is understood to mean that they may not marry an Israelite woman. Our mishnah discusses a priest who has one of these physical defects. He may continue to eat terumah, as may his slaves, since he is a priest. However, his wife may not eat terumah since he was not allowed to marry her or have intercourse with her. We have already learned that once a woman has intercourse with someone forbidden to her she loses the right to eat terumah. However, if one of these physical defects occurred to him while he was married to her, and he does not continue to know (have intercourse) her afterwards, she may continue to eat terumah. The only reason that she loses her right to eat terumah is that she was disqualified by intercourse with someone forbidden to her. However, without such intercourse, she remains the wife of a priest and can continue to eat terumah.

נשיהם לא יאכלו – [she is considered] a priest’s wife illegitimately married to him through his coition for through her having intercourse to disqualify her.

ואם לא ידעה – that she was married to him beforehand; and he did not come upon her [in sexual intercourse] after he became one whose testicles are crushed.

ואם נשתייר מהעטרה – that was severed from the corona and further, he is fit, for there is no membrum virile, and from the corona and above and to the side of the membrum. The corona is a column of flesh that surrounds in the place of one’s circumcision or whether the membrum is crushed, hidden by the striking of a sword or a knife; whether it was crushed and became reduced on its own or whether it was cut, whether at the membrum or at the testicles or whether at sinews of the testicles (see Talmud Yevamot 75b), all of them are disqualified. But these words refer to [being damaged] at the hands of a person, but on account of illness, everything is valid.

Introduction This mishnah defines the terms petzua dakkah and kerut shofkhah mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:2. These two categories of men cannot marry full Israelite women.

Who is considered a “petzua dakkah”? Anyone whose testes are wounded even one of them. A “petzua dakkah” is one who has even one of his testes wounded.

And a “kerut shofkhah”? A man whose member is cut off. If [any part] of the corona remained, even so much as a hair’s breadth, the man is regarded as fit [to serve as a priest]. A “kerut shofkha” is one whose penis has been cut off. However, if any of the crown remains, he is still a valid priest.

A man who testes are wounded, and one whose member is cut off, are permitted to marry a convert or a freed slave. They are only forbidden to enter into the congregation, as it is said “No one whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2). These two categories of men are permitted to marry converts and freed slaves, who according to this mishnah, are not considered to be part of “the congregation of the Lord”. Only those born as fit Israelites are considered to be part of “the congregation of the Lord”.

ואם לדין – that you expound an inference from the weaker to the stronger of your own,

Introduction This mishnah discusses the other categories of people who are forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:4-9.

יש תשובה – there is a response to restore what belongs to Ammon and Moab, for their rationales are explained (Deuteronomy 23:5): “Because they did not meet with you [with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt, and because they hired Balaam…to curse you],” but a woman, it is not her manner to advance to meet – shall you say [the same] regarding the Egyptian and the Edomite, whose rationale [for their inability to enter the Jewish people for three years] is not explained?

An Ammonite and a Moabite are forbidden [to enter into the congregation of the Lord] and their prohibition is for ever. However, their women are permitted at once. The prohibition of the Ammonite and Moabite (Deuteronomy 23:4) is eternal. This means that all of their descendents are forbidden from entering into marriage with an Israelite. Note that even should they convert, which they may, they are still prohibited from marrying Israelites. However, the prohibition of Ammonites and Moabites is only for the men. Women are permitted immediately. As soon as they convert, they may contract marriage with other Israelites. Indeed, Ruth was a Moabitess and one of her descendents was King David.

לא כי – even if I would judge an inference from the weaker to the stronger,, you have no response, and nevertheless, I am stating a Halakha, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

An Egyptian and an Edomite are forbidden only until the third generation, whether they are males or females. Rabbi Shimon permits their women immediately. Said Rabbi Shimon: This is a kal vehomer: if where the males are forbidden for all time the females are permitted immediately, where the males are forbidden only until the third generation how much more should the females be permitted immediately. They said to him: If this is a halakhah, we shall accept it; but if it is only a logical reference, there is a refutation. He replied: This is not so, I am in fact saying a halakhah. In contrast, the prohibition of Egyptian and Edomite converts is only temporary. Three generations after the conversion, they may intermarry with other Israelites. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, female Egyptian converts and female Edomite converts are also prohibited for three generations. This opinion probably reasons that since they will eventually be allowed to intermarry with Israelites, the temporary prohibition covers both males and females. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, takes a more lenient stance and allows females to marry Israelites immediately upon conversion. He is also consistent in explaining the verse. Since all of these verses use masculine language, they all exclude only the males and not the females. The Sages respond to Rabbi Shimon that if his halakhah is a tradition which he learned from his rabbis, they will accept it. However, if it is just based on reasoning they have a means by which to refute it. Their refutation is probably the logic that I presented as their reasoning above. Since Egyptians and Edomites are permitted after three generations, the females are not permitted immediately. Despite the fact that Rabbi Shimon’s original words appeared to have been based on logic, he responds that the halakhah is actually based on a tradition. In this mishnah we can clearly see the rabbinic preference for tradition over logic. The rabbis will only accept Rabbi Shimon’s ruling if it was one that he received from his rabbis. In such a case they would accept it even if they found the logic faulty. In response Rabbi Shimon pleads with them, claiming that his words are indeed a tradition.

נתינים – Gibeonites who converted during the days of Joshua and were placed as hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Mamzerim and nethinim are forbidden, and their prohibition is forever, whether they be males or females. Concerning the mamzer and the netin, all of the sages agree that their prohibition is for all subsequent generations and that both men and women are prohibited. Deuteronomy 23:3 only states that mamzers are prohibited until the tenth generation. It doesn’t say, as does verse four concerning the Ammonite and Moabite, that they are prohibited forever. However, the rabbis employ a verbal analogy (a gezerah shavah) to compare the two. Just as it says “until the tenth generation” about the Ammonite and Moabite, and yet they are prohibited for all generations, so too the mamzer, about whom it also says, “until the tenth generation” is prohibited for all generations.

סריס – there is a eunuch who performs the rite of Halitzah and has his shoe taken off for refusing the leviratical marriage.

Introduction This mishnah contains a discussion about whether or not a eunuch is obligated to perform halitzah for his dead brother’s wife and whether or not halitzah is performed for his wife, should he die without children. Note that this issue is tied to the eunuch’s ability or lack thereof to have children. One who cannot have children would be less likely to be subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum whose purpose is to supply children for the dead brother.

והסריס לא חולץ וכו' – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:6): “that his name (i.e., the dead brother’s) not be blotted out [in Israel],” except for that whose name is blotted out (see Talmud Yevamot 24a).

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that a eunuch performs halitzah and that halitzah is performed by others for his wife, and also that a eunuch does not perform halitzah and that no halitzah is performed for his wife, and I am unable to explain this. Rabbi Joshua transmits an old halakhah that he has heard, but that he doesn’t know how to explain. In these words we can see how halakhot were often transmitted in pithy, memorable phrases, such that later sages sometimes did not know how to explain them. Rabbi Joshua has heard that eunuchs are subject to the laws of halitzah and he has also heard the opposite. He does not know if these two halakhot apply to two different types of eunuchs or whether they contradict each other.

ואין לי לפרש – I do not know how o interpret which eunuch is required to perform Halitzah and which is exempt.

Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain it: a man-made eunuch performs halitzah and halitzah is also performed for his wife, because there was a time when he was fit [to have children]. A eunuch by nature neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit. Rabbi Akiva explains the puzzle brought up by Rabbi Joshua. The eunuch who was castrated by humans performs halitzah for his dead brother’s wife. [He cannot have yibbum, because he is forbidden to marry Israelites, as we learned above.] If he should die without children, halitzah or yibbum is performed for his wife. The reason that he is subject to the laws of yibbum is that he was at one time not a eunuch and he was fit to have children. In contrast, the eunuch who was born a eunuch was never fit to have children, and therefore is not subject to the laws of halitzah. Should he die, his wife is exempt from both halitzah and yibbum. Should his brother die, he does not perform halitzah for his widow.

סריס אדם – who was castrated after he was born.

Rabbi Eliezer said: Not so! Rather a eunuch by nature performs halitzah and halitzah is performed for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since he cannot be cured. Rabbi Eliezer offers the opposite reading and solution to the tradition transmitted by Rabbi Joshua. The eunuch who is subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum is one who was born a eunuch, since he could potentially be cured, and then he could have children. A eunuch who was castrated by others cannot be cured (even today this is not a simple procedure). Therefore, he is not subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum.

סריס חמה – from the womb of his mother, that never saw the sun, but rather, when he is a eunuch and its signs are explained: anyone who lacks the “beard” (i.e., the hair of the genitals) and his hair is abnormal (see Tractate Yevamot 80b) and his flesh is smoothened, and his urine does not produce scum and when he urinates it doesn’t make a pile and the spouting forth of the urine does not travel from afar until it makes a circle like a pile and his semen is feeble and his urine does not ferment, and he washes in the rainy season and his flesh does not produce vapor and is voice is not abnormal and is not recognized as either than of a man or of a woman. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva who states that a eunuch castrated by a man performs Halitzah and his wife removes the shoe of the deceased husband’s brother who refuses to perform levirate marriage, and they perform levirate marriage with his wife but [he] does not perform the role of the levir, for he is disqualified to enter into the community [of Israel].

Rabbi Joshua ben Baterra testified concerning Ben Megusat, who was a man-made eunuch living in Jerusalem and they performed yibbum for his wife, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera testifies about a man-made eunuch, that they performed yibbum for his wife. This proves what Rabbi Akiva said, that man-made eunuchs are subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum. Note that what proves that Rabbi Akiva is correct is a precedent, and not any inherent logic to his words.

סריס – castrated by nature does not either perform Halitzah nor perform levirate marriage, and does not perform Halitzah or levirate marriage to his wife.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the performance of yibbum or halitzah by a eunuch or by an aylonit, a woman who has not developed signs of sexual maturity, and therefore by definition cannot procreate. Both of these categories are therefore people who cannot procreate. Since they cannot procreate they are excluded from the laws of halitzah and yibbum, as we learned in the previous mishnah.

אילונית – her signs we explained in the first chapter (see Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

The eunuch neither performs halitzah nor contracts yibbum. We have already seen this halakhah in the previous mishnah. Here it either refers to a man-made eunuch, who according to Rabbi Akiva does not perform halitzah. Alternatively, it refers to all eunuchs and this mishnah contains an opinion that disagrees with both opinions in the previous mishnah.

So too a woman who is incapable of procreation neither performs halizah nor is taken in yibbum. A woman who is physically incapable of procreating is not subject to the laws of halitzah or yibbum. Since the point of yibbum is procreation, those who cannot procreate are exempt.

If a eunuch performed halitzah for his yevamah, he does not disqualify her [from subsequently marrying a priest]. If he has intercourse with her he disqualifies her, since this is an act of fornication. Since a eunuch does not perform halitzah, there is no validity to an act of halitzah that he performs. If he nevertheless does so, he has not thereby disqualified the woman from subsequently marrying a priest. [A halutzah is forbidden to be married by a priest]. However, if he has intercourse with her, as an attempted act of yibbum, he has disqualified her from marrying a priest, because this was forbidden. Since she was not liable for yibbum, she is prohibited to him by the prohibition of being his brother’s wife. [Remember any time yibbum is not necessary, the prohibition of a brother’s wife is effective, even after the brother’s death]. Any woman who has had relations with a man forbidden to her is subsequently prohibited from marrying a priest.

Similarly where brothers performed halitzah for a woman incapable of procreation, they do not disqualify her [from marrying a priest]. If they have intercourse with her they do disqualify her, since this is an act of fornication. This section contains nearly the same laws with regard to the woman who cannot procreate. If one of the brothers performs halitzah he has not disqualified her from marrying a priest. However, if one of them tries to have yibbum with her, she is disqualified, because she was prohibited to him, as his brother’s wife.

רבי יוסי ור"ש אומרים כו' – for they hold that a [Kohen who is also] a person who exhibits traits of both sexes is like a male but Rabb Yosi retracted and stated in a Baraita (see Talmud Yevamot 83a) that a person who exhibits traits of both sexes is a creature of its own kind, but the Sages did not decide like him whether it is a male or a female. Therefore, he does not feed Terumah/priest’s due [to members of his family].

Introduction This mishnah deals with several categories of people who are of doubtful gender status. A hermaphrodite is a person who has the outer sexual signs of both a male and a female. A tumtum is a person who has no outer sexual signs.

רבי יהודה אומר כו' – but the Halakha is not according to him for we hold above (see Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 8, Mishnah 4) that a man castrated by man performs Halitzah and his wife removes the shoe of the brother of her deceased husband who refuses to perform levirate marriage and a person of undetermined sex who was torn is like a eunuch castrated by a man.

If a priest who was eunuch by nature married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right to eat terumah. A eunuch by nature is not forbidden from marrying Israelite women (he is not considered to be a “petzua daka”, one whose testes were crushed. Therefore, if he is a priest and he marries the daughter of an Israelite, the marriage is valid and he is allowed to eat terumah.

אנדרוגינוס נושא אבל לא נישא – because he is a like a male and whomever lies with him is like someone who comes upon a male in pederasty, whether through the male genitals or the female genitals.

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon stated: if a priest who was an hermaphrodite married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right to eat terumah. A priest who is a hermaphrodite is allowed to marry the daughter of an Israelite. With regard to marriage, he is treated as if he was fully male. Therefore, if he is a priest, his wife may eat terumah.

ר"א אומר חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר – and especially in the place of his male genitals but not in his female genitals, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Judah stated: if a tumtum was opened up and found to be a male, he may not perform halitzah, because he has the same status as a eunuch. A tumtum may have been born with his sexual organs covered by a thin sac of skin. Even if they open up this sac and find that he is male, he may not perform halitzah, since his status is like that of a eunuch. Assumedly, the tumtum cannot procreate and therefore is exempt from the laws of halitzah and yibbum.

The hermaphrodite may marry [a wife] but may not be married [by a man]. As we learned in section two, a hermaphrodite is treated like a male. He may marry a woman but may not be married by a man.

Rabbi Eliezer stated: concerning the hermaphrodite, [the one who has relations with him] is liable to be stoned like one [who has relations with] a male. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if another man has relations with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to be stoned, as are all men who engage in intercourse with other men. This is Rabbi Eliezer’s way of stating that the hermaphrodite is to be treated completely as if he is a male.