Talmud - Yevamot 69b יבמות ס״ט ב׳

If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e., she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does.

A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her offspring. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter’s father’s mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father’s offspring.

A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband’s death, as she has offspring from him.

Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother’s mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter’s son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

GEMARA: We already learned that the marriage of an imbecile is invalid, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor boy who married women and died, their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage.

§ It is stated in the mishna: How so? If an Israelite engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Since if he impregnated her she may not partake, let us be concerned in any case of intercourse between an Israelite and the daughter of a priest lest he impregnated her, thereby rendering it prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Didn’t we learn in a mishna that if two men betrothed two women, and then at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, they accidently switched wives, and engaged in relations with each other’s wives that night, in this case, after the accident is discovered, the court removes the wives from their husbands for three months, lest they are pregnant from the men they presumed to be their husbands and the fetus is therefore a mamzer, although they engaged in intercourse only once (33b)?

The Gemara answers that Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About lineage the Sages were concerned, and they therefore decreed a three-month separation of the husbands and wives, to prevent the possibility of a child being of uncertain lineage. However, about the prohibition against a non-priest eating teruma they were not concerned. The Gemara asks: And for teruma were they not concerned? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that if a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, if she is an Israelite woman married to a priest it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately, as the Sages were concerned that her husband might die within the hour?

Rather, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About impregnation through an act of marriage they were concerned, but about impregnation through licentious intercourse they were not concerned, as the woman generally takes precautions to ensure that she will not become pregnant.

The Gemara asks: And about marriage were they concerned? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and her husband died on that same day, she immerses to purify herself, as she is ritually impure due to their intercourse, and she may partake of teruma that same evening? Evidently, the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant from the initial act of intercourse, even that of marriage.

Rav Ḥisda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband’s death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.

Abaye said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: Once her fetus in her womb is noticeable, she is ruined retroactively. Her prior consumption of teruma is retroactively prohibited. Evidently, pregnancy immediately disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Therefore, the reason that she may partake of teruma immediately after her husband’s death is that the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant. Rav Ḥisda responded: What is the period in which she is retroactively ruined? It is from the moment the fetus is noticeable and back in time until forty days from the beginning of her pregnancy. During the first forty days of the pregnancy, she is not retroactively ruined, as the fetus is not yet considered a living being.

It was stated: With regard to a man who engaged in intercourse with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, i.e., before they got married, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, as the future husband is not considered his father. And Shmuel said that the offspring is a shetuki, a child of unknown paternity. Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason in a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. However, if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him, i.e., we assume that the child is the betrothed’s son.

Rava said: From where do I say that? What is the source for my assertion? The source is the mishna, which teaches that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she gave birth, she may partake of teruma due to her child, who is a priest. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she gave birth, why may she partake of teruma? Shouldn’t there be concern that the child’s father is not the priest? Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others?

And if there, in the case of the mishna, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is a prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest, with whom she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse, is a prohibition of the same degree, nevertheless, we cast the child after the priest, then here, where for her to engage in intercourse with that man who is not her betrothed is a Torah prohibition, and to engage in intercourse with this man, her betrothed, is permitted by Torah law, is it not all the more so that her betrothed should be considered the father? Therefore, Rav’s statement stands to reason only if the woman is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well.

Abaye said to him in rejection of his proof: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, her betrothed, even if she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. What is the reason? It is that we say that since she exposed herself to her betrothed, although they were not married yet, she apparently exposed herself to others as well. And the mishna that you cited as support for your assertion is referring to a situation where they were both incarcerated alone together in prison. Therefore, there is no concern that she engaged in intercourse with another man. This is one version of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

Some say that when the betrothed admits that he engaged in intercourse with her, everyone agrees that we cast the child after him. Rather, their dispute was stated as follows: In the case of a betrothed woman who became pregnant, if her betrothed denies that he engaged in intercourse with her, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer, and Shmuel said that the offspring is a child whose father’s identity is not known. Rava said: Rav’s statement stands to reason in a case where the woman is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others. Therefore, it is assumed that the child is a mamzer.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Yevamot 69b explores how a fetus, child, or grandchild's status as priest, slave, or mamzer affects a woman's right to eat teruma.