Talmud - Yevamot 70a יבמות ע׳ א׳

However, if she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, even if she is also rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him.

Rava said: From where do I say that? My source is the mishna that 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. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, need it be said that she may partake of teruma? It can easily be assumed that the priest is the father. Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well?

And if there, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is in violation of a prohibition and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest is in violation of a prohibition of the same degree, and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with both, 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 in violation of 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 he should be considered the father?

Abaye said to him: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she is also rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. And the mishna, which you cited as support for your claim, is referring to a situation where she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with anyone at all. Therefore, if they both concur that he is the father, the child is considered his.

§ It is stated in the mishna that a slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, but not due to his being her offspring. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he does not disqualify a woman whose offspring he is? The verse states with regard to a maidservant married to a Hebrew slave, that when he is released, “the wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4). This indicates that the maidservant’s children are considered her own and are not considered their father’s offspring at all. Therefore, a maidservant’s child does not disqualify his paternal grandmother from partaking of teruma.

§ It is stated in the mishna that a mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. The Sages taught: The Torah states, “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child…she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). I have derived only that her own child disqualifies her from partaking of teruma; from where do I derive that her child’s child disqualifies her as well? The verse states: “And she has no child [zera]” at all, indicating that even her grandchild disqualifies her, as zera means offspring.

I have derived only that an unflawed child disqualifies her; from where do I derive that an unfit child disqualifies her as well? The verse states: “And she has no [ein la] child,” which can be homiletically interpreted as examine her [ayyein ala] to check if she has any offspring, fit or unfit.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you already derive from that phrase that her child’s child disqualifies her? The Gemara answers: To derive the halakha with regard to her child’s child, no verse was necessary, as the children of children are considered like children. The verse was therefore necessary for deriving the halakha of an unfit child.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: In accordance with whose opinion is the assumption of the mishna that the child of a Jewess and a slave or a gentile is a mamzer? Is it in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: You can even say that it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is a mamzer only if the parents are liable to receive karet. This is because they concede with regard to a slave and a gentile, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

§ It was taught in the mishna that even a High Priest sometimes disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. The Sages taught that she can say in disapproval: I am hereby atonement for my daughter’s son, the small jug [kuza], i.e., the mamzer. He is dear to me and I am willing to suffer to atone for him, as he is my offspring from a priest and therefore enables me to partake of teruma. However, I am not willing to be atonement for my daughter’s son, the large jug [kada], the High Priest, as he is my offspring from an Israelite and therefore disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

MISHNA: An uncircumcised priest, e.g., one for whom circumcision was considered too dangerous, and all those who are ritually impure with any type of impurity, may not partake of teruma, the portion of produce that must be set aside for the priests. However, their wives and their slaves may partake of teruma.

With regard to both a man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals [petzua dakka] and one whose penis has been severed [kerut shofkha], it is prohibited for them to marry a woman who was born Jewish. If they are priests they and their slaves may partake of teruma, as this condition does not disqualify them or their property. However, their wives may not partake of teruma, because if a priest has relations with his wife after suffering his injury, he renders her a ḥalala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, as he has engaged in forbidden sexual relations with her. If such a priest did not know his wife, i.e., did not engage in sexual relations with her, after his testicles were crushed or his penis was severed, she may partake of teruma, as she had married the priest in a permitted manner.

And who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? It is anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even one of them. And one whose penis has been severed is anyone whose sexual member has been cut off. As for the measure that renders him unfit, if there remains a portion of the corona, even as much as a hairsbreadth, he is still fit. However, if nothing at all is left of the corona, he is considered as one with a severed penis, for whom it is prohibited by Torah law to marry a Jewish woman.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma? It is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof” (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: “A sojourner of a priest and a hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10) with regard to teruma. Just as “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to the Paschal lamb indicates that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to teruma teaches that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

Rabbi Akiva says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: “Any man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word ish, meaning man, comes to include an uncircumcised man, indicating that he is like one who is ritually impure and therefore may not partake of consecrated food.

The Gemara analyzes this baraita in detail. The Master said: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant” with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: “A sojourner and a hired servant” with regard to teruma. Just as “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to the Paschal lamb indicates that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, “a sojourner and a hired servant” stated with regard to teruma teaches that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: The phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” must be available, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if it is not available, the verbal analogy can be refuted logically, as it is possible to say: What is unique to the Paschal lamb? It is that one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to its being piggul, an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, or due to its being notar, the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, or due to the one consuming it being ritually impure. Therefore, it could be argued that it is owing to the Paschal lamb’s special sanctity and severity that an uncircumcised man may not partake of it. But from where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not eat teruma? The Gemara concludes: This is not so [la’ei], as the phrase is in fact available for establishing the verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: Which of the instances of the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? If one would claim that it is that which is stated with regard to teruma, certainly those words are necessary, as it is taught in a baraita: “A sojourner”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who was acquired as a permanent acquisition until the Jubilee Year, i.e., a slave who did not wish to terminate his servitude and underwent a ceremony in which his ear was pierced with an awl. “A hired servant”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who was acquired as an acquisition for a period of six years.

The baraita asks: And let the verse state only that “a sojourner” may not eat teruma, and not state anything about “a hired servant,” and I would say by way of an a fortiori inference: If a slave who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may not partake of teruma, then with regard to one who was acquired as an acquisition for only six years, all the more so is it not clear that he should be prohibited from eating it?

The baraita answers: If it was written so, I would have said with regard to “a sojourner” that this is referring to a slave who was acquired as an acquisition for a period of six years, as he may not eat teruma; but one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may in fact partake of teruma. Therefore, the term “a hired servant” comes and teaches that “a sojourner” is referring to a slave who had his ear pierced and must now remain with his master until the Jubilee Year, and that although he was acquired as a permanent acquisition, he may not partake of teruma.

The Gemara proposes: Rather, it is the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb that is available for establishing a verbal analogy. This phrase: “A sojourner and a hired servant,” that the Merciful One writes with regard to the Paschal lamb, to what is it referring? If we say that the verse is referring to an actual sojourner and to a hired servant, i.e., a Hebrew slave who was acquired permanently or for a fixed number of years, can it possibly be that because he is a sojourner or a hired servant he is exempt from the mitzva of the Paschal lamb? If one answers in the affirmative and argues that a Hebrew slave, like his Canaanite counterpart, is considered his master’s property and is therefore no longer obligated in all the mitzvot like a freeman, this conclusion is difficult, as we maintain with regard to teruma that a Hebrew slave may not partake of it on account of his priestly master.

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

Yevamot 70a examines determining a child's paternity based on rumored relationships, weighing priestly status against mamzer status in Torah law.