In Yevamot 6:2, we are told that one who has sexual intercourse with various types of women will "invalidate" them. The language is as follows:

וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות שבתורה או פסולות כגון אלמנה לכהן גדול, גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט, ... בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין - פסל

So too, one who has sexual intercourse with any of the 'arayot or with invalid women - such as a high priest with a widow, a regular priest with a divorcee or a chalutzah, a mamzer or a netin with an Israelite girl - he invalidates [her].

Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro interprets the reference to invalidation as relating to her subsequent inability to marry a kohen, but recognises that this only goes for the first part of the mishna and for the final example given in the second part, since a divorcee and a chalutzah are already invalidated from marrying kohanim. His solution is that, in the event that they were the daughters of kohanim, they are now invalidated from consuming terumah:

וגרושה נמי, אי בת כהן היא מפסלה בהך ביאה מתרומה דבי נשא

And a divorcee [and chalutzah] likewise, if she is the daughter of a kohen she is invalidated by this sexual intercourse from the terumah of her father's house.

The Mishna in Yevamot 7:5, however, is clear that a woman who was raped or seduced by a kohen will be unable to eat terumah (such as would have been permissible had she married him), but that if she was the daughter of a kohen and she was either raped or seduced by an Israelite, she will be able to continue eating it. The precise language is האונס והמפתה... לא פוסלים ולא מאכילים.

Unless we posit a contradiction between these two mishnayot (ie: Yevamot 6:2 is according to one tana and Yevamot 7:5 is according to another), we seem to have a problem. The mishna in 6:2 cannot be speaking about rape and it cannot be speaking about seduction, since the mishna in 7:5 presents a contrary halakha. We are forced to suggest that it is speaking of marriage. But the first part of the mishna (in which a man has sexual intercourse with 'arayot) cannot concern marriage, since there is no kiddushin when it comes to 'arayot, and the final example in the mishna also cannot be speaking about marriage, since there is no kiddushin by mamzerim and netinim.

Do these mishnayot contradict one another, or is there a solution?

  • I'm not sure I follow. In 7:5 it's talking about where the union was otherwise possible, but in 6:2 it's where the union was not otherwise possible. 7:5 even continues that they do not פוסל, but if the union was illicit, then they are פוסל.
    – Double AA
    May 8, 2013 at 5:57
  • I don't think so - the continuation of 7:5 is to the effect that those who are unfit to enter the congregation are פוסל - but that's not inclusive of divorcees and chalutzot.
    – Shimon bM
    May 8, 2013 at 6:39
  • Would you agree that a Bat Kohein (who is not a Gerusha) who is raped by a Kohein can eat Teruma bc of her father even as she gains no new permission or disqualification from having been raped by a Kohein? But a Bat Kohein Gerusha who is raped by a Kohein can no longer eat Teruma bc of her father as she is now a Chalala.
    – Double AA
    Dec 3, 2015 at 19:40


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .