QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites sources to prove that a woman who has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav becomes disqualified from eating Terumah. The Gemara searches for a source that such a relationship also disqualifies the woman from marrying a Kohen.

The Gemara first attempts to prove that the woman becomes prohibited to a Kohen from the fact that the verse makes special mention that even a Bas Yisrael becomes prohibited when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav. The verse must mean that she becomes prohibited to marry a Kohen, because as a Bas Yisrael she is already prohibited to eat Terumah. The Gemara refutes the proof and says that perhaps the verse is needed to teach that a Bas Yisrael who has prohibited relations may not eat Terumah in a case in which she was permitted until then to eat Terumah -- such as when she had once been married to a Kohen and has children from him. Perhaps it is that Terumah which the verse teaches that she loses if she has prohibited relations.

(a) Why does the Gemara reject the proof from the verse by saying that the verse refers to a case in which the Bas Yisrael loses the right to eat Terumah if she has prohibited relations after she was married to (and divorced or widowed from) a Kohen? The verse could refer to a simpler case: the Bas Yisrael loses the right to eat Terumah if she has prohibited relations while she is married to a Kohen!

(b) Why does the Gemara not reject the proof by saying that the verse refers to a case of a Bas Yisrael who loses the right to eat Terumah when she has prohibited relations and later marries a Kohen? Normally, a Bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen becomes entitled to eat Terumah, but in this case she is disqualified because she had prohibited relations.

(a) The Gemara does not suggest that the Bas Yisrael is married to a Kohen at the time she has prohibited relations because the verse says "Ki Siheyeh" (Vayikra 22:12) which the Gemara later understands to mean that the man with whom she has prohibited relations must be one with whom Kidushin can take effect. If she is married to a Kohen at the time she has relations with him, she is an Eshes Ish and Kidushin obviously cannot take effect.

(b) The ARUCH LA'NER answers the second question as follows. The verse implies that the Bas Yisrael loses the right to eat the Terumah which she presently is eating (and not the Terumah which she might eat in the future), just as the Bas Kohen mentioned in the verse loses the Terumah which she presently is eating.

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the source for the law that a woman becomes disqualified from eating Terumah when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Lav, and when she has relations with an Eved or a Nochri (see Chart).

If a woman has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares, what is her status?

(a) RASHI (13b, DH u'Veis Hillel Poslin, #2) writes that she is permitted to eat Terumah, because no verse teaches that a woman loses her right to eat Terumah when she has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares. Rashi there follows his first explanation of the Gemara here. In fact, Rashi seems to follow this opinion throughout Yevamos. Rashi consistently explains that the expression "Pesulah l'Kehunah" (with regard to a woman who has relations prohibited by an Isur Kares) means that she is disqualified from marrying a Kohen but not from eating Terumah. (See Rashi to 44b, DH v'Hi Pesulah; 69a, DH v'Eima Niv'alah; 53b, DH Pesalah; 81a, DH Pesulah. See TOSFOS to 44b, DH Hi, and Insights to Yevamos 69:2:b, and Tosfos ibid., DH Asa'ah Zonah. See also Rashi to 57b, DH Min ha'Pesulin, and Nidah 44b, DH Min ha'Pesulin, and Sanhedrin 55b, DH Ba Aleha, where he conspicuously omits any Chayavei Kerisus from a list of men who disqualify a woman from eating Terumah.)

(b) However, Rashi earlier (15b, DH Hi Atzmah) rules that having relations with an Isur Kares indeed disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah. Relations with a man who is forbidden to her with an Isur Kares is included in the category of relations with an Eved and Nochri, which are derived from the verse of "Almanah u'Gerushah" which includes any man with whom Kidushin cannot take effect. This explanation is not consistent with what Rashi writes earlier (13b), as TOSFOS there points out (DH Beis Hillel Poslim). Rashi there (15b) follows his second explanation in the Gemara here, which he also mentions here that he prefers. This is also the way Rashi presents the law on 35a (DH Nifselu). (Apparently, those comments were added after Rashi completed his commentary on Yevamos. Instead of changing his comments in every place he discussed the issue, he merely added a few lines to reflect his new perspective on the matter.)

(c) TOSFOS (44b, DH Hacha Nami) writes that the source that relations with an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah is the verse, "Ki Siheyeh l'Ish Zar" (Vayikra 22:12), the verse which prohibits the daughter of a Kohen from eating Terumah when she has relations with a man who is prohibited to her with an Isur Lav. Although the Gemara explains that the word "Ki Siheyeh" teaches that the verse refers specifically to a woman who has relations with a man with whom Kidushin can take effect, the simple meaning of the verse is that any man with whom she becomes a Zonah and with whom relations is a severe Isur (an Isur Kares, as opposed to the Isur against having relations with an Eved or Nochri) is called a "Zar" and disqualifies her from Terumah. Relations with a man who is prohibited to her through an Isur Lav is thus derived from the verse through a Derashah.

(d) The RI suggests another explanation there (44b, and in greater detail on 35a, DH Af Al Pi). He explains that having relations with an Isur Kares is not included in the verse of "Ki Siheyeh" if that Isur Kares is one that comes about through a marital union (that is, the man is forbidden to the woman only because of a marriage that took place; for example, he is married to her sister). The reason for this is that the word "Zar" implies that the person was always prohibited to this woman ("Zar me'Ikara"; Gemara 69a).

Rather, the source that disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah if she has relations with any of the Arayos is the Torah's appellation of her as a Zonah (as the Chachamim say on 61b). The fact that the Torah mentions both the Isur of Zonah and the Isur of Chalalah in the same verse implies that the Torah intends to compare the two types of women. Just as a Chalalah becomes prohibited from eating Terumah (as the verse states explicitly), so, too, a woman who is a Zonah is not only prohibited to marry a Kohen but is also prohibited from eating Terumah.

QUESTIONS: RASHI concludes that a woman who has relations with a man to whom she is prohibited with an Isur Kares becomes disqualified from eating Terumah because of the verse, "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah" (Vayikra 22:13). Rashi writes that this Halachah cannot be derived from the previous verse which teaches that having relations with an Isur Lav disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah, because that verse refers only to types of forbidden relationships with which Kidushin can take effect.

When the Gemara asks for the source that having relations with an Eved or a Nochri disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah even though Kidushin does not take effect with those men, the Gemara also could have asked for the source that having relations with an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah, and the answer would have been the same (both are derived from the verse "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah"). This is Rashi's preferred explanation.

(a) Why is a relationship forbidden by an Isur Kares not included in the verse that teaches that having relations with an Isur Lav disqualifies a woman from Terumah? Rashi himself writes later that there is a Kal v'Chomer: if an Isur Lav disqualifies a woman from eating Terumah, certainly an Isur Kares disqualifies her! Why is a new verse needed to teach that an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah? (MAHADURA BASRA)

(b) Rashi continues and says that a Zonah may not eat Terumah, and that having relations with a man who is prohibited to her with an Isur Kares renders a woman a Zonah. Why, then, is a new verse needed to teach that an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah? Having relations with an Isur Kares renders her a Zonah, and thus she should be disqualified from Terumah because of the fact that she is a Zonah!

(a) The YASHRESH YAKOV answers the first question by saying that even if the Halachah with regard to Chayavei Kares could be derived from Chayavei Lavim, such a Derashah would teach only that an Isur Kares disqualifies her from Terumah when the man was a "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara," when they were prohibited to each other from birth. In contrast, in a case in which they became prohibited to each other as a result of a marriage (for example, he married her sister), the Kal v'Chomer would not teach that having relations disqualifies her from Terumah, because even Chayavei Lavim do not disqualify her from Terumah when the relationship is not one of "Zar Etzlah me'Ikara." The Gemara seeks a source that teaches that all forms of Isurei Kares disqualify her from Terumah. (TOSFOS to 35a, DH Af Al Pi, gives a similar explanation. See above, Insight 2:d.)

(b) Why does having relations with an Isur Kares not disqualify her from Terumah simply because it renders her a Zonah? The Gemara (56b) records a dispute (between two versions of a ruling) about whether a married woman (Eshes Ish) who is raped becomes a Zonah or not. Rashi here follows the opinion there that she becomes a Zonah only when she has relations willfully. When Rashi writes that having relations with an Isur Kares disqualifies a woman from Terumah because it renders her a Zonah, he refers to when she has relations willfully. Nevertheless, a source is still necessary to teach that even when she has relations with an Isur Kares against her will, she becomes disqualified from eating Terumah. For this reason Rashi writes that the source is the verse, "Ki Siheyeh Almanah u'Gerushah." This also seems to be the intention of the RAMBAN (in Milchamos to 56b, page 18b of the pages of the Rif) and the RASHBA here.