Commentary for Yevamot 133:16

זכרים יאכלו והאיכא עובר קסבר

left his widow with child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not survived by any other children. ');">⁵²</span> neither these nor the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog and the zon barzel slaves. ');">⁴⁹</span> may eat it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the embryo cannot bestow the privilege (cf. supra n. 4) either upon his mother or upon the slaves. ');">⁵³</span> If he left children and also left his widow with child, the <i>melog</i> slaves may eat as she may eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog's slaves being the property of the widow and the embryo having no share in them. As by virtue of her living sons the widow is herself entitled to eat terumah she may also feed her slaves on it, Cf. supra n' 4. ');">⁵⁴</span> but the zon barzel slaves may not eat, on account of the share of the embryo which may deprive [its mother]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, supra p. 448, n. 1. ');">⁵⁵</span> of the privilege [of eating <i>terumah</i>] but has no power to bestow it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 448, n. 3. ');">⁵⁶</span> so R. Jose. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose stated in the name of his father: A daughter may bestow the right of eating; a son may not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra. ');">⁵⁷</span> R. Simeon b. Yohai said: [If the children<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who survived the deceased priest. ');">⁵⁸</span> are] males, all [the slaves] may eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On their account because the chances that the embryo will be a viable male and thus have a share in the slaves are so uneven that they may be disregarded. For, in the first instance, it is likely that the embryo will be a female and thus have no share at all in the slaves. And secondly, were it to be a male, it might yet be a miscarriage, which again would have no share in the slaves (v. infra). ');">⁵⁹</span> [If however they are] females, [the slaves] are not permitted to eat, since it is possible that the embryo might be a male;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, when born, will become the owner of the slaves. ');">⁶⁰</span> and daughters, where there is a son, have no share at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaves, therefore, would be the property of the embryo which cannot bestow upon them the right of eating terumah. ');">⁶¹</span> What need was there to point<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a reason why the slaves are forbidden to eat terumah in the latter case. ');">⁶²</span> to the possibility that the embryo might be a male when this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition upon the slaves. ');">⁶³</span> might be equally deduced [from the fact] that [even when the embryo is] a female it deprives them of the privilege!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the female embryo, when born, would be entitled to a share among the other daughters and now, therefore, as an embryo, deprives the slaves of the privilege. ');">⁶⁴</span> — He meant to say: There is one reason and also an additional one. 'There is the one reason' that a female embryo also deprives [the slaves] of the privilege; and, furthermore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the other reason. ');">⁶⁵</span> 'it is possible that the embryo might be a male and daughters, where there is a son, have no share at all'. '[If the children are] males, [the slaves] may eat'. But, surely, there is an embryo in existence!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it, owing to its share in them, should deprive the slaves of the privilege. ');">⁶⁶</span> — He is of the opinion

Explore commentary for Yevamot 133:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.