Commentary for Yevamot 134:4

ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי אומר משום אביו הבת מאכיל הבן אינו מאכיל מ"ש בן דלא מאכיל משום חלקו של עובר בת נמי לא תאכיל מפני חלקו של עובר

centres on the question whether<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where R. Nahman's arrangement had not been made, ');">¹⁰</span> provision was to be made against the less usual cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon permits the slaves to eat terumah, because he holds that no provision has to be made against the less usual cases (v. supra p. 451, n. 3) while R. Jose forbids them to eat it, because he maintains that provision must be made even against the less usual case. ');">¹¹</span> '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 now assumed to mean that where there is a daughter but no son, she bestows the right of eating terumah upon the slaves, but where there is a son, the slaves are not permitted to eat the terumah. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 134:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.