Quoting%20commentary for Yevamot 111:18

וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות: אמר רב עמרם הא מלתא אמר לן רב ששת

[the fact is that] as soon as [her husband] died his sanctity is withdrawn from her; so here also as soon as [the son] died his sanctity is withdrawn from her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could R. Nathan allow her to continue to eat terumah? ');">⁴⁴</span> — Rather, said R. Joseph, R. Nathan holds that marriage with a deaf [priest]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the betrothal took place while he was still capable of hearing. ');">⁴⁵</span> does entitle the woman to eat <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Pentateuchally the betrothal confers the privilege upon her. Its postponement until after the marriage is merely a preventive measure Rabbinically instituted (v. Keth. 57b). which is, of course, not applicable here where marriage with the deaf man had already taken place. ');">⁴⁶</span> and that no prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the woman's eating of terumah. ');">⁴⁷</span> is to be made in respect of the marriage of a deaf priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">⁴⁸</span> as a preventive measure against the betrothal of a deaf priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no need to provide against the possibility of mistaking betrothal for marriage and for thus allowing a woman to eat terumah immediately after betrothal, since it is well known that the betrothal of a deaf man has no validity. The Rabbis who forbid the woman to eat terumah even after the marriage, it may be explained, provided against the possibility of mistaking such a marriage which followed a betrothal that took place while the priest was still capable of hearing (which Pentateuchally entitles the woman to the privilege) for one which followed a betrothal that took place when he was already deaf and which is Pentateuchally invalid. ');">⁴⁹</span> Said Abaye to him: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If according to R. Nathan it is the marriage, even though there was no son, that entitles the woman to the terumah. ');">⁵⁰</span> what need was there [to state] 'If a son was born to her'? — Because of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in such a case only agree with R. Nathan that the woman may eat terumah. ');">⁵¹</span> Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he maintains that after the marriage, though there was no son, the woman is entitled to the privilege. ');">⁵²</span> R. Nathan should have expressed his disagreement with the Rabbis in the first clause!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the woman is prohibited to eat terumah even after the marriage. ');">⁵³</span> — He allowed the Rabbis to finish their statement and then expressed his disagreement with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With their views in both the first and the final clause. ');">⁵⁴</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Nathan reserved his opinion until the Rabbis had finished their full statement. ');">⁵⁵</span> the statement should have read, 'If the son died she may not eat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have concluded the statement of the Rabbis. ');">⁵⁶</span> R. Nathan said: She may eat'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Nathan's view would thus have come at the very end. As, however, his opinion is inserted before 'she may not eat' which is the statement of the Rabbis, it cannot he maintained any more that he was waiting until they had concluded their full statement, and the original difficulty consequently arises again. ');">⁵⁷</span> — This is a difficulty. SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES. R. Amram said: The following statement was made to us by R. Shesheth

Explore quoting%20commentary for Yevamot 111:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.