Yevamot 113

הא נמי אכלה ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון התם אלא דיש לו להאכיל במקום אחר אבל הכא דאין לו להאכיל במקום אחר לא

this woman also may eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since through the kinyan of the betrothal the woman becomes the priest's acquisition and is, therefore, like himself, entitled to eat terumah so long as she does not become profaned (a halalah) through actual marriage. ');">¹</span> Whence [is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon just deduced. ');">²</span> proved]? Is it not possible that R. Eleazar and R. Simeon maintain [their opinion] only there because in other circumstances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he married a woman permitted to him. ');">³</span> he is entitled to confer the right of eating, but not here where he is never entitled to confer the right of eating!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is not permitted to marry any woman. ');">⁴</span>

וכי תימא הכא נמי יש לו להאכיל בבת גרים והא מיבעיא בעי לה רבי יוחנן מרבי אושעיא ולא פשיט ליה

And were you to reply that here also he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incapacitated priest, since he is only forbidden to enter into the assembly of the Lord (Deut. XXIII, 2), i.e., to marry a Jewess, but he is permitted to marry a proselyte. ');">⁵</span> is entitled to confer upon the daughter of proselytes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is not included in the assembly of the Lord. V. supra n. 7. ');">⁶</span> the right of eating, surely [it may be retorted] this very question was addressed by R. Johanan to R. Oshaia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra. ');">⁷</span> who gave him no answer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether such an incapacitated priest may confer upon the daughter of a proselyte the right of eating terumah. Since no answer was given, there is no proof that the right may be conferred at all. The difficulty consequently remains: How could the case of the incapacitated priest who can never confer the right upon others be inferred from the case of one who is, in certain circumstances, entitled to confer such a right? ');">⁸</span>

איתמר אביי אמר הואיל ומאכילה בלא ידעה

It was stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the difficulty raised. V. supra n. 10. ');">⁹</span> Abaye said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incapacitated priest is entitled to confer upon the woman he betrothed the right to eat terumah. ');">¹⁰</span> Because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In certain other circumstances. ');">¹¹</span> he is entitled to confer upon [his wife]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom he married before he had been incapacitated. ');">¹²</span>

רבא אמר הואיל ומאכילה בעבדיו ושפחותיו הכנענים

the right to eat [<i>terumah</i>] so long as he does not cohabit with her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After becoming incapacitated (v. infra 70a). Since he may confer the privilege of eating terumah in this case he may also confer it where the betrothal was unlawful, so long as the woman had not been profaned by him through marriage. ');">¹³</span> Raba said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incapacitated priest is entitled to confer upon the woman he betrothed the right to eat terumah. ');">¹⁰</span> Because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In certain other circumstances. ');">¹¹</span> he may confer the right of eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] so MS.M. (Cur. edd [H] 'enables her to eat'). ');">¹⁴</span>

אביי לא אמר כרבא קנין דאישות מקנין דאישות ילפינן ולא ילפינן קנין דאישות מקנין דעבדים

[<i>terumah</i>] upon his Canaanitish bondmen and bondwomen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he may confer the privilege in that case he may also confer it upon the woman he betrothed. ');">¹⁵</span> Abaye did not give the same explanation as Raba because matrimonial <i>kinyan</i> may be inferred from matrimonial <i>kinyan</i>, but matrimonial <i>kinyan</i> may not be inferred from the <i>kinyan</i> of slaves. And Raba does not give the same explanation as Abaye because there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the incapacity occurred after marriage. ');">¹⁶</span> it is different, since she has already been eating it previously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to the man's incapacity. This, therefore, provides no proof that a man who is already incapacitated can also confer the privilege. ');">¹⁷</span> And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he reconcile the difference in two cases? ');">¹⁸</span>

ורבא לא אמר כאביי שאני התם שכבר אכלה ואביי שכבר אכלה לא אמרינן דאי לא תימא הכי בת ישראל שניסת לכהן ומית תיכול שכבר אכלה ורבא התם פקע קניניה הכא לא פקע קניניה

— [The argument], 'since she has already been eating' cannot be upheld;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we do not say'. ');">¹⁹</span> for should you not admit this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But insist on upholding Raba's distinction. ');">²⁰</span> a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who subsequently died should also be allowed to eat <i>terumah</i> since she has already been eating it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to her husband's death. As in this case the argument is obviously untenable so it is untenable in the case of the incapacitated priest. ');">²¹</span> And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he advance an argument that is untenable in the case cited? ');">²²</span>

גופא בעא מיניה רבי יוחנן מרבי אושעיא פצוע דכא כהן שנשא בת גרים מהו שיאכילנה בתרומה אישתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי לסוף אתא גברא רבה אחרינא ובעא מיניה מילתא [אחריתא] ופשט ליה ומנו ריש לקיש א"ל רבי יהודה נשיאה לר' אושעיא אטו ר' יוחנן לאו גברא רבה הוא אמר ליה דקבעי מינאי מילתא דלית לה פתרי

— There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the priest died. ');">²³</span> his <i>kinyan</i> had completely ceased;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the priest died, leaving no sons, their marital relationship was completely severed. ');">²⁴</span> here, however, his <i>kinyan</i> did not cease.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is still her husband. ');">²⁵</span> [To turn to] the main text. R. Johanan enquired of R. Oshaia: If a priest who was wounded in the stones married the daughter of proselytes does he confer upon her the right of eating <i>terumah</i>? The other remained silent and made no reply at all. Later, another great man came and asked him a different question which he answered. And who was that man? Resh Lakish. Said R. Judah the Prince to R. Oshaia: Is not R. Johanan a great man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so entitled to a reply. ');">²⁶</span>

למאן אי לרבי יהודה בין בקדושתיה קאי בין לאו בקדושתיה קאי לא אכלה אי בקדושתיה קאי לא אכלה דהא אמר מר בת גר זכר כבת חלל זכר

The other replied: [No reply could be given] since he submitted a problem which has no solution. In accordance with whose view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Did R. Johanan ask his question. ');">²⁷</span> If according to R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in Kid. 77a, differs from R. Jose on the question of the daughter of a proselyte. ');">²⁸</span> she is not entitled to eat <i>terumah</i> whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incapacitated Priest. ');">²⁹</span>

אי לאו בקדושתיה קאי לא אכלה דהא אמר קהל גרים איקרי קהל

does or does not retain his holiness. For if he retains his holiness she may not eat since the Master said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah. ');">³⁰</span> 'The daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male who is unfit for the priesthood';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. As he may not consequently marry a proselyte's daughter she is obviously forbidden to eat of the terumah. ');">³¹</span> and if he does not retain his holiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the priestly sanctity is consequently no reason for her prohibition to marry a halal. ');">³²</span> she may not eat either, since it has been said that the assembly of proselytes is called an 'assembly'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An 'assembly of the Lord' into which an incapacitated person may not enter. (Cf. supra p. 382, nn. 7 and 8). The marriage is consequently forbidden and, therefore, confers upon the woman no right to the eating of terumah. ');">³³</span>

ואי לר' יוסי בין בקדושתיה קאי בין לאו בקדושתיה קאי אכלה בקדושתיה קאי אכלה דהא אמר אף גר שנשא גיורת בתו כשרה לכהונה אי לאו בקדושתיה קאי אכלה דהא אמר קהל גרים לא איקרי קהל

If, however, according to R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Did R. Johanan ask his question. ');">³⁴</span> she is entitled to eat <i>terumah</i> whether he does or does not retain his holiness. For if he retains his holiness she may eat, since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. [So MS.M. cur. edd.,'a Master said']. ');">³⁵</span> stated that even when a proselyte married a proselyte his daughter is eligible to marry a priest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 77a. Hence she is not inferior in this respect to the daughter of an Israelite. ');">³⁶</span> and if he does not retain his holiness, she may also eat since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. [So MS.M. cur. edd.,'a Master said']. ');">³⁵</span>

אלא אליבא דהאי תנא דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אשה בת גרים לא תנשא לכהונה עד שתהא אמה מישראל

said that the assembly of proselytes is not called an 'assembly'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage with her being consequently permissible, the right of eating terumah should obviously be conferred upon her. ');">³⁷</span> It must rather be<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan raised his question. ');">³⁸</span> in accordance with the view of the following Tanna. For we learned: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, 'A woman who is the daughter of a proselyte must not be married to a priest unless her mother was of Israel',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bik. I, 5. ');">³⁹</span> And it is this that his question amounts to: Has only her eligibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where her mother was of Israel. ');">⁴⁰</span>

והכי קמיבעיא ליה כשרות מיתוספא בה ואכלה או דלמא קדושה מיתוספא בה ולא אכלה

increased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is she, if her mother was of Israel, thereby only enabled to marry a priests but is not regarded as a proper daughter of Israel to be included in the 'assembly of the Lord', so as to be forbidden to one incapacitated. ');">⁴¹</span> and consequently she is entitled to eat <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any ease. Even if the incapacitated priest is holy he may marry her. And, as she is not included in the 'assembly' (v. supra n. 13), she is not forbidden to marry him. ');">⁴²</span> or has perhaps her sanctity also increased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she is thus included in the 'assembly' and hence forbidden to marry one incapacitated. ');">⁴³</span> and consequently she is not permitted to eat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the marriage was a forbidden one. ');">⁴⁴</span>

תא שמע כי אתא רבי אחא בר חיננא מדרומא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה מנין לפצוע דכא כהן שנשא בת גרים שמאכילה בתרומה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יא) וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו וגו' יאכל בו

Come and hear: When R. Aha b Hinena arrived from the South, he came and brought a Baraitha with him: Whence is it deduced that if a priest, who is wounded in the stones, married the daughter of proselytes, he confers upon her the right to eat <i>terumah</i>? For it was stated, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 11. ');">⁴⁵</span> etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. [H] in the original seems to be a mistake for [H] which is the only word omitted from the Scriptural quotation. ');">⁴⁶</span> he may eat of it. Now, in accordance with whose view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was R. Aha's Baraitha necessary. ');">⁴⁷</span> If it be suggested, 'according to R. Judah', surely [it may be retorted] he stated that whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest suffering from the incapacity mentioned in the Baraitha. ');">⁴⁸</span>

למאן אילימא לרבי יהודה האמר בין בקדושתיה קאי בין לאו בקדושתיה קאי לא אכלה ואי לרבי יוסי ל"ל קרא האמר בין בקדושתיה קאי בין לאו בקדושתיה קאי אכלה אלא לאו לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב וש"מ כשרות איתוספא בה ואכלה ש"מ

does or does not retain his holiness she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who married him. ');">⁴⁹</span> is not permitted to eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is contrary to the Baraitha which permits it. ');">⁵⁰</span> And if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. ');">⁵¹</span> 'in accordance with the view of R. Jose', what need [it may be asked] was there for a Scriptural text? Surely, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. ');">⁵²</span>

איתמר רב אמר

stated that whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest suffering from the incapacity mentioned in the Baraitha. ');">⁴⁸</span> does or does not retain his holiness she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman who married him. ');">⁴⁹</span> is permitted to eat! Must it not [consequently be assumed that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Aha's Baraitha, ');">⁵³</span> is] in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? And so it may be inferred that only her eligibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 384, nn 13 and 14. ');">⁵⁴</span> had been increased and that she is consequently permitted to eat. This proves it. It was stated: Rab said,