Yevamot 131

אחוותא

twin sisters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two pairs of twins were children of R. Hiyya from Judith. ');">¹</span> But does not the commandment apply to women? Surely, R. Aha b. R. Kattina related in the name of R. Isaac: It once happened in the case of a woman who was half slave and half free, that her master was compelled to emancipate her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that she might be permitted to marry a free man, As a half slave she was not allowed to contract such a marriage. Now, since her master was compelled to give her the opportunity of marrying, it is obvious that the commandment of propagation applies to women also! ');">²</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: People were taking liberties with her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And marriage was her only protection; and this was the reason why her master was compelled to emancipate her. ');">³</span>

ולא מיפקדי והאמר רב אחא בר רב קטינא א"ר יצחק מעשה באשה אחת שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין וכפו את רבה ועשאה בת חורין אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מנהג הפקר נהגו בה:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A WIDOW [WHO MARRIED] A HIGH PRIEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contracting thereby a forbidden union. ');">⁴</span> OR IF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A <i>HALUZAH</i> [WHO MARRIED] A COMMON PRIEST BROUGHT IN TO HER HUSBAND <i>MELOG</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra and Glos. ');">⁵</span> SLAVES AND ZON BARZEL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra and Glos. ');">⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הבא על יבמתו</strong></big><br><br>

SLAVES. THE <i>MELOG</i> SLAVES MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i> BUT THE ZON BARZEL SLAVES MAY EAT OF IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara. ');">⁶</span> THE FOLLOWING ARE <i>MELOG</i> SLAVES: THOSE WHO, IF THEY DIE, ARE THE WIFE'S<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'died for her'. ');">⁷</span> LOSS AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE HER PROFIT. THOUGH IT IS THE HUSBAND'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN THEM, THEY MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara. ');">⁶</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>אלמנה</strong></big> לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט הכניסה לו עבדי מלוג ועבדי צאן ברזל עבדי מלוג לא יאכלו בתרומה עבדי צאן ברזל יאכלו

THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES: IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE A PROFIT TO HIM. SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He or his heirs must restore them to his wife in a healthy condition should he divorce her or die. ');">⁸</span> THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i> WHETHER THEY ARE <i>MELOG</i> SLAVES, OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara. ');">⁶</span>

ואלו הן עבדי מלוג אם מתו מתו לה ואם הותירו הותירו לה אע"פ שהוא חייב במזונותן הרי אלו לא יאכלו בתרומה ואלו הן עבדי צאן ברזל אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו הואיל והוא חייב באחריותן הרי אלו יאכלו בתרומה

IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, HOWEVER, WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i> WHETHER THEY ARE <i>MELOG</i> SLAVES OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara. ');">⁶</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. And <i>MELOG</i> SLAVES MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>! What is the reason? Let them rather be regarded as a possession that was acquired by one in his possession [who is permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>]. for it was taught: Whence is it deduced that the wife whom a priest married or the slaves which he purchased may eat <i>terumah</i>.? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul the purchase of his money, he may eat of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 11. ');">⁹</span> And whence is it deduced that if a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of an Israelite, who married a priest. ');">¹⁰</span>

בת ישראל שניסת לכהן והכניסה לו עבדים בין עבדי מלוג בין עבדי צאן ברזל הרי אלו יאכלו בתרומה ובת כהן שניסת לישראל והכניסה לו עבדים בין עבדי מלוג בין עבדי צאן ברזל הרי אלו לא יאכלו בתרומה:

purchased slaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of her melog property the principal of which is hers. ');">¹¹</span> or if a priest's slaves purchased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a sum of money that was given to them as their absolute property. on the condition that their master was to have no claim whatsoever upon it. ');">¹²</span> other slaves, these may eat <i>terumah</i>? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 11. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ועבדי מלוג לא יאכלו בתרומה אמאי להוי כקנינו שקנה קנין דתניא מנין לכהן שנשא אשה וקנה עבדים שיאכלו בתרומה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יא) וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו הוא יאכל בו

a possession which his possession has acquired may eat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression, 'the purchase of his money is superfluous' and the text is, therefore, expounded thus: If the purchase of his money, i.e., a priest's wife or slave (who is the priest's acquisition) buy any soul, he (i.e., the one purchased) 'may eat of it'. Why then are not melog slaves, being an acquisition of the priest's wife, permitted to eat terumah? ');">¹³</span> — Whosoever may himself eat may confer the right of eating upon others but whosoever may not himself eat may not confer the right of eating upon others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest's wife in this case is not herself permitted to eat terumah, since her union with this priest is a forbidden one. V. Lev. XXI, 7, 13 and supra p. 441, n. 1. ');">¹⁴</span> May he not, indeed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and not'? ');">¹⁵</span>

ומנין לאשה שקנתה עבדים ועבדיו שקנו עבדים שיאכלו בתרומה שנאמר וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו הוא יאכל בו קנינו שקנה קנין אוכל

There is, surely, the case of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and behold'. ');">¹⁶</span> an uncircumcised man and that of all levitically unclean persons who may not themselves eat <i>terumah</i> and yet confer the right of eating it upon others!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their slaves, e.g., are permitted to eat terumah. Cf. infra 70a. ');">¹⁷</span> — In those cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'. ');">¹⁸</span>

כל האוכל מאכיל כל שאין אוכל אינו מאכיל

they are merely suffering pain in their mouths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., their disability is restricted to their mouth alone. They are only temporarily forbidden to eat the terumah. At the moment their unclean period is over or circumcision is performed their rights are fully restored. In the case of the priest's wife in our Mishnah, however, the disability is permanent, since by her forbidden marriage she remains for ever a profaned woman. ');">¹⁹</span> But there is, surely, the case of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and behold'. ');">¹⁶</span> the bastard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., mamzer, (v. Glos.) the issue of a union between a slave or idolater and a woman who was the issue of a marriage between a priest and the daughter of an Israelite. ');">²⁰</span>

ולא והרי ערל וכל הטמאים שאינן אוכלין ומאכילין התם פומייהו כאיב להו

Who may not eat <i>terumah</i> himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is neither priest nor even a legitimate Israelite. ');">²¹</span> and yet may confer the right of eating it upon others!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His grandmother, the wife of the priest, may continue to eat terumah even after the death of her husband so long as the bastard (being a descendant of her husband through their daughter) is alive. As the widow of a priest she would have lost the privilege of eating terumah on her husband's death had there been no surviving descendants. V. infra 69b. ');">²²</span> — Rabina replied. He speaks of an acquisition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not of a descendant. ');">²³</span>

והרי ממזר שאין אוכל ומאכיל

that is permitted to eat: Any acquisition that may eat may confer the right of eating upon others, and any acquisition that may not eat may not confer the right upon others. Raba, however, stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explaining the reason why MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. ');">²⁴</span> that pentateuchally they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not of a descendant. ');">²³</span>

אמר רבינא קנין אוכל קאמר קנין אוכל מאכיל שאינו אוכל אינו מאכיל

may in fact eat <i>terumah</i>; but it is the Rabbis who instituted the prohibition in order that the woman might complain, 'I am not allowed to eat; my slaves are not allowed to eat; I am only his mistress!', in consequence of which he would be likely to divorce her. R. Ashi stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explaining the reason why MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. ');">²⁴</span> The prohibition is a preventive measure against the possibility of her feeding them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog slaves. ');">²⁵</span> with <i>terumah</i> after the death [of her husband].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Believing that, as she was allowed to feed them with terumah during the lifetime of her husband though they were her property, she may continue to do so even after his death. In the case of zon barzel slaves, however, no such error need be feared since the slaves are not hers, but his absolute property until the moment when it is surrendered to her by her husband or heir, v. infra. ');">²⁶</span>

ורבא אמר מדאורייתא מיכל אכלי ורבנן הוא דגזרי בהו כדי שתאמר אני איני אוכלת עבדי אינן אוכלין זונה היא אצלו הלכך אתי לאפוקה

Now, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If such an error as suggested is to be feared. ');">²⁷</span> a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest should also be forbidden to feed [her <i>melog</i> slaves with <i>terumah</i>] as a preventive measure against her feeding them after [her husband's] death!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But our Mishnah distinctly states that her melog slaves also may eat terumah! ');">²⁸</span> — But, said R. Ashi, [our Mishnah refers to] a priestly widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of a priest who, as a widow, married a High Priest, and thus became profaned through their forbidden marriage. ');">²⁹</span>

רב אשי אמר גזירה שמא תאכיל לאחר מיתה

who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If her melog slaves were permitted to eat terumah while she lived with the High Priest. ');">³⁰</span> might draw the following conclusion:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the High Priest's death. ');">³¹</span> 'At first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During her first widowhood. ');">³²</span>

אלא מעתה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן לא תאכיל גזירה שמא תאכיל לאחר מיתה

they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog slaves. ');">³³</span> ate <i>terumah</i> at my paternal home;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a widow she then returned to her father's priestly house and was again entitled to eat terumah herself and to feed her slaves with it. ');">³⁴</span> and when I married this man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest. ');">³⁵</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי באלמנה כהנת דאתיא לאורויי מעיקרא אכלי בתרומה דבי נשא אינסבי ליה להאי אכלי בתרומה דגבראי והשתא הדרי לי למילתיה קמייתא ולא ידעה דמעיקרא לא שויתה לנפשה חללה השתא שויתה לנפשה חללה

they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog slaves. ');">³³</span> ate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 8. ');">³⁶</span> of the <i>terumah</i> of my husband; they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog slaves. ');">³³</span>

תינח אלמנה כהנת אלמנה בת ישראל מאי איכא למימר באלמנותה לא פליגי רבנן

should now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the High Priest died, though she remained a profaned widow who is, in fact, forbidden to eat terumah. ');">³⁷</span> therefore, revert to their former condition',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be allowed again. as before, to eat terumah. ');">³⁸</span> and she would not know that at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During her first widowhood. ');">³⁹</span>

איתמר המכנסת שום לבעלה היא אומרת כלי אני נוטלת והוא אומר דמים אני נותן הדין עם מי רב יהודה אמר

she had not made of herself a profaned woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halachah (v. Glos.) through ber forbidden marriage. ');">⁴⁰</span> while now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having married a High Priest to whom a widow is forbidden. ');">⁴¹</span> she has made herself a profaned woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halachah (v. Glos.) through ber forbidden marriage. ');">⁴⁰</span> This explanation is quite satisfactory in the case of a priestly widow;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 443, n. 7. ');">⁴²</span> what explanations however, is there in the case of a widow who is the daughter of an Israelite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The error mentioned cannot occur in her case; but as our Mishnah draws no distinction between the two, the question remains: Why should not her melog slaves be permitted to eat terumah? ');">⁴³</span> — The Rabbis made no distinction between one widow and another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in her widowhood'. Were the feeding permitted in the case of the one, the other might erroneously be presumed to come under the same law. ');">⁴⁴</span> It was stated: If a wife: who brought to her husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As zon barzel property (v. Glos.). ');">⁴⁵</span> appraised goods,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shum (v. Glos.). V. Ket. Sonc. ed. p 401. n. 11. In consideration of which he guarantees her a specified sum in her kethubah, which is recoverable by her at his death, or earlier if she is divorced. ');">⁴⁶</span> demands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she claims her kethubah. v. supra n. 9. ');">⁴⁷</span> 'I will accept only my own goods',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the actual objects she had brought to her husband. ');">⁴⁸</span> and he replies 'I am only paying their value'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the appraisement in the kethubah. ');">⁴⁹</span> — in whose favour is judgment to be given? Rab Judah said: