Yevamot 133

ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד

manumission cancel a mortgage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition against the use of a dead man's shroud has the same force as that of consecrated objects and invalidates, therefore, the legal force of the wife's mortgage. V. supra note 1. ');">¹</span> Rab Judah stated: If a wife brought to her husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In her dowry as zon barzel. ');">²</span> two articles worth a thousand <i>zuz</i>, and their value increased to two thousand, she receives one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is now worth one thousand zuz. ');">³</span> in settlement of her <i>kethubah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which entitles her only to the one thousand zuz which was the sum at which the two articles were appraised at the time she transferred them to her husband. ');">⁴</span>

א"ר יהודה הכניסה לו שני כלים באלף זוז ושבחו ועמדו על שני אלפים אחד נוטלתו בכתובתה ואחד נותנת דמים ונוטלתו מפני שבח בית אביה

and for the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of the second article, now belonging to the husband since the appreciation took place while the articles were in his possession. ');">⁵</span> she pays its price and receives it, since it represents assets of her paternal property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which property belongs to her. ');">⁶</span> What are we taught by this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah's. ');">⁷</span> statement! That assets of her paternal property belong to her? This, surely, has already been stated by Rab Judah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 66b, top. ');">⁸</span>

מאי קא משמע לן שבח בית אביה דידה הוי הא אמרה רב יהודה חדא זימנא מהו דתימא ה"מ היכא דמטיא למשקל בכתובתה אבל מיתן דמי ומישקל לא קמ"ל:

— It might have been assumed that that statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 66b, top. ');">⁸</span> applied only where she came to claim [paternal property] as part of her <i>kethubah</i>, but not where she desired to take it in return for payment of its value, hence we were taught [that she may also pay its price and receive it]. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST WHO DIED AND LEFT HER PREGNANT, HER SLAVES MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if she had other children by virtue of whom she herself is entitled to the eating of terumah. ');">⁹</span> IN VIRTUE OF THE SHARE OF THE EMBRYO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A portion of each slave belonging to the embryo who is one of the heirs. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בת ישראל שניסת לכהן ומת והניחה מעוברת לא יאכלו עבדיה בתרומה מפני חלקו של עובר שהעובר פוסל ואינו מאכיל דברי ר' יוסי

SINCE AN EMBRYO MAY DEPRIVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasons are explained infra. ');">¹¹</span> [ITS MOTHER]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite who died. ');">¹²</span> OF THE PRIVILEGE [OF EATING <i>TERUMAH</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though there are no other children from that union to deprive her of the right of returning to the priestly house of her father and to enjoy the privilege again. ');">¹³</span> BUT HAS NO POWER TO BESTOW IT UPON HER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is an Israelite's daughter married to a priest who died leaving her with no children but the embryo. As it cannot bestow such right upon its mother so it cannot bestow it upon its slaves. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרו לו מאחר שהעדת לנו על בת ישראל לכהן אף בת כהן לכהן ומת והניחה מעוברת לא יאכלו עבדיה בתרומה מפני חלקו של עובר:

SO R. JOSE. THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages who disagreed with him. ');">¹⁵</span> SAID TO HIM: SINCE YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO US IN RESPECT OF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an embryo does not entitle one (either its mother or slaves) to the privilege of eating terumah. ');">¹⁶</span> THE SLAVES OF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, WHO A MARRIED TO A PRIEST WHO DIED AND LEFT HER WITH CHILD, SHOULD ALSO BE FORBIDDEN TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i> ON ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE OF THE EMBRYO!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 447, n. 12. ');">¹⁷</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A question was raised: Is R. Jose's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In forbidding in our Mishnah the eating of terumah by zon barzel slaves. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו טעמא דרבי יוסי משום דקסבר עובר במעי זרה זר הוא או דלמא ילוד מאכיל שאינו ילוד אינו מאכיל

because he is of the opinion that an embryo in the womb of a lay woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of an Israelite, belonging to no priestly family. ');">¹⁹</span> is regarded as a nonpriest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if his father was a priest. ');">²⁰</span> or is his reason because only the born may bestow the right of eating but the unborn may not? — In what respect could this difference matter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, whatever the reason, the embryo does not bestow the privilege. ');">²¹</span> — In respect of an embryo in the womb of a priest's daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had been married to a priest. The first reason does not apply, while the second, does ');">²²</span>

למאי נפקא מינה לעובר במעי כהנת מאי אמר רבה היינו טעמא דרבי יוסי דקסבר עובר במעי זרה זר הוא רב יוסף אמר ילוד מאכיל שאין ילוד אינו מאכיל

Now, what is the reason? Rabbah replied: R. Jose's reason is this. He is of the opinion that an embryo in the womb of a lay woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of an Israelite, belonging to no priestly family. ');">¹⁹</span> is regarded as a non-priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if his father was a priest. ');">²⁰</span> R. Joseph replied: The born may bestow the privilege of eating while the unborn may not. An objection was raised: They said to R. Jose: Since you have testified to us in respect of the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, what is the law in respect of the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest? 'The first',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'this'. ');">²³</span>

מיתיבי אמרו לו לר' יוסי מאחר שהעדת לנו על בת ישראל לכהן בת כהן לכהן מהו אמר להם זו שמעתי וזו לא שמעתי

he replied, 'I heard;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the slaves are forbidden to eat terumah. ');">²⁴</span> but the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">²⁵</span> I have not heard'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 448, n. 13. Consequently they are allowed to eat terumah. ');">²⁶</span> Now, if you agree [that R. Jose's reason is because] an embryo in the womb of a lay woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 448, n. 8. ');">²⁷</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא עובר במעי זרה זר הוא היינו דקא"ל זו שמעתי וזו לא שמעתי אלא אי אמרת ילוד מאכיל שאין ילוד אין מאכיל מאי זו שמעתי וזו לא שמעתי איהי היא קשיא

is regarded as a non-priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 448, n. 9. ');">²⁸</span> it was correct for him to say, 'The first I heard, but the other I did not'. If you maintain, however, [that R. Jose's reason is because] the born may bestow the right of eating and the unborn may not, what [could he have meant by] 'The first I have heard but the other I have not heard', when the principle is the same! — This is indeed a difficulty. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our Mishnah. ');">²⁹</span> is the opinion of R. Jose; but the Sages said: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deceased priest. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל זו דברי ר' יוסי אבל חכמים אומרים יש לו בנים אוכלים משום בנים אין לו בנים אוכלים משום אחים אין לו אחים אוכלים משום משפחה כולה

has children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Besides the embryo. ');">³¹</span> they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The zon barzel slaves. ');">³²</span> may eat [<i>terumah</i>] by virtue of his children;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The embryo is entirely disregarded. ');">³³</span> if he has no children, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The zon barzel slaves. ');">³²</span>

זו ולא ס"ל הא א"ל שמואל לרב חנא בגדתאה פוק אייתי לי בי עשרה דאימא לך באנפייהו המזכה לעובר קנה אלא זו וס"ל מאי קמ"ל דפליגי רבנן עליה דרבי יוסי

may eat by virtue of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deceased priest's. ');">³⁴</span> brothers, and if he has no brothers they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The zon barzel slaves. ');">³²</span> may eat by virtue of the entire family.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the entire family of the priest there must be at least one who is entitled to be his heir; and so long as the embryo is unborn, that born heir, as the owner of the slaves, is fully entitled to confer upon them the right of eating terumah. ');">³⁵</span> 'This',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression, 'This is the opinion of R. Jose'. ');">³⁶</span>

ומי פליגי מתיב רבי זכאי זו עדות העיד ר' יוסי מפי שמעיה ואבטליון והודו לו אמר רב אשי מי קתני וקבלו והודו לו קתני דמסתבר טעמיה

would imply that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">³⁷</span> himself does not share the view;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an embryo acquires ownership. ');">³⁸</span> but, surely, Samuel said to R. Hana of Bagdad, 'Go bring me a group of ten men that I may tell you in their presence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus giving the matter due publicity. ');">³⁹</span> that if title is conferred upon an embryo [through the agency of a third party], it does acquire ownership'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 142b, Keth. 7b, Zeb. 95a. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ר הניח בנים אלו ואלו אוכלים הניחה מעוברת אלו ואלו אין אוכלים הניח בנים והניחה מעוברת עבדי מלוג אוכלים כדרך שהיא אוכלת עבדי צאן ברזל לא יאכלו מפני חלקו של עובר שהעובר פוסל ואינו מאכיל דברי ר' יוסי

The fact is that 'this' here denotes that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">⁴¹</span> also holds the same opinion. What, then, does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel. ');">⁴¹</span> teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By pointing out that the statement is that of R. Jose. ');">⁴²</span> That the Rabbis disagree with R. Jose! But do they, in fact, disagree? Surely R. Zakkai stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH. Cur. edd., 'R. Zakkai raised an objection'. ');">⁴³</span>

רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו הבת מאכלת הבן אינו מאכיל ר"ש בן יוחי אומר זכרים יאכלו כולן נקבות לא יאכלו שמא ימצא עובר זכר ואין לבנות במקום הבן כלום

This evidence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Recorded in our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁴</span> was submitted by R. Jose in the name of Shemaiah and Abtalion and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">⁴⁵</span> agreed with him! — R. Ashi replied: Does it read, 'and they accepted'? It was only said, 'and they agreed', [which may only mean] that his view is logical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They, however, did not accept it. ');">⁴⁶</span> Our Rabbis taught: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A deceased priest. ');">⁴⁷</span>

מאי איריא שמא ימצא עובר זכר תיפוק ליה דנקבה נמי פסלה חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דנקבה נמי פסלה ועוד שמא ימצא עובר זכר ואין לבנות במקום הבן כלום

left children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his widow was not pregnant. ');">⁴⁸</span> both these and the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog and the zon barzel slaves. ');">⁴⁹</span> may eat <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The melog slaves are entitled to the privilege by virtue of the rights of the widow who is entitled to it by virtue of her surviving children; and the son barzel slaves are entitled to the privilege by virtue of the priest's living children who are now their owners. ');">⁵⁰</span> If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deceased priest. ');">⁵¹</span>

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