Yevamot 135

דהא קניה בהויה ואי בת ישראל לכהן היא לא מאכיל לה משום דעולא:

since he acquires her by the betrothal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And being, therefore, deemed to be his legal wife she is forbidden to eat terumah. V. Lev. XXII, 12. ');">¹</span> and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was betrothed] to a priest, the betrothal cannot bestow the privilege upon her, owing to the ruling of 'Ulla.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though Pentateuchally a woman who is betrothed to a priest is entitled to the privilege of eating terumah, she has been forbidden to eat it during the period of betrothal, when she is still in her father's house, as a preventive measure against the possibility of her treating to it a brother or a sister of hers. V. Keth. 57b. ');">²</span> A DEAF-MUTE, for if [the woman] is the daughter of a priest [who was married] to [him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deaf-mute. ');">³</span> who is] an Israelite, he deprives her of the privilege, since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though mentally defective and, therefore, Pentateuchally ineligible to execute any kinyan. ');">⁴</span>

והחרש: אי בת כהן לישראל היא פסיל לה דהא קניה בתקנתא דרבנן ואי בת ישראל לכהן היא לא מאכיל קנין כספו אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר קנין הוא:

acquired her by virtue of a Rabbinical enactment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 112b. ');">⁵</span> and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to [him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deaf-mute. ');">³</span> who is] a priest, he cannot bestow the privilege upon her, because the All Merciful said, The purchase of his money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 11, emphasis on purchase (kinyan). ');">⁶</span> while he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deaf-mute. ');">³</span>

ובן תשע שנים וכו': קס"ד בשומרת יבם לבן תשע ויום אחד למאי אי למיפסל קטן נמי מיפסל פסיל אי לאכולי גדול נמי לא מאכיל

is not eligible to execute any <i>kinyan</i>. AND A BOY WHO IS NINE YEARS etc. This was assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By him who raised the following objection. ');">⁷</span> to refer to the case of a yebamah who was awaiting the decision of a levir who was nine years and one day old.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And with whom no connubial intercourse had taken place. ');">⁸</span> Now, in what respect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the age mentioned of any consequence. ');">⁹</span>

אמר אביי הכא ביבם בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הבא על יבמתו עסקינן דמדאורייתא קניא ליה סד"א הואיל ומדאורייתא קניא ליה וביאתו ביאה אימא לוכיל קמ"ל עשו ביאת בן ט' שנים ויום אחד כמאמר בגדול

If in respect of depriving her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is the daughter of a priest, and the levir is an Israelite. ');">¹⁰</span> of the privilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the eating of terumah; the purpose of the ruling being to indicate that the levirate bond comes into force simultaneously with the levir's capability of cohabitation. ');">¹¹</span> a younger child would also equally deprive her of the privilege! And if in respect of bestowing the privilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he is a priest and she is the daughter of an Israelite; the purpose being to indicate that, though he is capable of cohabitation, his levirate bond is not powerful enough to bestow upon his yebamah the privilege of eating terumah. ');">¹²</span> a grownup levir also cannot bestow this privilege!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was explicitly stated earlier in out Mishnah. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל רבא אי הכי סיפא דקתני ספק בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ספק שאינו השתא ודאי בן ט' לא מאכיל ספק מיבעיא

— Abaye replied: We are dealing here with a levir of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabited with his yebamah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An act which in the case of a levir who is of age is valid. ');">¹⁴</span> who, according to Pentateuchal law, becomes his <i>kinyan</i>. Since it might have been assumed that, as Pentateuchally she becomes his <i>kinyan</i>, and his cohabitation also is legal, he should be entitled to bestow the privilege upon her, hence we were taught that the cohabitation of a boy who is nine years and one day old has been given the same validity only as that of a ma'amar by an adult.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not constitute complete kinyan (cf. supra 50a). The boy of the age of nine years and one day CANNOT consequently BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE any more than the others enumerated in our Mishnah. The ruling as to 'depriving a woman of the privilege' applies only to the cases of the EMBRYO, THE LEVIR, BETROTHAL AND THE DEAF-MUTE but not to that of the boy of the age mentioned. ');">¹⁵</span> Said Raba to him: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the boy of the age of nine years and one day was included only because of the ruling that he CANNOT BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE, and that the ruling of 'depriving a woman of the privilege' does not apply to him, cf. supra n. 2. ');">¹⁶</span> [why] is it stated in the final clause, [EVEN WHEN] IT IS A MATTER OF DOUBT WHETHER THE BOY IS NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD, OR NOT? If a boy who is certainly of the age of nine cannot bestow the privilege, is there any need to speak of a boy whose age is in doubt! — No, said Raba, [the Mishnah] deals with a boy of the age of nine years and one day belonging to one of the classes of disqualified persons who, by their cohabitation, deprive a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is the daughter of a priest. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא בבן תשע שנים ויום אחד דהנך פסולים קתני דפסלי בביאתן וכדתניא בן תשע שנים ויום אחד גר עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי כותי נתין חלל וממזר שבאו על כהנת לויה וישראלית פסלוה

of the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The boy of the age of nine years and one day accordingly deprives a woman of the privilege; and it is because of this ruling that the case of the boy was included in our Mishnah. The second ruling that certain persons CANNOT BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE is not, of course, necessary in his case and applies only to the others enumerated, vi., THE EMBRYO, THE LEVIR, BETROTHAL AND A DEAF-MUTE. ');">¹⁸</span> as it was taught: An Ammonite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to enter the congregation of the Lord. Cf. Deut. XXIII, 4. ');">¹⁹</span> a Moabite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to enter the congregation of the Lord. Cf. Deut. XXIII, 4. ');">¹⁹</span> an Egyptian,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, to the third generation, is forbidden to enter the congregation of the Lord. Cf. ibid. 9f. ');">²⁰</span>

והא מדקתני סיפא אם אינן ראוין לבא בישראל הרי אלו פוסלים מכלל דרישא לאו בפסולים עסקינן רישא פסולי קהל סיפא פסולי כהונה:

or an Idumean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, to the third generation, is forbidden to enter the congregation of the Lord. Cf. ibid. 9f. ');">²⁰</span> proselyte, a Cuthean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²¹</span> a nathin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²¹</span> a halal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²¹</span>

גופא בן ט' שנים ויום א' גר עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי כותי נתין חלל וממזר שבאו על כהנת לויה וישראלית פסלן

or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priests of a Levite or of an Israelite, disqualifies her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 74b. If the woman is the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite she is forbidden to marry a priest, and if she is the daughter of a priest she may neither marry a priest nor may she continue to eat terumah. ');">²²</span> But since it is stated in the final clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the continuation of our Mishnah infra 6. ');">²³</span> 'If they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel they render [a woman] unfit', it may be inferred that the first clause does not deal with such disqualified persons! — The first clause speaks of those who are disqualified to enter the assembly, while the latter clause speaks of those who are disqualified to marry the daughter of a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As e.g., a halal who is permitted to enter the assembly (i.e., to marry the daughter of an Israelite), but is forbidden to marry the daughter of a priest. (Cf. supra 37a). Though the expression 'not fit to enter the assembly of Israel' was used in the final clause also, it only implies marriage with the daughter of a priest, since otherwise this part of the Mishnah would have been a mere repetition of the first and, consequently, superfluous. ');">²⁴</span> [To turn to] the main text:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The full text of the previous citation. ');">²⁵</span>

רבי יוסי אומר כל שזרעו פסול פוסל כל שאין זרעו פסול אינו פוסל רשב"ג אומר כל שאתה נושא בתו אתה נושא אלמנתו וכל שאין אתה נושא בתו אי אתה נושא אלמנתו:

An Ammonite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 456, n. 6. ');">²⁶</span> a Moabite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 456, n. 6. ');">²⁶</span> an Egyptian or an Idumean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit. n. 7. ');">²⁷</span> proselyte, a Cuthean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁸</span>

מנא הני מילי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, יב) ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר כיון שנבעלה לפסול לה פסלה

a nathin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁸</span> a halal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁸</span> or a bastard, of the age of nine years and one day, who cohabits with the daughter of a priest, of a Levite or of an Israelite disqualifies her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 456, n. 9. ');">²⁹</span> R. Jose said: Anyone whose children are disqualified causes disqualification;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For explanation v. Gemara infra. ');">³⁰</span>

האי מיבעי ליה דקאמר רחמנא בת כהן דמינסבא לזר לא תיכול

he whose children are not disqualified does not cause disqualification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For explanation v. Gemara infra. ');">³⁰</span> R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whenever you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For explanation v. Gemara infra. ');">³⁰</span> and whenever you may not marry his daughter you may not marry his widow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Nid. VI. ');">³¹</span> Whence are these rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning the disqualifications enumerated in the cited Baraitha. ');">³²</span>

ההיא (ויקרא כב, יג) מושבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה מלחם אביה תאכל נפקא מדקאמר רחמנא ושבה אל בית אביה תאכל מכלל דמעיקרא לא אכלה

deduced? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture stated, And if a priest's daughter be married unto to a strange man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So literally. (a) 'one who is not a priest'; (b) 'one strange to her', 'a disqualified person', E. V. a common man'. Lev. XXII, 12. ');">³³</span> as soon as she has had connubial relations with a disqualified person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Strange man' is taken in sense (b). ');">³⁴</span> the latter disqualified her. But the text cited is surely required [for another] purpose, viz., that the All Merciful ordained that the daughter of a priest who was married to a layman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Non-priest, an Israelite. V. supra n. 11. ');">³⁵</span> may not eat <i>terumah</i>! — That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest's daughter who was married to an Israelite loses the privilege of eating terumah. ');">³⁶</span>

אי מההיא הוה אמינא לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה כתב רחמנא האי ללאו [לאו] (ויקרא כב, י) מוכל זר לא יאכל קדש נפקא

may be deduced from the text, And is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³⁷</span> Since the All Merciful ordained, And is returned unto her father's house&nbsp;… she may eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³⁷</span> it follows that prior to that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she returned to her father's house, i.e., while she was still a married woman, 'living with her husband. ');">³⁸</span> she was not permitted to eat. But if [deduction were to be made] from that text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³⁷</span> [it may be objected] one might have assumed that as a negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to eat terumah. ');">³⁹</span> which is derived from a positive one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'When she returned to her father's house she may eat terumah'. ');">⁴⁰</span> it has only the force of a positive precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not punishable by flogging. ');">⁴¹</span> hence did the All Merciful write the other text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 12. ');">⁴²</span> to [indicate that it is] a negative precept! — [That it is] a negative precept may be deduced from, There shall no strange man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Non-priest, an Israelite. V. supra p. 457. n. 11. ');">⁴³</span> eat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now presumed that as the woman married a stranger she assumes his status and is consequently, like her husband, forbidden to eat terumah. ');">⁴⁴</span> of the holy things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 10. ');">⁴⁵</span>