Yevamot 139

אבל דיימא מניה אע"ג דדיימא מעלמא בתריה דידיה שדינן ליה

, but where she is suspected of illicit relations with him, the child is regarded as his, although she is also suspected of such relations with others. Said Raba: Whence do I derive this? From the Statement, IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD, SHE MAY EAT. For how is this to be understood? If it be suggested to refer to a woman who is suspected of illicit relations with him but not with strangers, was it at all necessary to state that she may eat <i>terumah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not; since the child is obviously the son of the priest. ');">¹</span> Consequently it must refer to a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but no'. ');">²</span> who was suspected of illicit relations with strangers also. Now, if there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דקתני ילדה תאכל היכי דמי אילימא דדיימא מניה ולא דיימא מעלמא צריכא למימר דתיכול אלא לאו דדיימא נמי מעלמא

where she is forbidden to the one as well as to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the violator and seducer as well as to any other man. ');">⁴</span> the child is regarded as his,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The violator's or seducer's. ');">⁵</span> how much more so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the child be regarded as the son of the man who betrothed her. ');">⁶</span>

ומה התם דלהאי איסורא ולהאי איסורא בתריה דידיה שדינן ליה הכא דלהאי איסורא ולהאי היתירא לא כל שכן

here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the betrothed. ');">⁷</span> where she is forbidden to any other man and is permitted to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who betrothed her. ');">⁸</span> Said Abaye to him: It may still be maintained that Rab is of the opinion that wherever she is suspected of illicit relations with strangers the child is deemed to be a bastard even if she is also suspected of such relations with him; and our Mishnah deals with one who had not been suspected at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either in respect of the violator or seducer on the one hand or in respect of any others. All that our Mishnah teaches is that if cohabitation with the former took place, even if only once, the child is regarded as his. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל אביי לעולם אימא לך כל היכא דדיימא מעלמא אע"ג דדיימא מניה אמר רב הולד ממזר ומתני' בדלא דיימא כלל:

A SLAVE, BY HIS COHABITATION, DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING <i>TERUMAH</i> etc. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is he not regarded as the offspring of the priest? V. our Mishnah and supra p. 466, n. 16. ');">¹⁰</span> — Scripture stated, The wife and her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on her. ');">¹¹</span> children shall be etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shall be her master's (Ex. XXI, 4), i.e., they are regarded (a) as slaves, and (b) as the offspring of the bondwoman. Hence they cannot be regarded as the offspring of the priest. ');">¹²</span>

העבד פוסל משום ביאה כו': מ"ט אמר קרא (שמות כא, ד) האשה וילדיה תהיה וגו':

A BASTARD DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING <i>TERUMAH</i> AND ALSO BESTOWS THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER. Our Rabbis taught: And have no child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lev. XXII, 13. ');">¹³</span> So far I only know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had [H] been omitted. ');">¹⁴</span> of her own child; whence her child's child? It was consequently stated, And have no child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lev. XXII, 13. ');">¹³</span>

ממזר פוסל ומאכיל: ת"ר (ויקרא כב, יג) וזרע אין לה אין לי אלא זרעה זרע זרעה מנין ת"ל וזרע אין לה מכל מקום

implying 'any child whatsoever'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from all (any) place'. ');">¹⁵</span> So far I only know of a legitimate child; whence the illegitimate child? It was stated, And have no [en lah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">¹⁶</span> child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lev. XXII, 13. ');">¹³</span>

אין לי אלא זרע כשר זרע פסול מנין ת"ל וזרע אין לה עיין עלה

which implies, 'hold an enquiry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'examine', 'investigate'. The Aleph of [H] is interchangeable with the 'Ayin of [H]. ');">¹⁷</span> concerning her.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An enquiry is to be made whether she has any kind of son, i.e., even if only a bastard. Thus a bastard also is deemed to be her child. Cf. supra 22b. ');">¹⁸</span> But from this text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lev. XXII, 13. ');">¹³</span>

והא אפיקתיה לזרע זרעה זרע זרעה לא איצטריך קרא בני בנים הרי הן כבנים כי איצטריך קרא לזרע פסול

surely, the deduction concerning a child's child was made! — No Scriptural text is really required for the inclusion of one's child's child, since children's children are like children;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 62b. ');">¹⁹</span> if a text is at all required it is for the inclusion of an illegitimate child. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: In accordance with whose view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was it stated in our Mishnah that the offspring of a union between the daughter of an Israelite and an idolater or a slave (a union which is forbidden by a negative precept only, no kareth being involved, cf. supra 45a) is regarded as a bastard. ');">²⁰</span>

א"ל ר"ל לרבי יוחנן כמאן כר"ע דאמר יש ממזר מחייבי לאוין אפילו תימא רבנן בעובד כוכבים ועבד מודו דכי אתא רב דימי א"ר יצחק בר אבדימי משום רבינו עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר:

Is it only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who maintains that the offspring of a union between such whose intercourse involves them in the penalty of a negative precept is regarded as a bastard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does our Mishnah, then, represent the view of an individual, which is contrary to the expressed view of the majority. ');">²¹</span> — It may even be said to represent the view of the Rabbis, since in respect of an idolater and a slave they agree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With R. Akiba. ');">²²</span> For when R. Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine. ');">²³</span>

כ"ג פעמים שפוסל: ת"ר הריני כפרת בן בתי כוזא שמאכילני בתרומה ואיני כפרת בן בתי כדא שפוסלני מן התרומה:

he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abdimi in the name of our Master:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi, Judah the Prince, the Master par excellence of his time. Cf. supra 45a. ');">²⁴</span> If an idolater or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite, the child born from such a union is deemed a bastard. A HIGH PRIEST SOMETIMES DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF HER RIGHT. Our Rabbis taught: [The grandmother might justly say], 'I would [willingly] be an atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]: an expression of respect or affection. Cf. Kid. 31b. ');">²⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך אלמנה</strong></big><br><br>

for my grandson, the little cruse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Metaph. for bastard. [H] cf. [H]. ');">²⁶</span> who bestows upon me the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in our Mishnah. ');">²⁷</span> but would not be an atonement for my grandson, the big jar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest. Cf. the colloquial expres. 'big pot'. ');">²⁸</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>הערל</strong></big> וכל הטמאים לא יאכלו בתרומה נשיהן ועבדיהן יאכלו בתרומה

who deprives me of the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in our Mishnah. ');">²⁷</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the uncircumcision was not due to any fault of his. If, e.g.. he was forbidden circumcision because his brothers died as a result of such an operation. Cf. supra 64b. ');">²⁹</span> AND ALL LEVITICALLY UNCLEAN PERSONS MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. THEIR WIVES AND SLAVES, HOWEVER, MAY EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By virtue of the rights of their husband and master. Uncircumcision and uncleanness are only temporary disqualifications which prevent the priest from eating terumah, while they continue. His sanctity and privileges, however, remain in force. ');">³⁰</span>

פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה הן ועבדיהן יאכלו ונשיהן לא יאכלו ואם לא ידעה משנעשה פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה הרי אלו יאכלו

[A PRIEST WHO IS] WOUNDED IN HIS STONES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">³¹</span> AND ONE WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">³²</span> AS WELL AS THEIR SLAVES, MAY EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>, BUT THEIR WIVES MAY NOT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the cohabitation with these maimed priests causes the profanation of the women. ');">³³</span>

ואי זהו פצוע דכא כל שנפצעו הביצים שלו ואפילו אחת מהן וכרות שפכה כל שנכרת הגיד ואם נשתייר מעטרה אפי' כחוט השערה כשר:

IF, HOWEVER, NO COHABITATION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MAN WAS WOUNDED OR HAD HIS MEMBRUM CUT OFF, THE WIVES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were married to them before they were maimed. ');">³⁴</span> ARE PERMITTED TO EAT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah. ');">³⁵</span> WHO IS TERMED A PEZU' A DAKKAH?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">³¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא א"ר אלעזר מנין לערל שאין אוכל בתרומה נאמר (שמות יב, מה) תושב ושכיר בפסח ונאמר (ויקרא כב, י) תושב ושכיר בתרומה מה תושב ושכיר האמור בפסח ערל אסור בו אף תושב ושכיר האמור בתרומה ערל אסור בו

A MAN WHO IS WOUNDED EITHER IN BOTH HIS STONES, OR EVEN ONLY IN ONE OF THEM. AND A KERUTH SHOFEKAH? A MAN WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF. IF, HOWEVER, [ANY PART] OF THE CORONA REMAINED, EVEN SO MUCH AS A HAIR'S BREADTH, THE MAN IS REGARDED AS FIT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. 'Eleazar'. Cf. Tosaf. Sotah 24a s.v. [H], and Men. 17b [H]. ');">³⁶</span> stated, Whence is it deduced that an uncircumcised [priest] may not eat <i>terumah</i>? A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 45. ');">³⁷</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש לרבות הערל

and A sojourner and a hired servant were also mentioned in respect of <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 10. ');">³⁸</span> as the paschal lamb, in connection with which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 48. ');">³⁹</span> so is <i>terumah</i>, in respect of which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised. R. Akiba stated: This deduction is unnecessary. Since it was stated, What man soever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁴⁰</span>

אמר מר ר"א אומר נאמר תושב ושכיר בפסח ונאמר תושב ושכיר בתרומה מה תושב ושכיר האמור בפסח ערל אסור בו אף תושב ושכיר האמור בתרומה ערל אסור בו

the uncircumcised also is included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the prohibition; the text, according to Rabbinical interpretation, referring to the prohibition of eating terumah. ');">⁴¹</span> The Master said, 'R. Eliezer stated, "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb, and "A sojourner and a hired servant" were also mentioned in respect of <i>terumah</i>,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 473 notes. ');">⁴²</span> as the paschal lamb, in connection with which "A sojourner and a hired servant" were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so is <i>terumah</i>, in respect of which "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised'. Is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression. 'A sojourner and a hired servant'. ');">⁴³</span>

מופנה דאי לאו מופנה איכא למיפרך מה לפסח שכן חייבין עליו משום פיגול ונותר וטמא לאיי אפנויי מופנה

free for deduction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is not the expression required in connection with the subject spoken of in the context. ');">⁴⁴</span> For if it is not free, the objection might be raised<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against deducing terumah from the Paschal lamb. ');">⁴⁵</span> that the paschal lamb may be different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From terumah, i.e., subject to greater restrictions. ');">⁴⁶</span>

הי מופנה אי דתרומה מצרך צריכי דתניא תושב זה קנוי קנין עולם שכיר זה קנוי קנין שנים

since in connection with it one may also incur penalties<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kareth if the transgression was wilful, and a sin-offering if unwitting. ');">⁴⁷</span> for pigul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁸</span> nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁸</span>

ויאמר תושב ואל יאמר שכיר ואני אומר קנוי קנין עולם אינו אוכל קנוי קנין שנים לא כל שכן

and uncleanness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could terumah which is not surrounded by such restrictions be deduced from it? ');">⁴⁹</span> — It is certainly free for the deduction. Which expression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the two expressions, 'A sojourner and a hired servant'. ');">⁵⁰</span> is free? Is it that of <i>terumah</i>? Surely it is required for its own purpose. For it was taught: A sojourner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 20. ');">⁵¹</span>

אילו כן הייתי אומר תושב זה קנוי קנין שנים אבל קנוי קנין עולם אוכל בא שכיר ולימד על תושב שאף על פי שקנוי קנין עולם אין אוכל

means one who is acquired for life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'an everlasting possession', i.e., a Hebrew servant who, on refusing to go out free, has had his ear bored. (Cf. Ex. XXI, 5f). ');">⁵²</span> and a hired servant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 20. ');">⁵¹</span> means one who is acquired for a number of years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ordinary Hebrew servant who remains the property of his master for six years only, after which he goes out free for nothing (v. Ex. XXI, 2). ');">⁵³</span>

אלא דפסח מופני האי תושב ושכיר דכתב רחמנא בפסח מאי ניהו אי נימא תושב ושכיר ממש משום דהוה ליה תושב ושכיר איפטר ליה מפסח והא קיימא לן גבי תרומה דלא אכיל

But let 'sojourner' only be mentioned and a 'hired servant' be omitted and one would infer: If one who is acquired for life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is in fact his master's absolute property. ');">⁵⁴</span> is not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> how much less one who is acquired only for a number of years! If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If only the sojourner had been mentioned. ');">⁵⁵</span> it might have been assumed that 'a sojourner' means one who is acquired for a number of years [and that only he may not eat <i>terumah</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is not his master's absolute possession. ');">⁵⁶</span> but that one who is acquired for life may eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is the absolute property of his master. ');">⁵⁷</span> hence the insertion of the expression, 'a hired servant', which explains the meaning of sojourner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a hired servant implies one who is acquired for a period, the other expression cannot refer to the same class of servant, but to one acquired for life. [H], E.V. a sojourner (rt. [H] 'to abide') implies longer service than that of the [H], E.V., hired servant. ');">⁵⁸</span> [viz.,] that it signifies one who, though acquired for life, may not eat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, since the expression is required for the laws of terumah, could it be suggested that the expression, 'a sojourner and a hired servant', mentioned in connection with terumah, is free for deduction? ');">⁵⁹</span> — But [in fact] the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'A sojourner and a hired servant'. ');">⁶⁰</span> mentioned in respect of the paschal lamb is free for deduction. For what could be the meaning of 'A sojourner and a hired servant' which the All Merciful wrote in connection with the paschal lamb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 45, a sojourner&nbsp;… shall not eat thereof. ');">⁶¹</span> If it be suggested that it means the actual sojourner and hired servant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a Hebrew servant who (a) serves his master for life or (b) for a period of years. Cf. supra p. 474, nn. 14 and 15. ');">⁶²</span> [could it have been imagined] that [an Israelite]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is subject to the fulfilment of the commandments. ');">⁶³</span> is exempt from the Paschal lamb because he is a sojourner or a hired servant? Surely, we have it as an established law in regard to <i>terumah</i> that such a person is not permitted to eat it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though his master is a priest. ');">⁶⁴</span>