Yevamot 173

THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She loses through her marriage the right she enjoyed as the daughter of a priest while she was still unmarried. ');">¹</span> IF HE DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM SHE MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO A LEVITE SHE MAY EAT TITHE. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM SHE MAY EAT TITHE. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO A PRIEST SHE MAY EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM SHE MAY EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF HER SON BY THE PRIEST DIED SHE MAY NOT EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF HER SON BY THE LEVITE DIED SHE MAY NOT EAT TITHE. IF HER SON BY THE ISRAELITE DIED SHE RETURNS TO THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER; AND IT IS CONCERNING SUCH A WOMAN THAT IT WAS SAID, 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. ');">²</span> GEMARA. IF HER SON BY THE LEVITE DIED SHE MAY AGAIN EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>, because she is again entitled to eat it by virtue of her son;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the priest. ');">³</span> whence is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That her son by the priest enables her again to eat terumah even though she was deprived of that right during the period she lived with the Levite and the Israelite. ');">⁴</span>

derived? — R. Abba replied in the name of Rab: [From the use of the expression,] But a daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁵</span> [instead of] 'a daughter'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the superfluous Waw in [H]. ');">⁶</span> In accordance with whose view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this deduction made. ');">⁷</span> Is it in accordance with that of R. Akiba who bases expositions on Wawin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in accordance with the view of the Rabbis (cf. Sanh. 51b) who are in the majority and differ from R. Akiba. V. supra 68b. ');">⁸</span>

— It may be said [to be in agreement] even [with the view of the] Rabbis, since the entire expression But a daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁵</span> is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The previous verse (Lev. XXII, 12) also speaking of the priest's daughter it would have been quite sufficient for v. 13 to begin with the personal pronoun, 'But if she be'. ');">⁹</span> Our Rabbis taught: When she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest's daughter who was a widow or divorced and have no child. (V. Lev. XXII, 13). ');">¹⁰</span> returns,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unto her father's house (v. ibid.). ');">¹¹</span>

she returns only to [the privilege of eating] <i>terumah</i>, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and the shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are also among the priestly gifts. Cf. Ex. XXIX, 27, Lev. VII, 34 X, 14. ');">¹²</span> Said R. Hisda in the name of Rabina b. Shila, 'What Scriptural text proves this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the breast and shoulder remain forbidden to her even after she returns to her father's house. ');">¹³</span> — She shall not eat of the <i>terumah</i> of the holy things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 12, where instead of [H] only [H] could have been written. ');">¹⁴</span> she must not eat of that which is set apart<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] from the same rt. as [H] (v. supra n. 12). ');">¹⁵</span>

from the holy things'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifices; reference to the breast and shoulder. (V. supra n. 10). These are forbidden to her even after she returns to her father's house. (V. supra 68b). ');">¹⁶</span> R. Nahman replied<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the enquiry of R. Hisda. ');">¹⁷</span> in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Of [her father's] bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁵</span> but not all [her father's] bread;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] here taken in its wider signification of 'food' (cf. Dan. V, 1). The Mem of [H] (of but not all food) indicates limitation. ');">¹⁸</span>

this excludes the breast and the shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are also among the priestly gifts. Cf. Ex. XXIX, 27, Lev. VII, 34 X, 14. ');">¹²</span> Rami b. Hama demurred: Might it not be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The limitation implied by the Mem. V. supra n. 16. ');">¹⁹</span> excludes the invalidation of vows!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By her father; even when his daughter returns to his house and resumes her right to eat terumah. Before marriage, a daughter's vows may be invalidated by her father. Cf. Num. XXX, 4ff. ');">²⁰</span> Raba replied: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael has long ago settled this difficulty. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: What need was there for Scripture to state, But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced&nbsp;… shall stand against her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 10. ');">²¹</span>

Is she not free from the authority of her father and also from that of her husband!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since none of them could in consequence annul her vows, it is obvious that such vows stand against her. What need, then, was there for the text of Num. XXX, 10? ');">²²</span> The fact is that where the father had entrusted [his daughter] to the representatives of the husband, or where the representatives of the father had entrusted her to the representatives of the husband, and on the way<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband's home. ');">²³</span> she became a widow or was divorced, [it would not have been known] whether she was to be described as of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how I read about her'. ');">²⁴</span> the house of her father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she has not reached the house of her husband and has consequently not yet passed entirely out of her father's authority. Hence her father would still have the power of invalidating her vows. ');">²⁵</span>

or as of the house of her husband;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And her vows, like those of any other widow, could not be invalidated by her father. ');">²⁶</span> hence the need for the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'. ');">²⁷</span> to tell you that as soon as she had left her father's authority, even if only for a short while, he may no more invalidate her vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 49a. ');">²⁸</span> R. Safra replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the enquiry of R. Hisda. ');">²⁹</span>

She may eat of her father's bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³⁰</span> only bread but no flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The breast and the shoulder. ');">³¹</span> R. Papa replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the enquiry of R. Hisda. ');">²⁹</span> She may eat of her father's bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³⁰</span>

only the bread which is the property of her father;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah which is regarded as the property of the priests. ');">³²</span> excluding however, the breast and the shoulder which [priests] obtain from the table of the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are only the remains of certain sacrifices which do not belong to the priests but to the altar, 'the table of the Most High', and are given to the priests as the leavings of His meal. ');">³³</span> Raba, however, replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the enquiry of R. Hisda. ');">²⁹</span> And the breast of the waving and the thigh of heaving shall ye eat&nbsp;… thou, and thy daughters with thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 14. ');">³⁴</span>

only when they are with thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before their marriage to non-priests, may the breast and the shoulder be eaten by them. ');">³⁵</span> R. Adda b. Ahabah stated that a Tanna taught: When she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest's daughter. ');">³⁶</span> returns to her father's house, she returns [only to the privilege of eating] <i>terumah</i>, but does not return to [the privilege of eating] the breast and the shoulders. [If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 588, n. 16; or the daughter of an Israelite. (V. next note). ');">³⁷</span> returns, however,] by virtue of her son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she was married, for instance, to an Israelite and after his death resumed her right to eat terumah by virtue of a son whom she previously had by a priest. ');">³⁸</span>

she returns also to [the privilege of eating] the breast and the shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the exclusion of the right to the breast and the shoulder was mentioned in the former case only. ');">³⁹</span> R. Mordecai went and recited this traditional statement in the presence of R. Ashi, when the latter said to him, 'Whence [has this case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the woman who derives her right to terumah from her son. ');">⁴⁰</span> been included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among those entitled to eat terumah. ');">⁴¹</span> From "But a daughter".<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁴²</span>

Should she, then, be more important than the other!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter who derives her right to terumah from her father. ');">⁴³</span> — There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter who derives her right to terumah from her father. ');">⁴³</span> the excluding texts were written;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');">⁴⁴</span> but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the woman who derives her right to terumah from her son. ');">⁴⁰</span>

no excluding texts were written. THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE etc. Our Rabbis taught: And is returned unto her father's house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁴²</span> excludes one who is awaiting the decision of the levir;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is not eligible to eat terumah, because she is not completely returned to her father's house, being still bound to the levir. ');">⁴⁵</span> as in her youth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁴²</span>

excludes a pregnant woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, being with child, does not return as in her youth. ');">⁴⁶</span> But could not this [law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a pregnant woman, like one who has a born child, does not regain her right to eat terumah. ');">⁴⁷</span> however, be arrived at by] logical argument: If where a child by a first husband is not regarded as the child by the second husband, in respect of exempting the woman from the levirate marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman whose husband died without issue is not exempt from the levirate marriage, though she may have a son by a former husband. ');">⁴⁸</span> the embryo is nevertheless regarded as a born child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A pregnant woman is not subject to the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁹</span>

how much more should the embryo be regarded as a born child where a child by the first husband is regarded as the child of the second, in respect of depriving a woman of her right to <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest's daughter whose Israelite husband died without issue is forbidden to eat terumah, just as if she had had a son by him, if she had a son by any former Israelite husband of hers. Now, since the law could be arrived at by inference a minori ad majus, the Scriptural text stating the same law is, surely, superfluous! ');">⁵⁰</span> No; this is no argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (reasoning) for me'! ');">⁵¹</span> If an embryo was regarded as a born child in respect of the levirate marriage, where the dead were given the same status as the living,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A child whose death occurred after the death of his father exempts his mother from the levirate marriage as if he were still alive. ');">⁵²</span> should an embryo be regarded as a born child in respect of <i>terumah</i>, where the dead were not given the same status as the living?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a live child deprives his mother, the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite, from her right to eat terumah after the death of her husband. As soon as the child dies his mother regains her lost right. ');">⁵³</span> Consequently Scripture expressly stated, As in her youth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁵⁴</span> to exclude a pregnant woman. And it was necessary for Scripture to write, As<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. omit 'As&nbsp;… exclude'. ');">⁵⁵</span> in her youth, to exclude the pregnant woman; and also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and it was necessary to write'. ');">⁵⁶</span> And have no child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁵⁴</span> to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd. omit, 'To exclude&nbsp;… child'. ');">⁵⁷</span> exclude one who has a born child. For had the All Merciful written only And have no child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');">⁵⁴</span> it might have been assumed [that only a woman who has a born child is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>, because] at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before her marriage. ');">⁵⁸</span> there was one body and now there are two bodies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mother and born child. ');">⁵⁹</span> but that a pregnant woman, who formed at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before her marriage. ');">⁵⁸</span> one body and is now also one body on]y, may eat, [hence the second text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in her youth. ');">⁶⁰</span> was] required. And had the All Merciful written of the pregnant woman only it might have been assumed [that only she is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>] because at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before her marriage. ');">⁵⁸</span> her body