טז ואיצטריך למכתב מעוברת ואיצטריך למכתב וזרע אין לה דאי כתב רחמנא וזרע אין לה מעיקרא חד גופא והשתא תרי גופי אבל מעוברת דמעיקרא חד גופא והשתא חד גופא אימא תיכול צריכא ואי כתב רחמנא מעוברת דמעיקרא גופא
16 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! ');"><sup>50</sup></span> No; this is no argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (reasoning) for me'! ');"><sup>51</sup></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. ');"><sup>52</sup></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. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> Consequently Scripture expressly stated, As in her youth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');"><sup>54</sup></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 … exclude'. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> in her youth, to exclude the pregnant woman; and also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and it was necessary to write'. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> And have no child,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 13. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd. omit, 'To exclude … child'. ');"><sup>57</sup></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. ');"><sup>54</sup></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. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> there was one body and now there are two bodies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mother and born child. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> but that a pregnant woman, who formed at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before her marriage. ');"><sup>58</sup></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. ');"><sup>60</sup></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. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> her body