Yevamot 178

Chapter 178

א מאי שנא מהא דתנן מן הנקוב על שאין נקוב תרומתו תרומה ולא תאכל עד שיוציא עליה תרומה ומעשר ממקום אחר
1 , why is this case different from [the following] where we learned [that if a man has set apart as <i>terumah</i> the produce] of a perforated plant-pot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 606, n. 10. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> for that of an unperforated one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 606, n. 9. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> the <i>terumah</i> is valid, but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was given for produce which is not subject to terumah, it cannot assume the sanctity of terumah and remains tebel. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב שאני הכא דמדאורייתא תרומה מעלייתא היא כדרבי אלעאי דא"ר אלעאי מנין לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה דכתיב (במדבר יח, לב) ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו
2 may not be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even by a priest. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> before <i>terumah</i> and tithe from other produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'place'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> has been set aside for it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. V, 10; Kid. 46b. Why, then, was the terumah in the former case, which is virtually tebel, and is forbidden to be burnt (cf. Shab. 26a), allowed to be used by the priest (v. supra p. 606, n. 16) even though no terumah and tithe have been given for it from other produce? ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג ואם אין קדוש נשיאות חטא למה מיכן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה
3 — Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where unclean produce was used as terumah for clean. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> it is different, since Pentateuchally the <i>terumah</i> is valid, in accordance with the view of R. Elai; for R. Elai stated: Whence is it inferred that if one separates <i>terumah</i> from an inferior quality for a superior quality, his <i>terumah</i> is valid? It is written, And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 32. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> [Now, this implies that if you do not set apart from the best but of the worst you shall bear sin]; if, [however, the inferior quality] does not become consecrated, why [should there be any] bearing of sin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely no wrong has been done where one's action is null and void and other terumah has to he given! ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד א"ל רבה לרב חסדא לדידך דאמרת לא עשה ולא כלום כל עיקר דאפי' ההוא גריוא הדר לטיבליה מ"ט גזירה דלמא פשע ולא מפריש מי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא הוי תרומה ומשום דלמא פשע אפקוה רבנן לחולין וכי ב"ד מתנין לעקור דבר מן התורה
4 Hence it may be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from here'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> that if one sets apart <i>terumah</i> from an inferior quality for a superior quality, his <i>terumah</i> is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 5a, B.M. 56a, B.B. 84b, 143a, Kid. 46b. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Said Rabbah to R. Hisda: According to you who maintain that 'the act is absolutely null and void' so that 'even that griva [which has been designated as <i>terumah</i>] returns to its former state of tebel', the reason being<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is the reason'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ה א"ל ואת לא תסברא והתנן הולד ממזר מזה ומזה בשלמא משני ממזר אלא מראשון אמאי אשתו היא וישראל מעליא הוא וקא שרינן ליה בממזרת
5 that this is a preventive measure against the possibility 'that one might wilfully neglect to set apart [the <i>terumah</i> from the remainder]'; is there anywhere [I may ask] a law that <i>terumah</i> which is Pentateuchally valid should, owing to the possibility that one might wilfully neglect his duty, be turned into<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they brought it out', ');"><sup>13</sup></span> unconsecrated produce?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hullin v. Glos. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> Could, then, a <i>Beth din</i> lay down a condition that would cause a law of the Torah to be uprooted! — The other replied: And do you not yourself agree with such a ruling? Have we not learned, THE CHILD BY THE ONE HUSBAND OR THE OTHER IS A BASTARD. Now, it is reasonable [that the child] by the second [should be deemed] a bastard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, owing to the fact that the first husband was still alive, the marriage was unlawful. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ו א"ל הכי אמר שמואל אסור בממזרת וכן כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אסור בממזרת ואמאי קרי ליה ממזר לאוסרו בבת ישראל
6 but why [should the child] by the first [be a bastard]? She is, surely, his wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage with the second having had no validity at all. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> and [the child is consequently] a proper Israelite whom [by regarding him as a bastard] we permit to marry a bastard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forbidden to an Israelite. As this, however, is permitted it follows that even a law of the Torah may be superseded by an ordinance of the Rabbis. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> The first retorted: Thus said Samuel, 'He is forbidden to marry a bastard'. And so said Rabin, when he came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ז שלח ליה רב חסדא לרבה ביד רב אחא בר רב הונא ואין ב"ד מתנין לעקור דבר מן התורה והתניא מאימתי אדם יורש את אשתו קטנה ב"ש אומרים משתעמוד בקומתה וב"ה אומרים משתכנס לחופה רבי אליעזר אומר משתבעל ויורשה ומיטמא לה ואוכלת בגינו תרומה
7 in the name of R. Johanan. 'He is forbidden to marry a bastard'. Why, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is accordingly regarded as a proper Israelite. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> is he called a bastard? — In respect of forbidding him to marry the daughter of an Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a restriction is no abrogation of a law of the Torah but a reinforcement of it. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> R. Hisda sent to Rabbah through R. Aha son of R. Huna [the following enquiry]: Cannot the <i>Beth din</i> lay down a condition which would cause the abrogation of a law of the Torah? Surely it was taught: 'At what period of her age<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from when'. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ח ב"ש אומרים משתעמוד בקומתה אע"ג דלא נכנסה לחופה אימא משתעמוד בקומתה ותכנס לחופה והכי קאמרו ליה ב"ש לב"ה דקאמריתו משתכנס לחופה אי עמדה בקומתה מהניא לה חופה ואי לא לא מהניא לה חופה
8 is a husband entitled to be the heir of his wife [if she dies while still] a minor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at what age may it be definitely assumed that the minor is no longer likely to make a declaration of refusal (v. Glos. s.v. mi'un) and may, consequently. be regarded as one's proper wife. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Beth Shammai stated: When she attains to womanhood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when she stands in her height', the age of puberty. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> and Beth Hillel said: When she enters into the bridal chamber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Huppah (v. Glos.), which is the preliminary to matrimonial cohabitation. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ט ר' אליעזר אומר משתבעל והאמר ר' אליעזר אין מעשה קטנה כלום אימא משתגדיל ותבעל
9 R. Eliezer said: When connubial intercourse has taken place. Then he is entitled to be her heir, he may defile himself for her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she died, though he is a priest. V. Lev. XXI, 1f. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> and she may eat <i>terumah</i> by virtue of his rights'. (Beth Shammai said, 'When she attains to womanhood',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband may defile himself by her corpse and is also entitled to be her heir. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> even though she has not entered the bridal chamber!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she is not yet regarded as his lawful wife (cf. supra 29b) and. according to law, he is entitled to be her heir. This consequently proves that the Beth din does possess the power to abrogate Pentateuchal laws! ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
י קתני מיהת יורשה והא הכא דמדאורייתא אבוה ירית לה ומדרבנן ירית לה בעל הפקר ב"ד היה הפקר
10 — Read, 'When she attains to womanhood and enters the bridal chamber', and it is this that Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel: In respect of your statement, 'When she enters the bridal chamber', it is only when she has attained womanhood that the bridal chamber is effective, but otherwise the bridal chamber alone is of no avail. 'R. Eliezer said: When connubial intercourse has taken place'. But, surely, R. Eliezer said that the act of a minor has no legal force!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 107b, 108a, Keth. 101b. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — Read, 'After she has grown up and connubial intercourse has taken place'.) At all events it was here stated, 'He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> is entitled to be her heir'; but, surely, by Pentateuchal law it is her father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (That is his legal heir (Rashi). Since the reference here is to a fatherless girl who was given in marriage by her mother or brothers. Such a marriage is not valid by Pentateuchal law which vests the right of giving a minor girl in marriage only in the father]. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יא דאמר ר' יצחק מנין שהפקר ב"ד היה הפקר שנא' (עזרא י, ח) כל אשר לא יבא לשלשת הימים בעצת השרים והזקנים יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה
11 who should here be her legal heir, and yet it is the husband who is heir in accordance with a Rabbinical ordinance!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be maintained that Beth din has no authority to abrogate Pentateuchal laws? ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — Hefker<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], a declaration that the property of a certain person is ownerless. V. Glos. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> by <i>Beth din</i> is legal hefker.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis have consequently full authority to transfer the property of the minor from her father's heirs to her husband, and such transfer cannot be regarded as an abrogation of the Pentateuchal law. The reading [H] 'was' for the usual [H] 'is' may be a censorial alteration. Cf. Golds. a.l. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יב ר' אלעזר אמר מהכא (יהושע יט, נא) אלה הנחלות אשר נחלו אלעזר הכהן ויהושע בן נון וראשי האבות למטות בני ישראל וכי מה ענין ראשים אצל אבות אלא לומר לך מה אבות מנחילין בניהם כל מה שירצו אף ראשים מנחילין את העם כל מה שירצו
12 for R. Isaac stated: Whence is it deduced that hefker by <i>Beth din</i> is legal hefker? It is said, Whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra X, 8. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> R. Eleazar stated [that the deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Beth din is empowered to dispose of an individual's property in accordance with its legal decisions. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> is made] from here: These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest. and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XIX, 51. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
יג ומיטמא לה והא הכא דמדאורייתא אביה מיטמא לה ומדרבנן מיטמא לה בעל משום דהויא לה מת מצוה
13 Now, what relation is there between Heads and Fathers? But [this has the purpose] of telling you that as fathers may distribute as an inheritance to their children whatever they wish, so may the heads distribute as an inheritance to the people whatever they wish. 'He may defile himself for her'. But, surely, by Pentateuchal law it is her father who may here defile himself for her, and yet it is the husband who by a Rabbinical law was allowed to defile himself for her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be maintained that Beth din has no authority to abrogate Pentateuchal laws? ');"><sup>37</sup></span> — [This was allowed] because she is a meth mizwah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'dead of the commandment', a corpse in which no one is interested and the burial of which is obligatory upon any person who discovers it. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
יד ומי הוי מת מצוה והתניא אי זהו מת מצוה כל שאין לו קוברין קורא ואחרים עונין אותו אין זה מת מצוה הכא נמי כיון דלא ירתי לה קריא ולא ענו לה
14 Is she, however, a meth mizwah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'dead of the commandment', a corpse in which no one is interested and the burial of which is obligatory upon any person who discovers it. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> Surely, it was taught. 'Who may he regarded as a meth mizwah? He who has no [relatives] to bury him'. [If, however, he has relatives upon whom] he [could] call and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and others'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> would answer him, he is not regarded as a meth mizwah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Er. 17b, Naz. 43b. As there are available the heirs of her father upon whom she could call, why is she regarded as a meth mizwah? ');"><sup>40</sup></span> — Here also, since they are not her heirs, they would not answer even if she were to call upon them.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter