Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot Chapter 7

אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג לא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג אִם מֵתוּ מֵתוּ לָהּ וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתָן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אִם מֵתוּ מֵתוּ לוֹ וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא חַיָיב בָּאַחֵרָיוֹתָן אֵילּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כול׳. מְנַיִין לְכֹהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְקָנָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַין כַּסְפּוֹ וגו׳. מְנַיִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁקָּנְתָה עֲבָדִים וַעֲבָדֶיהָ עֲבָדִים שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַין כַּסְפּוֹ. אַף קִנְיָינוֹ שֶׁקָּנָה קִנְיָין אוֹכֵל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבָל בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת [שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא] לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן קִנְיָינוֹ הוּא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. עֶבֶד שֶׁקָּנָה עֲבָדִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רְשׁוּת לְרַבּוֹ בָּהֶן וּמֵת. כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה. וְהָכָא לֹא קִנְיָין קִנְיָינוֹ הוּא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. הָרָאוּי לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם קְנָס. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עֶבֶד עָרֵל שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים. אִין תֵּימַר קְנָס. אֵין כָּאן קְנָס. וְאִין תֵּימַר הָרָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל מַאֲכִיל. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. בְּעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרזֶל פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה מִכּוֹחוֹ וְאַתְּ אָמְרָת אָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג הֲרֵי הֵן אוֹכְלִין תְּרוּמָה מִכּוֹחוֹ. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. מִשֶּׁלָּךְ נָתְנוּ לָךְ. בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. וְהֵן אָמְרוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל. וְהֵן אָמְרוּ. מְכָרָן אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְניתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן לָאִשָּׁה אֲבָל לֹא לָאִישׁ. וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן לָאִישׁ אֲבָל לֹא לָאִשָּׁה. מַה עֲבַד לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קַל הוּא בְשִׁחְרוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׂה עַבְדוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. שִׁיחְרְרוֹ מְשׁוּחְרָר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֶחָד עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְאֶחָד עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל אֵינָן בְּיוֹם וְיוֹמַיִים וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁן וָעַיִן בֵּין לָאִישׁ בֵּין לָאִשָּׁה. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְעוֹלָם אוֹ בְשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָּׁעָה. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְעוֹלָם וְלֹא מְכָרָן לְשָׁעָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְכוּרִין. אִין תֵּימַר. בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָׁעָה אֲבָל לֹא מְכָרָן לְעוֹלָם. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָעוֹשֶׂה שָׂדֶהוּ אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ עַל חוֹבוֹ. מְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָחוּשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. לָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁתְּהֵא אִשָּׁה מְחַזֶּרֶת עַל בָּתֵּי דִינִים. אָמְרוּ. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר כְּרַבָּנִן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הֲוֵי בְּשֶׁמְּכָרָן לְשָׁעָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אֲבָל אִם מְכָרָן לְעוֹלָם דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָן מְכוּרִין. וְולַד בְּהֵמַת מְלוֹג לְבַעַל. וְולַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג לָאִשָּׁה. חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר. וְולַד בְּהֵמַת מְלוֹג כִּוְולַד שִׁפְחַת מְלוֹג. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר לַחֲבֵרָיָיא. הֲווֹן יָדְעִין דּוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. רַב כְּרַבָּנִן וּשְׁמוּאֵל כַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מָתִיב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַתְּ אָמַר מִשֶּׁלָּאִשָּׁה הֵן. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִטּוֹל הַבְּכוֹר פִּי שְׁנַיִם. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהִכְנִיסָתָן קְטַנִּים וְגָדְלוּ הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה הֵן. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. תַּנֵּי הִכְנִיסָתָן יְלָדִים נוֹטְלָתָן נְעָרִים. הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים. הָיָה אֶחָד יָפֶה כִכְתוּבָּתָהּ נוֹטְלָתוֹ בִכְתוּבָּתָהּ. הָיָה אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה יָפֶה כִכְתוּבָּתָהּ רַב הוּנָא וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. חַד אָמַר. הוּא נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלוֹ. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלָתוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. אֲפִילוּ הָיָה יָפֶה אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה בִכְתוּבָּתָהּ הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁינִי וְנוֹטְלָתוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא עָלַת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ אֲחֵרִים בְּכֵלֶיהָ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. הִכְנִיסָתָן בְּדָמִים נוֹטְלָתָן בְּדָמִים. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אָדָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. מַהוּ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. מְלִיג. מְלִיג. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְּקַבֵּל צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי. הַוְולָדוֹת [פְּטוּרִין]. וְולָדֵי וְולָדוֹת חַיָיבִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. הַוְולָדוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹן. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. הַוְולָדוֹת לַשֵּׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסָה. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹן הַוְולָדוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹן. בְּרָם הָכָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁעִיקָּרוֹ לַשֵּׁינִי הַוְולָדוֹת לַשֵּׁינִי.

MISHNAH: If a widow [married] to a High Priest, or a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah [married] to a simple priest, brought him slaves as paraphernalia or as mortmain) whose value was determined in the marriage contract ( ketubah ) as dos aestimata , upon marriage became the husband’s property. At the termination of the marriage their value was due back to the wife. Paraphernalia [from the Greek παράφερνα, Middle Latin paraphernalia ( bona ), as a legal term relevant here “bride’s goods beyond her dowry,” equivalent to Late Latin parapherna “bride’s property.” (For the etymology of מְלוֹג, Ashkenazic מְלוּג, cf. Note 45 , also Chapter 4, Note 86 ). These goods are dos non aestimata, property not entered in the marriage contract, of which the husband has administration for the duration of the marriage. He must maintain the value of this property and is compensated by receiving its usufruct but has no property rights. Since in any irregular union (such as described in the Mishnah) the wife of a Cohen is barred from all sanctified food, her property is barred with her. But the property of a Cohen is entitled to share in his sanctified food ( Lev. 22:11 ). The expression צאן ברזל “iron flock” for “inalienable, private property” may also be compared to Latin peculium “private property” which is derived from pecus, -oris “cattle” but used as a legal term for property in general. : The slaves of separate property may not eat heave, the slaves of mortmain may eat heave. These are slaves of paraphernalia: If they died, they died as her property, if they increased, they increased as her property. Even though he is responsible for their upkeep, they may not eat heave. These are slaves of mortmain: If they died, they died as his property, if they increased, they increased as his property. Since he guarantees them, they may eat heave. HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition 22:11 : “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money. ,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat 22:11 . Up to here the text is a baraita ; Babli 66a , Sifra Emor Parasha 5(1 ). . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat 22:11 : “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money. ”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat 5(6 ), this is a tannaitic argument of R. Simeon. . The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan says, because of a fine, the divorcee was acquired by the priest. Her property was acquired with her. Therefore, by biblical standards her slaves could eat but it is a traditional fine imposed on irregular marriages that they should not confer the same advantages as a regular one. . What is the difference between them? If an uncircumcised slave 12:48 ); the rules are spelled out in Halakhah 8:1 . buys slaves. If you say, it is a fine, here there is no fine. If you say the one who may eat enables to eat, this one, since he is not able to eat, cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold 41a, s. v. אשה , are of the opinion that the Babli concurs. . Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold. From your own they gave to you. It would be logical that one should not eat heave. But they said that he eats, and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye” 21:26 ). Paraphernalia slaves are property of the wife but not the husband. This part of the baraita is quoted in the Babli. Baba Qama 89a . from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves holds that they are the husband’s property; therefore, he must have the absolute power to sell them, against R. Joḥanan. are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit, as we have stated 4:4 (fol. 45b), as amoraic in the Babli, Baba Qama 11b . 33b ; Baba Meṣi‘a 44b . : If somebody mortgages a slave and later sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days” 21:20 . The exemption for the owner who hits his slave which provided that he is not prosecutable if the slave survives for two days is not available to either wife or husband. This baraita defines “owner” as a person who has both the right to and disposition of his property. This text is also in the Babli Baba Qama 89b . and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: 10:1 (Notes 22–24 ), in a slightly different version Babli Giṭṭin 41a . If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel Rosh (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) in his commentary on this Yerushalmi ( Yebamot 7 #1) holds that the husband is prevented even from leasing the property without his wife’s consent. Rif (R. Isaac Fasi), Giṭṭin #472 holds that the husband may not sell but may lease for a limited time. . That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold. 79b , this is a baraita. Since first generation Amoraim disagree over the rule, it seems that the Yerushalmi also presents this as a baraita. The offspring of a paraphernalia animal belongs to the husband, that of a paraphernalia slave girl belongs to the wife. Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said, the offspring of a paraphernalia animal is like that of a paraphernalia slave girl. Rebbi Eleazar said to the colleagues, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. Rav and Samuel, Rav follows the rabbis, but Samuel follows Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you who says, they belong to the wife, should the first-born not take a double portion 21:17 , reading פי שנים as “double”, not “2/3”.) However, the first-born takes a double portion only from what is available at the father’s death. For example, property leased to others is available, debts collectable are not available (since the payor may default. Most modern authorities hold that sovereign debt is available.) In the Babli, Baba Batra 123b , an anonymous baraita is quoted which in a different form is a Tosephta, Bekhorot 6:16, that the first-born gets a double interest in the calf of a cow who was pregnant at the father’s death. This must mean that the calf is increase of the value of the stock, of which the first-born gets adouble portion, not yield after the father’s death, of which he would get only a simple portion. It does not make any sense that Rav denies the young of the animal to the wife when he gives the first-born a double portion. ? Think of it, if she brought them when they were small and they grew up, are they not the wife’s, and you agree with me that the first-born takes a double portion! It was stated: If she brought them when they were small, she takes them when they are lads. If she brought him two vessels. If one of them was worth the value of her marriage contract, she takes it for her marriage contract in this connection denotes the entire value of the marriage contract, the statutory ketubah sum, the value of mortmain property, and the additional fee he agreed to pay in case of a dissolution of the marriage. For this reason the translation does not simply state “ketubah”. We are dealing with a state of rampant inflation, as it was recorded during the military anarchy of the Roman empire, where the sum stated in the contract would have lost most of its buying power over time. . If one and a half was the value of her marriage contract, [disagreement of] Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One of them said, he pays for the second vessel and takes it; the other one says, she pays for the second vessel and takes it. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said before Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Even if one was worth one and a half times the value of her marriage contract, she pays for the second vessel and takes it, because it is unthinkable that others should use her vessels. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: A baraita says so: If she brought them for their monetary value, she takes them for their monetary value. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked Rebbi Mana: What is the etymology of “mĕlōg slaves”? He said to him, as you say: strip off, strip off 45(2 ) the etymology appears in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish and it is explained that Hagar was a paraphernalia personal slave of Sarah whom Abraham had to feed but could not get services from. In the interpretation of Arukh , the simile here is the other way: since the husband has the usufruct of the property he is like somebody who strips the feathers off a chicken but cannot eat the meat. The root מלג means “strip off (feathers, hair, etc.)” in Syriac. Ostensibly the word is Accadic mulūgu “paraphernalia”, which appears in the same meaning as an Eastern Semitic loanword mlg in Ugaritic (Canaanite); languages long dead by Talmudic times. The relation between Arabic ملج מַלַגַ “to drink from the breast (baby)”, to Greek ἀμέλγω, Latin mulgeo , “to milk”, is not clear. But possibly the notion of “milking” associated with property of one kind contrasted with the notion of “flock” associated with another goes back to ancient images from times when property mainly consisted of livestock. ! 2:4 . It is not totally clear what mortmain conditions for a shepherd are; cf. the extensive discussion in S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה בבא קמא-בבא מציעא New York 1988, pp 217–219. The Yerushalmi Baba Meṣi‘a 5:7 , quoting Tosephta Bekhorot 5:1 ,14, explains: “What is a mortmain flock? If [the owner] had 100 sheep and said [to the shepherd]: these are stipulated to be worth 100 gold denars, their lambs, their milk, and their shearings are yours, if they die, you are responsible, and for each one you give me a tetradrachma at the end, it is forbidden.” It is forbidden to the shepherd to receive a flock under these conditions from a Jew since most owners will structure the contract so they will make money, which turns the final payment (which accompanies the return of the flock to the owner) into a money-making proposition which looks like interest since the shepherd pays for the use of the flock which he received on credit. It is forbidden to pay interest to Jews. The same kind of contract is permitted with Gentiles. There, we have stated: “If somebody receives [a flock] under mortmain conditions from a Gentile, the young are free, the young’s young are obligated.” 5:7 (fol. 10b). Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There you say, the young are for the first, and here you say, the young are for the second, lambs are exempt because they belong to the Gentile even though the entire flock is the shepherd’s responsibility whereas the Mishnah here states that mortmain lambs belong to the husband who also carries the same responsibility as the shepherd. ! Rebbi Yosa said, there, because the property rights are with the first, the young belong to the first. But here, because the property rights are with the second, the young belong to the second.

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בֵין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג בֶּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בֵין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג בֶּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may eat heave. But if a daughter of a Cohen married an Israel and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may not eat 18:11 ); this includes his wife and her circumcised slaves. But the daughter of a Cohen who marries outside the clan is barred from eating heave ( Lev. 22:12 ) and so are her slaves. .

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וּמֶת וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַּתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלָּעוּבָּר. הָעוּבָּר פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵיעַדְתָּה בָנוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן וְאַף בַּת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַּתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלָּעוּבָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. עֲבָדֶיהָ יֹאכֵלוּ. עֲבָדָיו לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ. דִּלֹ כֵן הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וַעֲבָדֶיהָ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין. רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מִזּוֹ אֲפִילוּ הִיא לֹא תֹאכֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּלִיג. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ אֲפִילוּ הִיא לֹא תֹאכֵל. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמַר. צֵא וּרְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הַצִּיבּוּר נוֹהֵג. רִבִּי אָבוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וְלֹא דְבַר הֲלָכָה זוֹ. אֶלָּא כָּל הֲלָכָה שֶׁהִיא רוֹפֶפֶת בְּבֵית דִּין וְאֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִיבָהּ צֵא וּרְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הַצִּיבּוּר נוֹהֵג וּנְהוֹג. וַאֲנָן חָמֵיי צִיבּוּרָא דְּלָא מֵיכְלוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֵין העבד פּוֹסֵל אֶת מִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא מַאֲכִיל אֶת מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֵאֱכוֹל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר יוֹסֵף מִשּׁוּם אַבָּיֵי. הָיָה בַת מַאֲכֶלֶת. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵּׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁכֵּן הָיָה רְאוּיָה לְתוֹפְשָׂן מִן הַמְּזוֹנוֹת. וְאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְתוֹפְשָׂן מִן הַמְּזוֹנוֹת. רְאוּיָה הִיא לִתְבוֹעַ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּלְאַבֵּד כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. וְקַשְׁיָא כְּתוּבָּה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה וּמָזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. מֵאֵילֵיהֶן קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. אַשְׁכָּחַת אָמַר. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵה חָלוּק עַל ר׳ אבון. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם חִילְפַיי. רִבִּי וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּבַר הַקַּפָּר נִמְנוּ עַל [אֲוֵיר] אַשְׁקְלוֹן וְטִיהֲרוּהוּ מִפִּי רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר שֶׁאָמַר. יוֹרְדִּין הָיִינוּ לְסִירְקִי שֶׁלְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְלוֹקְחִין חִטִּים וְעוֹלִין לְעִירֵינוּ וְטוֹבְלִין וְאוֹכְלִים בִּתְרוּמָתֵינוּ. לְמָחָר בִּיקְּשׁוּ לְהִימָּנוֹת עָלֶיהָ לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּמָשַׁךְ רִבִּי יִשְּׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת יָדָיו. שֶׁהָיָה מִסְתַּמֵּךְ עַל בֶּן הַקַּפָּר. אָמַר לוֹ. בְּנִי. לָמָּה לֹא אָמַרְתָּ [לִי]. לֹא מָשַׁכְתָּ אֶת יָדֶיךָ. וְהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר לָךְ. אֶתְמוֹל אֲנִי טִימֵּאתִי וַאֲנִי טִיהָרְתִּי. עַכְשָׁיו אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָךְ. שֶׁמָּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּבְּשָׁה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה הֵיאַךְ אֲנִי פוֹטְרָהּ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. מֵאֵימָתַי הִיא טְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם אַבָּיֵי. מֵאֵילֵיהֶן קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. וְאָמַר. יְאוּת מַעְשְׂרוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וּמָזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶן. הָיוּ שָָׁם זְכָרִים מַאֲכִילָן. נְקֵיבוֹת אֵין מַאֲכִילוֹת. הָיוּ שָָׁם זְכָרִים מַאֲכִילָן. שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק אֶחָד. סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵבָה. וְסָפֵק מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה לְהַחֲמִיר. נְקֵיבוֹת אֵינָן מַאֲכִילוֹת. שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת. סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵיבָה. מִשֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה סָפֵק עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה. וְסָפֵק דִּבְרֵיהֶן לְהָקֵל. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. זָכָר הוּא כוּלָּהּ דִּידֵיהּ. נְקֵיבָה הִיא נָסְבָה חוּלְקָהּ עִימְּהֹן.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rebbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen [was married] to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: Her slaves may eat, his slaves may not eat. For if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat! Rebbi Josia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is from this, she also should not eat. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Not that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, he only said, for if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat. There came a case before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. 7, Note 137 . He said, go out and look how the public behaves. Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not eat. Rebbi Yose said, this means that [the fetus] does not disable anybody able to eat and does not enable anybody unable to eat. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: If there was a daughter, she enables to eat 27:6–11 ), a daughter inherits only in the absence of sons, but the standard marriage contract assures the upkeep of unmarried daughters as a lien on the estate ( Mishnah Ketubot 4:11 ). This means that the claim of the daughter to be fed as a member of the priestly clan is prior to and independent of any claim of the male heirs; since she is fed, the slaves who secure her claim also may eat. But if there are no male heirs, the daughters are heirs according to biblical standards. If the fetus is male, he becomes the sole heir. If female, she becomes a co-heir and the slaves cannot eat because of her part. If there are male heirs, a female fetus has no influence since the marriage contract stipulates only support for living daughters. . Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because she is able to take her upkeep away from them. Is a wife not also able to take her upkeep away from them or staying in her house and being supported by the estate ( Mishnah Ketubot 4:12 ). ? She might request her ketubah be paid or lose her ketubah . This is difficult! The ketubah is a biblical institution22:16 . The rabbinic document is reported to be an institution of Simeon ben Šetaḥ, cf. Ketubot , Yerushalmi 8:11 (fol. 32c), Babli 82b . The opinion that the origin of the ketubah of a virgin (not the details of the text) is rabbinic is found only in the Babli, attributed to R. Jehudah ( Ketubot 56a , 10a ). , the upkeep of the daughters is rabbinical; do their institutions uproot a word of the Torah? It follows him who said that they accepted tithes voluntarily 7:1, Note 11 . . We find that Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagrees with his father , Halakhah 7:1, explained there in Notes 52–57 . since Rebbi Simon said in the name of Hilfai: Rebbi, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they wanted to vote to free it from tithes but Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand. He was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: did you not remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah? When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? But we found that he stated in the name of his father that they accepted tithes voluntarily! And he said, it is correct that if tithes are from their words and the food of the daughters is of their words that their words may uproot their words. “If there are males they enable to eat, females do not enable to eat.” If there are males, they enable to eat since there is one doubt, whether he is male or female 67a ) points out, there are two doubts, whether the pregnancy leads to a live birth or not and if there is a live birth whether it will be a male or a female. If there is no live birth, the males are the heirs and the slaves may eat because of them. If the baby is female, again the existing males are the heirs. The Yerushalmi probably holds that the miscarriages and female births just about equal the male births so that there are equal probabilities that the existing males are all heirs and the slaves may or may not eat because of them. . A doubt in biblical matters forces restriction 3a . . Females do not enable to eat since there are two doubts, whether he is male or female, (after she was betrothed or maybe before she was betrothed.), cf., e.g., Mishnah Ketubot 1:6–7. A doubt regarding their words forces leniency 3a . . However you take it, if he is male, everything is his. Female, she takes her part with them.

הָעוּבָּר וְהַיָּבָם וְהָאֵירוּסִין וְהַחֵרֵשׁ וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין. סָפֵק שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָפֵק הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא. נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בַּת אָחִיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. הָעוּבָּר וְהַיָּבָם וְהָאֵירוּסִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בְּזוֹ מִידַּת הַדִּין לוֹקָה. שֶׁאִם מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא לִפְסוֹל יְהֵא מַעֲשֶׂה לְהַאֲכִיל. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְסוֹל. לֹא יְהֵא מַעֲשֶׂה לְהַאֲכִיל. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. הָרָאוּי לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי מַמְזֵר הְרֵי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וּמַאֲכִיל. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב יְלִיד בַּיִת. מֵעַתָּה הַיָּלוּד מַאֲכִיל וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָלוּד אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ. פְּרָט לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ פְּרָט לִמְעוּבֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הַעִיבּוּר עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לִפְסוֹל וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לְהַאֲכִיל. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן פְּלִיגִין. דָּמַר זְעִירָא. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּמְעוּבֶּרֶת מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאִינָן מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשּׁ. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִילוּ יוֹלֶדֶת הִימֶּינּוּ בָנִים אֵינָהּ זָרָה לוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. הָעוּבָּר עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לִפְסוֹל וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לְהַאֲכִיל. לָמָּה מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאִינָן מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וִישַׁלְּמוּ קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. חֵרֵשׁ פּוֹסֵל. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחֵרֵשׁ וְשֶׁלַּשׁוֹטֶה טוֹבֶלֶת מִחֵיק בַּעֲלָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. חַד אָמַר. בְּחֵרֵשׁ פּוֹסֵל. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר בְּחֵרֵשׁ יָיבָם. סָפֵק שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ. כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד לִפְסוֹל. סָפֵק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. כְּמִי שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְהַאֲכִיל. נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בַּת אָחִיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן. צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. וְהָכָא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן צָרוֹת תַנִּינָן סְפֵק צָרוֹת.

MISHNAH: The fetus, the levir 5:3 . , the betrothal, the deaf-and-dumb, and the male nine years and one day old disable but do not enable to eat. If there was a doubt whether or not he had reached nine years and one dayt; whether or not he had grown two pubic hairs; when the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate and levirate. If she died first, the co-wife is permitted to the levirs. . HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable, pp. 83–85) shows that the question is restricted to the fetus. . Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat this is an argument of R. Simeon, S. Lieberman ( l . c. ) concludes that the objection of R. Simeon is a rhetorical device. . They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat 5(4 ), quoted in Babli 69b ; the scenario is elaborated in Mishnah 7 . According to Halakhah 6 , Gentile or slave disable the woman partner from the priesthood; whether the child is a bastard is a matter of dispute (in Galilee, not in Babylonia). One has to assume that the desecrated mother of the disabled child has died. Since the verses Lev. 22:11 ,12 speak only of “born in the house” and “descendants” without qualifications, the child from an improper union is as good as one from a proper union for the rules of eating heave. The biological fathers do not disable since they cannot be legal fathers; the child is the child of his mother and God alone, cf. Peah 1:1, Note 116 , Babli Niddah 31a . ! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house 22:11 . The simple meaning of the text is that slaves of a Cohen may eat heave, whether they are born in the house or bought by the master. The expression “born in the house” is extended here to disqualified children of the house. ”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, 6(1 ) on Lev. 22:12 , speaking about the issueless daughter of a Cohen returning to her father’s house to eat sanctified food. The text is also quoted in Babli 67b . since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that interprets the biblical verse as implying the status of the fetus as described in the sentence; he should have said “the verse considers …”. The formulation as given is appropriate for the version of Ze‘ira/the rabbis who refer to rabbinic rules; “they” are the men of the Great Assembly who voluntarily reintroduced the rules of heave and tithes. means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira 2:1, Note 54 . said, there they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth, Chapters 6,7. Mishnah Terumot 7:2 states that the daughter of a Cohen never loses her priestly status, even if she is disabled from eating heave, to the effect that she never pays the fine. . What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth 6:2. This proves that the rule cannot be biblical; the reference to the verse is not a proof. ? “The deaf-and-dumb disables.” Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats 15:18 ) but is not disabled from eating heave. This contradicts the Mishnah. ”? Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah, one said, a disqualified deaf-and-dumb, the other said, a deaf-and-dumb levir. “Whether he had reached nine years and one day or not”, he is as if he were nine years and one day old to disable; “whether he had grown two pubic hairs or not”, he is as if he had grown two pubic hairs to make her eat. “When the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” Why do we come here to state doubts? Since we had stated [the rules for] co-wives, we now state for doubts concerning co-wives.

הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַשׁוֹטֶה לֹא פוֹסְלִים וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִים. וְאִם אֵינָם רְאוּיִין לָבוֹא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פוֹסְלִין. בְּאֵי זֶה צַד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה עִיבְּרָה לֹא תֹאכַל. נִתְחַתֶּךְ הָעוּבָּר בְּמֵעֶיהָ תֹּאכַל. הָיָה כֹהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. עִיבְּרָה לֹא תֹאכַל. יָלְדָה תֹאכַל. נִמְצָא כּוֹחוֹ שֶׁלַּבֵּן גָּדוֹל מִשֶּׁלָּאָב. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה כול׳. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹנְסִין פּוֹסְלִין בִּכְהוּנָּה בִפְנוּיָה. הָדָא מְסַיְיעֵא לְהַהוּא דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחֵרֵשּׁ וְשֶׁלַּשׁוֹטֶה טוֹבֶלֶת מִחֵיק בַּעֲלָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר. אַף הַפָּנוּי שֶׁבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיה שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישּׁוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ בְעִילַת זְנוּת. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יִרְמְיָה. אֲנוּסָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אָמְרָהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא תְקַבֵּל עָלָיו. קַל הוּא בַאֲכִילָת תְּרוּמָה. אִילּוּ בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְשָׁמְעָה עָלָיו שֶׁמֵּת שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה מִיָּד. וּלְעִנְיַין הָעוּבָּר צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לָבוֹא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְסֻלִין. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. בֵּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד גֵּר עֲמוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי וּמִצְרִי וְעֶבֶד וּמַמְזֵר חָלָל נָתִין כּוּתִי וְגוֹי שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן עַל בַּת לֵוִי פְּסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסֵלֶת. כָּל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל אֵין בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסֵלֶת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. כַּל שֶׁאַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ מוּתָּר בְּאַלְמָנָתוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ אֵין אַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּאַלְמָנָתוֹ. וּמַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר. גֵּר עֲמוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. כָּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסֵלֶת. זֶה הוֹאִיל וְזַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל בִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסֵלֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. כַּל שֶׁאַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ (אֵין) אַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּאַלְמָנָתוֹ. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְ(אֵין) אַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ (אֵין) אַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּאַלְמָנָתוֹ. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵּׁם [רַבָּנִן] רִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בַּ[ת] גֵּר עֲמוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי וּבַת דּוֹר שֵׁינִי מִצְרִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ אַתְּ אָסוּר בְּאַלְמָנָתוֹ. רִבִּי זַכַּיי רִבִּי אֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיה מִשְׁלַח שְּׁאוֹל. בַּת גֵּר עֲמוֹנִי וּבַת דּוֹר שֵּׁינִי שֶׁל מִצְרִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ לְהַהוּא דָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין וְרִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בַּת גֵּר עֲמוֹנִי וּבַת דּוֹר שֵׁינִי שֶׁלַּמִּצְרִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתְּ מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ אַתְּ אָסוּר בְּאַלְמָנָתוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל בִּיאָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. לֹא כֵן צְרִיכָה בְּשֶׁהָיְתָה אִמָּהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּתְחַלְלָה אִמָּהּ כָּךְ נִתְחַלְלָה בִתַּהּ. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. פְּלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. בַּת גֵּר עֲמוֹנִי וּבַת דּוֹר הַשֵּׁינִי מִצְרִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירוֹת. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פְּסוּלוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. בִּזְקֵינוֹת פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירוֹת. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פְּסוּלוֹת.

MISHNAH: The rapist, the seducer, and the insane do neither disable nor enable to eat, but if they are unable to marry in Israel they disable. How is that? If an Israel came upon the daughter of a Cohen, she may eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat. If the fetus was cut into pieces in her body she may eat. If a Cohen came upon the daughter of an Israel, she may not eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat, if she gave birth she may eat. It turns out that the son’s power is greater than the father’s. HALAKHAH: “The rapist, the seducer,” etc. This means that rape does not disable an unmarried priestly woman. This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated 15:18 ) but is not disabled from eating heave. This contradicts the Mishnah. : The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats, against Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, also if an unmarried man had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage it is copulation of harlotry 51a , Temurah 30a . . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. Rebbi Jonah said this before Rebbi Yose. He said to him, do not accept that from here, they were lenient for eating heave. If a daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel, her husband went overseas, and she received notice that he died, does she not immediately eat heave. 22:13 . But even though the husband left more than three months before his death, the widow must wait three months before remarrying. The argument is rejected in the Babli, 69b . ? But because of a fetus she has to wait three months. “If they are unable to marry in Israel they disable.” These are8:1 , Niddah 6:1. : “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, or Egyptian 4:4 notes that modern Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians are no longer the peoples living in these places at the time of the Exodus; therefore, the prohibitions of Deut . 23:4–9 are no longer operative. All arguments based on these rules are theoretical exercises of retrospection. proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of an Israel, a Cohen, or a Levite, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.” In what do they differ? Rebbi Joḥanan says, an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte Deut . 249.). The same argument in Babli 69a . is between them. For him who says, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified, here since his descendant would be disqualified, his intercourse disqualifies. For him who says, if you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, here since you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of [the rabbis], Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. 23:9 ; Mishnah 8:3 . , even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. Rebbi Zakkai: Rebbi Alexander sent to ask [about] the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. Rebbi Yose said to him, did you not hear that Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. And everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified. Do we not need it when her mother was from Israel? That you should not say that since her mother was desecrated so her daughter was desecrated. In addition, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed, the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, they disagree about the old women: Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified.

הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה וְאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם זֶרַע. בְּאֵי זֶה צַד בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַכֹּהֵן בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֵן וְהָלַךְ הַבֵּן וְנִכְבַּשׁ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֵן הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד. הָיְתָה אֵם אָבִיו בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַכֹּהֵן לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה כול׳. הָעֶבֶד מְנַיִין שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ פוֹסֶלֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּשֶׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ. שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ עָלָיו אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין חוֹזֶרֶת. אֶת שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. הָתִיב רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה שֶׁזִּינְתָה הֲרֵי אֵין לָהּ אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין וְחוֹזֶרֶת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּגִיטִּין הוּא אָמַר. כּוּתִין מִשּׁוּם מַה הֵן פְּסוּלִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מִשּׁוּם גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. בְּקִידּוּשִׁין הוּא אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. הָכָא אָמַר לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם גַּרְמֵיהּ וְהָכָא אָמַר לָהּ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שֶׁכֵּן לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָָן. בְּגִיטִּין הוּא אָמַר. כּוּתִין מִשּׁוּם מַה הֵן פְּסוּלִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מִשּׁוּם גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. בְּקִידּוּשִׁין הוּא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין חוֹזֶרֶת וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. סְלָקִית לִסְחוֹרָה וּשְׁמָעִית רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנֵי יֵישׁוּעַ. וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ. אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ עָלָיו אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין חוֹזֶרֶת. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו אַלְמָנוּת וְגֵירוּשִׁין אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. וְאָמְרִת יֵאוּת. אֵין מַמְזֵר כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. שֶׁאֵין מַמְזֵר אֶלָּא מֵאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה וְחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת.

MISHNAH: A slave disables because of intercourse but not because of descendants. How is this? A daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen [or] the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel had a son from him. The son went and was pressed on a slave girl who had a son from him; the latter is a slave. If his father’s mother was a daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, she cannot eat heave, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel may eat heave. HALAKHAH: “A slave disables because of intercourse,” etc. From where that the intercourse with a slave disables? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, 22:13 . “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat from her father’s food.” ” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But if a widow whored she has no widowhood or divorce and she returns! Rebbi Yose did not say so, but [he held] that the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard 1:5 , the statement is by R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Eleazar (the Tanna), in Qiddushin 3:14 it is an anonymous baraita . In the Babli, 45a , the statement is by R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar (the Amora); a parallel statement in the name of Rebbi. There is no doubt in the Yerushalmi that the original Samaritans were Jews. They consider the children of a Jewish mother from a Gentile as Jewish, as is accepted as practice, under Babylonian influence, in the next Halakhah and as already was decided in Halakhah 4:15 . . In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says it in his own name but there he says it in the name of Rebbi Ismael! For also according to the words of the Sages the child is a bastard. Rebbi Ḥizqiah did not say so, but: the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says, from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Mattaniah said, I went to Seḥora and heard: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ismael the sons of Jesua: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, 22:13 . “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat from her father’s food.” ” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. And I said, that is correct, there is no bastard, following Rebbi Joshua, for a bastard is only from a woman which is for him under an incest prohibition and for whom one is punished by divine extirpation.

מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. בְּאֵי זֶה צַד בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַכֹּהֵן בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בַת וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִשֵּׂאת לְעֶבֶד אוֹ לְנָכְרִי וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּן הֲרֵי זֶה מַמְזֵר. הָיְתָה אֵם אִמּוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַכֹּהֵן תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל כול׳. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. דְּרַב אָמַר. גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוְולָד כָּשֵׁר. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּגוֹי פָּסוּל וּבְעֶבֶד פָּסוּל.

MISHNAH: A bastard disables and enables to eat. How is this? A daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen [or] the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel had a daughter from him. If the daughter went and married a slave or a Gentile and had a son from him, that is a bastard. If his mother’s mother was a daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, she can eat heave, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to an Israel cannot eat heave. HALAKHAH: “A bastard disables,” etc. Does that not disagree with Rav, since Rav said that if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is acceptable. Explain it that the Gentile disables and the slave disables 23:18 . .

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל. כֵּיצַד בַּת כֹּהֵן נִשֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בַת הָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֵן הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְעוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מַאֲכִיל אֶת אִמּוֹ וּפוֹסֶל אֶת אֵם אִמּוֹ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא כִבְנִי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל כול׳. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. בֵּן יוֹמוֹ פוֹסֶל וּמַאֲכִיל. כֵּינִי מָתְנִיתָא. לֹא כְבֶן בִּתּוֹ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלָתוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. הָא כֵיצַד. בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בַת וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְיָלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ בֵן. וְנִישְּׂאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן זֶה לָזֶה וְהוֹלִידוּ בֵן. הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאֲכִיל אֶת אִמּוֹ וּפוֹסֶל אֶת אֵם אִמּוֹ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא כְבֶן בִּתּוֹ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלֵינִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

MISHNAH: Sometimes the High Priest disables. How is this? A Cohen’s daughter was married to an Israel and had a daughter from him. The daughter went and was married to a Cohen and had a son from him. The latter possibly is a High Priest serving on top of the altar. He enables his mother to eat and disables his mother’s mother. The latter says, not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave. HALAKHAH: “The High Priest,” etc. Bar Kappara stated: A one-day-old disables and enables to eat. So is the Mishnah: “Not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.” A Cohen’s daughter was married to an Israel and had a daughter from him; an Israel’s daughter was married to a Cohen and had a son from him. The two married and had a son. The latter possibly is a High Priest serving on top of the altar. He enables his mother to eat and disables his mother’s mother. The latter says, not like my son the High Priest who disables me from heave.