|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 66a twin sisters.1 But does not the commandment apply to women? Surely, R. Aha b. R. Kattina related in the name of R. Isaac: It once happened in the case of a woman who was half slave and half free, that her master was compelled to emancipate her!2 R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: People were taking liberties with her.3 ## CHAPTER VII MISHNAH. IF A WIDOW [WHO MARRIED] A HIGH PRIEST,4 OR IF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH [WHO MARRIED] A COMMON PRIEST BROUGHT IN TO HER HUSBAND MELOG 5 SLAVES AND ZON BARZEL5 SLAVES. THE MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH BUT THE ZON BARZEL SLAVES MAY EAT OF IT.6 THE FOLLOWING ARE MELOG SLAVES: THOSE WHO, IF THEY DIE, ARE THE WIFE'S7 LOSS AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE HER PROFIT. THOUGH IT IS THE HUSBAND'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN THEM, THEY MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH.6 THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES: IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE A PROFIT TO HIM. SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM,8 THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH. IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH WHETHER THEY ARE MELOG SLAVES, OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.6 IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, HOWEVER, WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH WHETHER THEY ARE MELOG SLAVES OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.6 GEMARA. And MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH! What is the reason? Let them rather be regarded as a possession that was acquired by one in his possession [who is permitted to eat terumah]. for it was taught: Whence is it deduced that the wife whom a priest married or the slaves which he purchased may eat terumah.? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul the purchase of his money, he may eat of it.9 And whence is it deduced that if a woman10 purchased slaves11 or if a priest's slaves purchased12 other slaves, these may eat terumah? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it;9 a possession which his possession has acquired may eat!13 — Whosoever may himself eat may confer the right of eating upon others but whosoever may not himself eat may not confer the right of eating upon others.14 May he not, indeed?15 There is, surely, the case of16 an uncircumcised man and that of all levitically unclean persons who may not themselves eat terumah and yet confer the right of eating it upon others!17 — In those cases18 they are merely suffering pain in their mouths.19 But there is, surely, the case of16 the bastard20 Who may not eat terumah himself21 and yet may confer the right of eating it upon others!22 — Rabina replied. He speaks of an acquisition23 that is permitted to eat: Any acquisition that may eat may confer the right of eating upon others, and any acquisition that may not eat may not confer the right upon others. Raba, however, stated24 that pentateuchally they23 may in fact eat terumah; but it is the Rabbis who instituted the prohibition in order that the woman might complain, 'I am not allowed to eat; my slaves are not allowed to eat; I am only his mistress!', in consequence of which he would be likely to divorce her. R. Ashi stated:24 The prohibition is a preventive measure against the possibility of her feeding them25 with terumah after the death [of her husband].26 Now, then,27 a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest should also be forbidden to feed [her melog slaves with terumah] as a preventive measure against her feeding them after [her husband's] death!28 — But, said R. Ashi, [our Mishnah refers to] a priestly widow29 who30 might draw the following conclusion:31 'At first32 they33 ate terumah at my paternal home;34 and when I married this man35 they33 ate36 of the terumah of my husband; they33 should now,37 therefore, revert to their former condition',38 and she would not know that at first39 she had not made of herself a profaned woman40 while now41 she has made herself a profaned woman.40 This explanation is quite satisfactory in the case of a priestly widow;42 what explanations however, is there in the case of a widow who is the daughter of an Israelite?43 — The Rabbis made no distinction between one widow and another.44 It was stated: If a wife: who brought to her husband45 appraised goods,46 demands,47 'I will accept only my own goods',48 and he replies 'I am only paying their value'49 — in whose favour is judgment to be given? Rab Judah said: To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The two pairs of twins were children of R. Hiyya from Judith. So that she might be permitted to marry a free man, As a half slave she was not allowed to contract such a marriage. Now, since her master was compelled to give her the opportunity of marrying, it is obvious that the commandment of propagation applies to women also! And marriage was her only protection; and this was the reason why her master was compelled to emancipate her. Contracting thereby a forbidden union. V. infra and Glos. The reason is given in the Gemara. Lit., 'died for her'. He or his heirs must restore them to his wife in a healthy condition should he divorce her or die. Lev. XXII, 11. The daughter of an Israelite, who married a priest. Out of her melog property the principal of which is hers. With a sum of money that was given to them as their absolute property. on the condition that their master was to have no claim whatsoever upon it. The expression, 'the purchase of his money is superfluous' and the text is, therefore, expounded thus: If the purchase of his money, i.e., a priest's wife or slave (who is the priest's acquisition) buy any soul, he (i.e., the one purchased) 'may eat of it'. Why then are not melog slaves, being an acquisition of the priest's wife, permitted to eat terumah? The priest's wife in this case is not herself permitted to eat terumah, since her union with this priest is a forbidden one. V. Lev. XXI, 7, 13 and supra p. 441, n. 1. Lit., 'and not'? Lit., 'and behold'. Their slaves, e.g., are permitted to eat terumah. Cf. infra 70a. Lit., 'there'. I.e., their disability is restricted to their mouth alone. They are only temporarily forbidden to eat the terumah. At the moment their unclean period is over or circumcision is performed their rights are fully restored. In the case of the priest's wife in our Mishnah, however, the disability is permanent, since by her forbidden marriage she remains for ever a profaned woman. I.e., mamzer, (v. Glos.) the issue of a union between a slave or idolater and a woman who was the issue of a marriage between a priest and the daughter of an Israelite. Since he is neither priest nor even a legitimate Israelite. His grandmother, the wife of the priest, may continue to eat terumah even after the death of her husband so long as the bastard (being a descendant of her husband through their daughter) is alive. As the widow of a priest she would have lost the privilege of eating terumah on her husband's death had there been no surviving descendants. V. infra 69b. Not of a descendant. In explaining the reason why MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. The melog slaves. Believing that, as she was allowed to feed them with terumah during the lifetime of her husband though they were her property, she may continue to do so even after his death. In the case of zon barzel slaves, however, no such error need be feared since the slaves are not hers, but his absolute property until the moment when it is surrendered to her by her husband or heir, v. infra. If such an error as suggested is to be feared. But our Mishnah distinctly states that her melog slaves also may eat terumah! The daughter of a priest who, as a widow, married a High Priest, and thus became profaned through their forbidden marriage. If her melog slaves were permitted to eat terumah while she lived with the High Priest. After the High Priest's death. During her first widowhood. The melog slaves. As a widow she then returned to her father's priestly house and was again entitled to eat terumah herself and to feed her slaves with it. The High Priest. Cf. supra n. 8. When the High Priest died, though she remained a profaned widow who is, in fact, forbidden to eat terumah. To be allowed again. as before, to eat terumah. During her first widowhood. Halachah (v. Glos.) through ber forbidden marriage. Having married a High Priest to whom a widow is forbidden. V. supra p. 443, n. 7. The error mentioned cannot occur in her case; but as our Mishnah draws no distinction between the two, the question remains: Why should not her melog slaves be permitted to eat terumah? Lit., 'in her widowhood'. Were the feeding permitted in the case of the one, the other might erroneously be presumed to come under the same law. As zon barzel property (v. Glos.). Shum (v. Glos.). V. Ket. Sonc. ed. p 401. n. 11. In consideration of which he guarantees her a specified sum in her kethubah, which is recoverable by her at his death, or earlier if she is divorced. When she claims her kethubah. v. supra n. 9. I.e., the actual objects she had brought to her husband. In accordance with the appraisement in the kethubah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 66b Judgment is to be given in her favour;1 and R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour. 'Rab Judah said: Judgment is to be given in her favour because [they represent] assets of her paternal property [which] belong to her. R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour' for, as the Master said, [THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES:] IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES — ARE A PROFIT TO HIM; [AND] SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH [they are therefore obviously regarded as his own].2 R. Safra said: Was it stated, 'and they belong to him? The statements surely. only reads, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! In fact, then, they may not belong to him at all. But [is it a fact that] those for whom he3 is responsible invariably eat terumah? Surely we learned: An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest may feed her on vetches of terumah. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, though it is his duty to supply her with food,4 must not feed her on vetches of terumah!5 — How could you understand it thus! Granted that he is liable for theft or loss, is he also liable for accidents, emaciation or reduction In value!6 [The case7 in our Mishnah], surely, can only be compared to that in the final clause:8 An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest, guaranteeing him its appraised value,9 may not feed it on vetches of terumah. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, guaranteeing him its appraised value,9 may feed it on vetches of terumah.10 Rabbah and R. Joseph were sitting at their studies at the conclusion of R. Nahman's school session, and in the course of their sitting they made the following statement: [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah; and [another Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi. ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Ammi': Zon barzel slaves procure their freedom when the man,11 but not when the woman [struck out] a tooth or an eye.12 ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah': If a wife brought in to her husband appraised goods,13 the husband may not sell them even if it is his desire to do so.14 Furthermore, even if he brought in to her appraised goods of his own,15 he may not sell them even if he desired to do so. If either16 of them sold [any of the appraised goods] for their maintenance. Such an incident was once dealt with by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled that the husband17 may seize them from the buyers.18 Raba19 stated in the name of R. Nahman: The law is in agreement with Rab Judah. Said Raba to R. Nahman: But surely [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi! Although [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi, Rab Judah's view is more logical, since any asset of a woman's paternal property [should rightly belong to her]. A woman once brought20 in to her husband a robe of fine wool [which was appraised and included] in her kethubah. When the man died it was taken by the orphans and spread over the corpse. Raba ruled that the corpse had acquired it.21 Said Nanai son of R. Joseph son of Raba to R. Kahana: But, surely, Raba22 stated in the name of R. Nahman that the law is in agreement with Rab Judah!23 The other replied: Does not Rab Judah admit that the robe had still to be collected [by the wife]?24 Since it had still to be collected it remained in the husband's possession.25 [In this ruling] Raba acted in accordance with his view [elsewhere expressed]. For Raba stated:26 Consecration,26 leavened food,26 and - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Her own objects must be returned to her. Cf. Bomberg ed. where an amplified version of this text is given including the clause enclosed here in square brackets. A priest. And though he is also responsible for the loss, or theft of the animal. 'A.Z. 15a; which shews that even an animal for which a priest is responsible (v. supra n. 2) is not permitted to eat terumah. How, then, could it be said, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT? Certainly not. Such a restricted responsibility, therefore, is incomplete and does not confer the right to terumah. Of zon barzel. Of the Baraitha cited. Lit., 'if an Israelite appraised a cow from'. I.e., he undertook to make good to the owner any loss in the value of the animal between the date of hire and the date of the return. The animal being regarded as the priest's own property, in respect of its feeding on terumah, owing to his responsibility for the return of its full value. Thus it follows that, though an animal would be returned in body, should its value on the day of its return be equal to that of its appraised value, it is nevertheless, owing to the priest's complete responsibility, deemed to be the priest's property so long as it remains in his possession; so also in the case of zon barzel slaves: though they would ultimately be returned to the woman in body, they are regarded, in respect of terumah, as the property of the priest, who accepted full responsibility for them, so long as they remain with him. The husband, who is regarded, in agreement with R. Ammi, as the owner of the slaves. Cf. Ex. XXI, 26. Which the husband includes in her kethubah, and undertakes to return to her at their appraised value should he divorce her or die. It is his duty to keep them intact so that the objects themselves, not merely their value, may be returned to the woman in due course. Included them in the amount of her kethubah. Lit., 'both'. V. Rashi a.l. I.e., even he. If the woman died; the sale being deemed invalid. That the woman, when her husband dies or divorces her, may seize such property, in the event of a sale by him, is obvious. Wanting in MSS. which read 'R. Nahman stated'. In her dowry, as zon barzel. The shroud, wraps. or any article of dress that has covered the body of a corpse is deemed to be the dead man's property, and no living person may derive any benefit from it. V. Sanh. 47b. Cf. supra n. 7. That zon barzel property, such as the robe was, belongs to the wife'! Of course he does. The robe does not come into the actual possession of the woman until her claim is proved and the robe surrendered to her by the husband or his heirs. The orphans were, therefore, entitled to use it as part of the dead man's shroud. The woman's claim upon it is undoubtedly valid, but has not any greater force than that of the holder of a mortgage. V. infra note 3. Supra 46a q.v. for notes. V. also Keth. 59b, Git. 40b, B.K. 89b. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |