Torah Community Connections

Week 56 - Tuesday - 19 December 2000

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 5

If the child of a kohenet became mixed up with her bondwoman's child -- they may eat terumah, and they share one share at the threshing-floor, and may not render themselves unclean by the dead, and they do not marry women, whether eligible or ineligible. If they grew up mixed up, and they freed one another -- they must marry wives eligible for the priesthood, and they may not render themselves unclean by the dead; but if they rendered themselves unclean, they do not receive the forty. And they may not eat terumah; and if they ate, they do not repay the principal and the homesh. And they do not share at the threshing-floor, and they sell the terumah, and the proceeds are theirs. And they do not share in the sanctified things of the Temple, and they do not give them sanctified things, and they do not take theirs away from them, and they are exempt from the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw, and his firstborn shall graze until it becomes blemished; and the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites are applied to them.

Kehati

If the child of a kohenet -- a priest's wife, became mixed up with her bondwoman's child -- i.e., one child is a priest, and one is the slave of a priest, they may eat terumah -- because a priest's slave is also permitted to eat terumah, and they share one share at the threshing-floor -- it was not necessary to teach that they are given only one share of the terumah that is apportioned to the priests at the threshing-floor, since only one of them is a priest; the mishnah rather teaches (as is explained in a baraita in the Gemara) that terumah is apportioned to them at the threshing-floor only if they come together, but not if one comes without the other, since terumah is apportioned to a slave only if his master is with him, lest people raise his lineage, i.e., allow him to marry his daughters to priests;

And they may not render themselves unclean by the dead -- for each one is possibly a priest, and we apply the more stringent ruling, and they do not marry women, whether eligible or not ineligible -- because eligible women are prohibited to the slave, and ineligible women are prohibited to the priest; each one of them is possibly a priest, or possibly a slave, and when a prohibition is involved we apply stringency.

If they grew up mixed up, and they freed one another -- the Gemara explains that they are compelled to release each other, since there is no remedy for them in their present state; and after they have freed each other, they marry wives eligible for the priesthood -- and not ineligible women, since one of them is a priest; and they may not render unclean by the dead -- since he may be the priest;

But if they rendered themselves unclean -- by the dead, they do not receive the forty -- forty (minus one) lashes for having transgressed the prohibition, "There shall none defiles himself for the dead" (Lev. 21:1), for each one exempts himself by the claim that he is not a priest.

And they may not eat terumah -- a freed slave has the same legal status as an Israelite, who is prohibited from eating terumah;

And if they ate -- terumah, unwittingly, they do not repay the principal and the homesh -- for each one may claim, "I am a priest," and money is not collected on the basis of a doubt.

And they do not share at the threshing-floor -- they do not take even one portion of the terumah that is apportioned at the threshing-floor, even though one of them is a priest and they come together, for we fear that they will eat it and they sell to priests the terumah -- that they separate from their produce, and the proceeds are theirs -- i.e., they are not required to give a priest the terumah of their produce, for each one of them says to the priest, "Bring proof that I am not a priest": however, since they may not eat the terumah, they sell it to a priest, and the proceeds are theirs.

And they do not share the sanctified things of the Temple -- not even of inedible sanctified things, e.g., the skins of the sanctified things, because they say to each of them, "Bring proof that you are a priest"; and they do not give them sanctified things -- i.e., sacrifices to offer. According to another interpretation, the firstborn and property set aside for the use of the priests or the Temple, and they do not take theirs away from them -- if they were liable to bring a sin-offering, or a guilt-offering, or a burnt-offering they are not compelled to give the holy food to the serving Temple watch, but may give them to whichever priest or Temple watch they wish (Rashi, Yev. 99b). An alternative interpretation: if, e.g., a firstborn animal was born to them, they do not take it away from them (ibid.), for each one of them can say, "I am a priest"; and they are exempt from the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw -- regarding which it is written, "And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice" (Deut. 18:3), which was expounded to mean, "from the people," and not from the priests; and his firstborn -- of each one of them (see Hagahot Harashash), shall graze until it becomes blemished -- until it acquires a blemish, when they may eat it, since an Israelite is also permitted to eat a blemished firstborn; if it is unblemished, its parts must be sacrificed, and the priest who sacrifices it eats it, for the unblemished firstborn may be eaten only by the priests (Rashi; Hameiri);

And the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites are applied to -- each one of them -- the Gemara explains that this clause refers to their meal-offering, for a fistful is taken of the meal-offering of an Israelite and is offered on the altar, and the rest is eaten by the priests; the meal-offering of a priest, however, is completely burned. The mishnah teaches that if one of them brings a meal-offering, a fistful is taken of it, as is the procedure with the meal-offering of an Israelite, and what remains of it is not eaten, following the procedure with the meal-offering of priests, i.e., the fistful is offered by itself and the remnants are burned in the place where the ashes were deposited (see Zev. 5:2). The remnants are not offered, because it was understood from the verse, "you shall not burn it as an offering made by fire to the Lord" (Lev. 2:11), that whatever of it is "as an offering made by fire" is included in the prohibition of "you shall not burn it" i.e., any part a portion of which goes to the offerings made by fire, such as this offering, a fistful of which is sacrificed, the remnants of it are not fit to be sacrificed (Gemara; Rambam; Hameiri; Bartenura; Tosefot Yom Tov).

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 6

If a woman did not wait after her husband three months and married and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine-months' child by the former or a seven-months' by the latter; if she had sons by the first and sons by the second -- they submit to halitzah and they do not marry by yibum. So, too, he to them, he submits to halitzah and does not marry by yibum. If he had brothers by the first and brothers by the second not by the same mother -- he submits to halitzah or marries by yibum, and as for them, one submits to halitzah and one marries by yibum.

Kehati

It was taught (4:10, above) that a woman who was widowed or divorced may not marry before three months have elapsed from the day that her husband died or that he divorced her. This mishnah considers the case of a widow or a divorced woman who married before the three months expired, and she bore a son who came possibly from a nine-month pregnancy by the first husband, or possibly from a seven-month pregnancy by the second husband, and rules on the law of yibum and halitzah of this son of doubtful paternity? As already stated in the Introduction to the Tractate, the obligation of yibum applies only to brothers by the father, and not to brothers by the mother.

If a woman -- widowed or divorced -- did not wait after her husband three months -- as the law requires (see 4:10), and married -- another man, and gave birth -- to a son, and it is not known whether it is a nine-months' child by the former or a seven-months' by the latter -- and that son grew up, married and died childless, if she had sons by the first -- husband, and also sons by the second -- her second husband, they -- one of hers sons by the first husband and one of her sons by the second husband submit to halitzah -- from the widow of the son of doubtful paternity, since regarding each one of these sons, she (the widow) is possibly the wife of his brother by the father and they do not perform yibum -- since regarding each one of these sons, we fear that her husband was not his brother by the father, but only by the mother, and she therefore is prohibited to him.

So, too, he to them -- if her sons by the first or by the second husband died, and their wives came before the son of doubtful paternity for yibum, he submits to halitzah and does not marry by yibum -- for the same reason, that the dead husband of the yevamah may not have been his brother by the father, but by the mother.

If he -- the son of doubtful paternity, had brothers by the first and brothers by the second not by the same mother -- i.e., his mother's first husband had a son by another wife, and the same was the case with her second husband, and these sons married women and died childless, he -- the son of doubtful paternity, submits to halitzah from, or marries by yibum the wife of the son of the first and the wife of the son of the second, for if her husband were his brother by his father, then he fulfills the mitzvah of yibum on her, and if he were not his brother, then his wife is a non-relative to him. This refers to a case in which he is the sole brother, but if there were another brother, she is prohibited to marry another man until the other brother submits to halitzah from her; and as for them -- the brothers by the first and by the second, who are not by the same mother:

One submits to halitzah and one marries by yibum -- if the doubtful one died childless, one of them, either the son of the first or the son of the second husband, first submits to halitzah from the wife of the doubtful one, and afterwards the other is permitted to wed her as his yevamah, i.e., after the son of the first husband has submitted to halitzah from her, the son of the second husband is permitted to wed her as his yevamah, and vice versa -- after the son of the second husband has submitted to halitzah from her, the son of the first husband is permitted to wed her as his yevamah, since if she is his brother's wife, then he is fulfilling the obligation of yibum and if not, she is a non-relative to him, and her yavam has already submitted to halitzah from her, and she is permitted to any man.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives