Torah Community Connections

Week 54 - Monday - 4 December 2000

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 2

If the daughter of an Israelite is married to a priest, and she brought in to him slaves, whether melog slaves, or tzon barzel slaves -- then these eat terumah. And if a daughter of a priest married an Israelite and she brought in to him melog slaves, or tzon barzel slaves -- then these do not eat terumah.

Kehati

If the daughter of an Israelite is married to a priest, and she brought in to him slaves, whether melog slaves, or tzon barzel slaves -- then these eat terumah -- since she eats terumah, her slaves also eat, as it is written, "But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it" (Lev. 22:11), which the Sages interpreted: that purchased by the acquisition of his money also eats terumah, since the latter eats of it.

And if a daughter of a priest married an Israelite and she brought in to him melog slaves, or tzon barzel slaves -- then these do not eat terumah -- since she herself does not eat, as it is written, "And if a priest's daughter be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of the terumah of the holy things" (Lev. 22:12), her slaves also do not eat terumah, not even her melog slaves.

YEVAMOT: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 3

If the daughter of an Israelite is married to a priest, and he died, and left her pregnant -- her slaves do not eat terumah because of the portion of the unborn child, for the unborn child diqualifies but does not bestow the right to eat: thus Rabbi Yose. They said to him: After you testified to us about a daughter of an Israelite to a priest, even a daughter of a priest to a priest who died, and left her pregnant, her slaves should not eat terumah, because of the portion of the unborn child.

Kehati

As mentioned above, if the daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite, she may not eat terumah, as it is written, "And if a priest's daughter be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of the terumah of the holy things" (Lev. 22:12). If she was widowed or divorced from her Israelite husband, and has no offspring by him, she may again eat the terumah of her father's house, as it is written, "But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and is returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread" (ibid., v.13). If, however, she has by her husband, even if only a grandson, she may not eat the terumah of her father's house. The daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest eats terumah with him, as it is written, "But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it," and his wife is his acquisition. If her husband the priest died childless, or if he divorced her, she is prohibited from eating terumah; if, however, she has offspring by the priest, e.g., a son, a daughter, a grandson, etc., then she may eat terumah by virtue of the offspring. This mishnah discusses the case of the daughter of an Israelite who was widowed from her husband the priest who is pregnant by him.

If the daughter of an Israelite is married to a priest, and he -- her husband the priest, died, and left her pregnant -- even though she has children by him, and she eats terumah because of her children, nonetheless -- her slaves -- i.e., tzon barzel slaves, do not eat terumah but her melog slaves do eat, just as she eats, because of the portion of the unborn child -- since the tzon barzel slaves belong to the heirs, and thus the unborn child has a portion in them, since he is one of the heirs, they therefore are disqualified from eating terumah because of the portion of the unborn child, for the unborn child disqualifies -- if the daughter of a priest married an Israelite, and he died, and left her pregnant, and she has no other offspring, then the unborn child disqualifies her from terumah, i.e., she is prohibited from again eating of her father's terumah, but does not bestow the right to eat -- if the daughter of an Israelite married a priest, and he died, and left her pregnant, and she does not have any other offspring, she is not permitted to eat terumah because of the unborn child, as it is written, "and such as are born in his house, they may eat" (Lev. 22:11) -- one who is born bestows the right to eat, one who is not born does not bestow the right to eat;

Thus Rabbi Yose -- Rabbi Yose holds that since when there is no offspring, the unborn child does not bestow on his mother the right to eat terumah, nor on the slaves, therefore, even when there are children, the unborn child disqualifies the slaves from eating terumah. The Gemara brings two reason for this: (1) according to the opinion of Rabbi Yose, an unborn child in the womb of a woman who is not of the priesthood is himself a non-priest (2) Rabbi Yose interprets "they may eat" in the verse "and such as are born in his house, they may eat" in the sense that they bestow the right to eat, i.e., one who is born betows the right to eat, one who is not born does not bestow the right to eat.

They -- the Sages, said to him -- Rabbi Yose: After you testified to us about a daughter of an Israelite to a priest -- that if a daughter of an Israelite married a priest, and he died, and left her pregnant, her slaves do not eat terumah, because of the portion of the unborn child, even a daughter of a priest who is married to a priest, and he died, and left her pregnant, her slaves should not eat terumah, because of the portion of the unborn child -- the commentators explain that the Sages hold that Rabbi Yose's reason is because "one who is born bestows the right to eat, one who is not born does not bestow the right to eat"; they therefore said to hm, that according to this reason, even if the daughter of a priest was married to a priest, and he died and left her pregnant, and she has no other offspring, the slaves should not eat terumah, since they are the slaves of the unborn child, who does not bestow the right to eat (Rashi; Tosafot; Bartenura; Tiferet Yisrael).

The Gemara explains that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yose, and hold that the unborn child does not have any property rights to the slaves, and does not disqualify them from eating terumah. The codifiers, however, disagree as to the opinion of the Sages: some explain (as we explained above), that the Sages reacted in surprise to Rabbi Yose's opinion, for according to him even in the case of the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest, who died and left her pregnant, and she had no other offspring, her slaves should not eat terumah, for they are the unborn child's slaves, and an unborn does not bestow the right to eat. Hence, according to the Sages, in such a case the unborn child also does not have any part in the slaves, and they may eat terumah by virtue of the family, and when she has other children by the priest, the unborn child certainly does not have any property rights, and the slaves may eat by virtue of the brothers of the unborn child (R. Yitzhak Alfasi). According to another opinion, the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yose only in the case in which the widow of the priest has other children by the priest, since in such a case the unborn child does not have any part in slaves. This is the reason why they were surprised at the opinion of Rabbi Yose, for according to him, even in the case in which the daughter of a priest is married to a priest, who died and left her pregnant, and she has other children by him, her slaves may not eat terumah, because of the unborn child's rights to them. However, if he left her pregnant and she has no other offspring, the Sages also hold that the unborn child has a part in the slaves (Rabbeinu Asher; see also Tosefot Yom Tov).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives