Yevamot 66

אחוותא

were twin sisters, and became the matriarchs of families of distinguished Torah scholars.

ולא מיפקדי והאמר רב אחא בר רב קטינא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה באשה אחת שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין וכפו את רבה ועשאה בת חורין אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מנהג הפקר נהגו בה

The Gemara asks: Are women not commanded to be fruitful and multiply? Didn’t Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ketina say that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident with a certain woman who was half-slave and half-free woman and therefore could marry neither a Canaanite slave nor a Jew, and they forced her master and he made her a free woman. Presumably, the reason the court forced her master to free her was so that she could fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The reason they forced her master to free her was because others treated her in a loose manner. Since she knew that she could not marry she engaged in promiscuous activity, and the court forced her master to free her in order to save her and others from sin.

הדרן עלך הבא על יבמתו

מתני׳ אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט הכניסה לו עבדי מלוג ועבדי צאן ברזל עבדי מלוג לא יאכלו בתרומה עבדי צאן ברזל יאכלו

MISHNA: A widow married to a High Priest, and a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest are all unions prohibited by Torah law. If one of these women brought with her into the marriage slaves of usufruct [melog] property or slaves of guaranteed investment, then the slaves of usufruct property do not partake of teruma but the slaves of guaranteed investment do partake of teruma.

ואלו הן עבדי מלוג אם מתו מתו לה ואם הותירו הותירו לה אף על פי שהוא חייב במזונותן הרי אלו לא יאכלו בתרומה ואלו הן עבדי צאן ברזל אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו הואיל והוא חייב באחריותן הרי אלו יאכלו בתרומה

And these are slaves of usufruct property: They are those with regard to whom the couple stipulated that if the slaves die, their death is her loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is her gain. Although the husband is obligated in their sustenance, they do not partake of teruma, as they belong to her, not to him. He owns only the right of their use while he is married to her. And these are slaves of guaranteed investment: They are those with regard to whom the couple stipulated that if they die, their death is his loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is his gain. Since he bears financial responsibility for compensating her in the event of their loss, they partake of teruma, as they are considered his property.

בת ישראל שניסת לכהן והכניסה לו עבדים בין עבדי מלוג בין עבדי צאן ברזל הרי אלו יאכלו בתרומה ובת כהן שניסת לישראל והכניסה לו עבדים בין עבדי מלוג בין עבדי צאן ברזל הרי אלו לא יאכלו בתרומה

In the case of an Israelite woman who married a priest in a halakhic marriage and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they partake of teruma. And in the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they do not partake of teruma, although, as she is the daughter of a priest, it is permitted for her and her slaves to partake of teruma beforehand.

גמ׳ ועבדי מלוג לא יאכלו בתרומה אמאי להוי כקנינו שקנה קנין דתניא מנין לכהן שנשא אשה וקנה עבדים שיאכלו בתרומה שנאמר וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו הוא יאכל בו

GEMARA: The mishna states that if a priest married a woman forbidden to him, his wife’s slaves of usufruct property do not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Why is this so? Let this case be like that of his acquisition who acquired an acquisition, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who married a woman and acquired slaves that they partake of teruma? As it is stated: “But if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11).

ומנין לאשה שקנתה עבדים ועבדיו שקנו עבדים שיאכלו בתרומה שנאמר וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו הוא יאכל בו קנינו שקנה קנין אוכל

And from where is it derived with regard to both the wife of a priest who acquired slaves and a priest’s slaves who acquired slaves, that the acquired slaves may also partake of teruma? As it is stated: “But if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it,” which is interpreted to mean: If his acquisition acquired an acquisition, the latter partakes of teruma. Here too, since the slaves of usufruct property belong to his wife, it should be permitted for them to partake of teruma.

כל האוכל מאכיל כל שאין אוכל אינו מאכיל

The Gemara answers: The principle is that anyone who is fit to partake of teruma can enable others to partake of teruma, and anyone who does not partake of teruma cannot enable others to partake. Since the priest’s wife in this case does not partake of teruma, as her marriage is forbidden, her slaves do not partake of teruma either.

ולא והרי ערל וכל הטמאים שאינן אוכלין ומאכילין התם פומייהו כאיב להו

The Gemara asks: And is it so that one who does not partake of teruma cannot enable others to partake? But aren’t there the cases of a priest who is uncircumcised because it was considered too dangerous for him and all impure priests, who do not partake of teruma, and yet they enable their wives and slaves to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: The difference is that there, in those cases, there is no inherent disqualification rendering them unfit to partake of teruma. The hindrance to their partaking of teruma is tantamount to a situation where their mouths hurt, and that is why they refrain from eating teruma. They retain, however, the fundamental right to partake of teruma, and therefore they can enable others to partake as well.

והרי ממזר שאין אוכל ומאכיל

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], who does not partake of teruma yet enables others to partake? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest and was subsequently widowed or divorced, and a child from that union married a mamzer and then had a child, in that case, even if the woman’s child is dead, she partakes of teruma due to her grandchild, as she has a living descendant from a priest, although that descendant is a mamzer. Although this child does not partake of teruma, he enables his grandmother to partake of it.

אמר רבינא קנין אוכל קאמר קנין אוכל מאכיל שאינו אוכל אינו מאכיל

Ravina said that the above principle is referring to the case of an acquisition who partakes of teruma. If the acquisition of a priest partakes of teruma, he enables others to partake, whereas an acquisition who does not partake, e.g., his forbidden wife, cannot enable others to partake.

ורבא אמר מדאורייתא מיכל אכלי ורבנן הוא דגזרי בהו כדי שתאמר אני איני אוכלת עבדי אינן אוכלין זונה היא אצלו הלכך אתי לאפוקה

And Rava said a different solution. By Torah law, the forbidden wife’s slaves indeed partake of teruma, as they are included in the category of: His acquisition who acquired an acquisition. And it was the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting them from partaking of teruma, so that the woman unlawfully married to a priest would say: I do not partake of his teruma and my slaves do not partake of it either, so that she will realize that she is not a valid wife, but rather she is like a prostitute to him. Her husband will therefore come to divorce her, which is the desired outcome.

רב אשי אמר גזירה שמא תאכיל לאחר מיתה

Rav Ashi said a different reason for the prohibition: It is a rabbinic decree lest she have those slaves partake of teruma even after the death of her husband the priest. As long as he is alive, they are permitted to partake of teruma, as she is considered his acquisition and they belong to her. Once he dies, she is no longer his acquisition.

אלא מעתה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן לא תאכיל גזירה שמא תאכיל לאחר מיתה

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the decree is lest she have those slaves partake of teruma after her husband’s death, any Israelite woman who marries a priest should not enable her slaves of usufruct property to partake of teruma either, due to the same rabbinic decree, lest she have them partake of teruma after her husband’s death.

אלא אמר רב אשי באלמנה כהנת דאתיא לאורויי מעיקרא אכלי בתרומה דבי נשא אינסבי ליה להאי אכלי בתרומה דגבראי והשתא הדרי לי למילתיה קמייתא ולא ידעה דמעיקרא לא שויתה לנפשה חללה השתא שויתה לנפשה חללה

Rather, Rav Ashi said that the decree is dealing with a widowed priestess, the daughter of a priest, who then married the High Priest, as she is likely to rationalize enabling her slaves to partake of teruma after the death of the High Priest as follows: Initially, my slaves partook of the teruma of my father’s house. I then married this man, and they partook of the teruma of my husband. And now that my husband died, I have returned to the original circumstance, and therefore they may once again partake of my father’s teruma. And she does not realize that this is not so, as initially she did not render herself a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [ḥalala], but now, by marrying a High Priest unlawfully, she rendered herself a ḥalala, and both she and her slaves do not partake of teruma even upon returning to her father’s house.

תינח אלמנה כהנת אלמנה בת ישראל מאי איכא למימר באלמנותה לא פליגי רבנן

The Gemara asks: This works out well as an explanation of the mishna, with regard to a widowed priestess. However, if that widow who married a High Priest was an Israelite woman, what can be said? There is no reason for the decree in that case. The Gemara answers: With regard to widowhood, the Sages did not distinguish between one type of widow and another. Once they issued a decree due to one widow, they applied it to all widows.

איתמר המכנסת שום לבעלה היא אומרת כלי אני נוטלת והוא אומר דמים אני נותן הדין עם מי רב יהודה אמר

It was stated: With regard to a woman who brings appraised, guaranteed property into her marital contract with her husband, he is obligated to return it at the conclusion of the marriage. Upon collection of her marriage contract, e.g., following divorce, if she says: I am taking my belongings, and he says: I am willing to give you only their monetary value, the halakha favors whom? Rav Yehuda said:

הדין עמה ורב אמי אמר הדין עמו

The halakha favors her; she may take the belongings. And Rav Ami said: The halakha favors him; he may retain the items and return their value.

רב יהודה אמר הדין עמה משום שבח בית אביה דידה הוי רבי אמי אמר הדין עמו כיון דאמר מר אם מתו מתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו הואיל וחייב באחריותן יאכלו אמר רב ספרא מי קתני והן שלו הואיל וחייב באחריותן קתני ולעולם לאו דידיה נינהו

The Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda said that the halakha favors her because they are the assets of her paternal family, whose prestige will suffer if they aren’t returned. Therefore, they are hers. Rabbi Ami said that the halakha favors him, since the Master said in the mishna, with regard to guaranteed property: If they die, their death is his loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is his gain. Since he bears financial responsibility for their loss, they partake of teruma. Apparently, the slaves belong to the husband. Therefore, he is obligated to return only their monetary value. Rav Safra said in rejection of Rabbi Ami’s reasoning: Does the mishna teach that they are his? It teaches only that he bears financial responsibility for their loss, but actually they are not his.

וכל היכא דחייב באחריותן אכלי בתרומה והתנן ישראל ששכר פרה מכהן הרי זה יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה כהן ששכר פרה מישראל אף על פי שמזונותיה עליו לא יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה

The Gemara asks: And do they partake of teruma wherever he bears financial responsibility for their loss, even if they are not his actual possession? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:9): An Israelite who rented a cow from a priest may feed it vetches [karshinin] of teruma, since the animal belongs to a priest? With regard to a priest who rented a cow from an Israelite, although its feed is incumbent upon him, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it does not belong to him. This indicates that the requirement for enabling an acquisition to eat teruma is possession, not responsibility.

ותסברא נהי נמי דמחייב בגנבה ואבדה באונסיה בכחשה ובנפחת דמיה מי מיחייב הא לא דמיא אלא לסיפא ישראל ששם פרה מכהן לא יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה אבל כהן ששם פרה מישראל יאכילנה כרשיני תרומה

The Gemara rejects this proof: And how can you understand that the case of the rented cow is parallel to the case of guaranteed property? Though the renter is indeed liable for theft and loss, is he liable for unavoidable accidents, for emaciation, i.e., the cow became thinner or weaker for any reason, or for any other decrease in its value? Certainly he is not. In fact, the case of guaranteed property is similar only to the latter clause of that mishna: In the case of an Israelite who appraised a cow upon renting it from a priest under an arrangement where he guaranteed its value to the owner, he may not feed it vetches of teruma, as it is considered his own. However, a priest who appraised a cow upon renting it from an Israelite may feed it vetches of teruma. This indicates that guaranteed property is considered the acquisition of its recipient with regard to enabling it to eat teruma.

יתיב רבה ורב יוסף בשילהי פרקיה דרב נחמן ויתבי וקאמרי תניא כותיה דרב יהודה ותניא כותיה דרבי אמי תניא כותיה דרבי אמי עבדי צאן ברזל יוצאין בשן ועין לאיש אבל לא לאשה

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat at the conclusion of Rav Naḥman’s sermon, and they sat and said: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami. It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami in the following baraita: If a slave’s owner strikes him and knocks out his tooth or blinds him in an eye, he is set free. Slaves of guaranteed investment go free at the loss of a tooth or an eye caused by the husband, but not at such loss caused by the wife. This indicates that they belong to the husband.

תניא כותיה דרב יהודה המכנסת שום לבעלה אם רצה הבעל למכור לא ימכור ולא עוד אלא אפילו הכניס לה שום משלו אם רצה הבעל למכור לא ימכור מכרו שניהם לפרנסה זה היה מעשה לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואמר הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות

Conversely, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: When a woman brings appraised, guaranteed property into her marriage to her husband, if the husband wishes to sell it, he may not sell it, as it belongs to her. And not only that, but even when her husband brought property into the marriage and added it to her dowry as an appraised, guaranteed gift of his own, even if the husband wishes to sell that gift he may not sell it. With regard to a case in which either the husband or wife unlawfully sold this property for subsistence, there was an incident like this that came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he said: Although the husband executed the sale, he may repossess the property from the purchasers, as the sale is void.

אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרב יהודה אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והתניא כותיה דרבי אמי אף על גב דתניא כותיה דרבי אמי מסתברא טעמא דרב יהודה משום שבח בית אביה

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But isn’t it taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami? He replied: Although it is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, Rav Yehuda’s rationale, that the wife may take the objects in question because they are assets of her paternal family and their complete removal from her domain would hurt the family’s prestige, is more reasonable.

ההיא איתתא דעיילה ליה לגברא איצטלא דמילתא בכתובתה שכיב שקלוה יתמי ופרסוה אמיתנא

The Gemara relates an incident: A certain woman brought into her marriage to her husband a robe [itztela] of fine wool [meileta], which was deemed guaranteed property by her marriage contract. Her husband subsequently died, and the orphans took that robe and spread it over the corpse as a shroud. The woman demanded that the robe be returned to her.

אמר רבא קנייה מיתנא אמר ליה נאנאי בריה דרב יוסף בריה דרבא לרב כהנא והאמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרב יהודה אמר ליה מי לא מודה רב יהודה דמחוסר גוביינא וכיון דמחוסר גוביינא ברשותיה קאי

Rava said: The dead has acquired it, as deriving benefit from anything consecrated for the dead is prohibited. Nanai, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rav Kahana: But didn’t Rava say that Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda? Accordingly, the woman’s robe must be returned. He said to him: Doesn’t Rav Yehuda admit that the robe has not yet been collected? And since it has not yet been collected, it remains in his possession, and his inheritors can render its use as a burial shroud prohibited.

רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ

The Gemara adds that in this regard Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava said: Consecration of property, the prohibition against benefiting from leavened bread on Passover,