Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 9, 2014 | 讬状讝 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 66

讗讞讜讜转讗

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

讜诇讗 诪讬驻拽讚讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻驻讜 讗转 专讘讛 讜注砖讗讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讛讙 讛驻拽专 谞讛讙讜 讘讛

The Gemara asks: Are women not commanded to be fruitful and multiply? Didn鈥檛 Rav A岣 bar Rav Ketina say that Rabbi Yitz岣k 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讜注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讬讗讻诇讜

MISHNA: A widow married to a High Priest, and a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza] 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.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讗诐 诪转讜 诪转讜 诇讛 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讗诐 诪转讜 诪转讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬住转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 讜注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 讻拽谞讬谞讜 砖拽谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜拽谞讛 注讘讚讬诐 砖讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讛讜讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜

GEMARA: The mishna states that if a priest married a woman forbidden to him, his wife鈥檚 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: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11).

讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 砖拽谞转讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜注讘讚讬讜 砖拽谞讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讛讜讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 拽谞讬谞讜 砖拽谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讗讜讻诇

And from where is it derived with regard to both the wife of a priest who acquired slaves and a priest鈥檚 slaves who acquired slaves, that the acquired slaves may also partake of teruma? As it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it,鈥 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.

讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

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鈥檚 wife in this case does not partake of teruma, as her marriage is forbidden, her slaves do not partake of teruma either.

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 注专诇 讜讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讛转诐 驻讜诪讬讬讛讜 讻讗讬讘 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And is it so that one who does not partake of teruma cannot enable others to partake? But aren鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 诪诪讝专 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 拽谞讬谉 讗讜讻诇 拽讗诪专 拽谞讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

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.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讬 讘讛讜 讻讚讬 砖转讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇转 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讝讜谞讛 讛讬讗 讗爪诇讜 讛诇讻讱 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讛

And Rava said a different solution. By Torah law, the forbidden wife鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 转讗讻讬诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻讬诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 转讗讻讬诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the decree is lest she have those slaves partake of teruma after her husband鈥檚 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鈥檚 death.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讻讛谞转 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讘讬 谞砖讗 讗讬谞住讘讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讙讘专讗讬 讜讛砖转讗 讛讚专讬 诇讬 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 砖讜讬转讛 诇谞驻砖讛 讞诇诇讛 讛砖转讗 砖讜讬转讛 诇谞驻砖讛 讞诇诇讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 [岣lala], but now, by marrying a High Priest unlawfully, she rendered herself a 岣lala, and both she and her slaves do not partake of teruma even upon returning to her father鈥檚 house.

转讬谞讞 讗诇诪谞讛 讻讛谞转 讗诇诪谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讗诇诪谞讜转讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉

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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讻谞住转 砖讜诐 诇讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讻诇讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬诐 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 讛讚讬谉 注诐 诪讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专

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:

讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 讜专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜

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.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讚讬讚讛 讛讜讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 诪转讜 诪转讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讜讛谉 砖诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 拽转谞讬 讜诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 谞讬谞讛讜

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讛转谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讻讛谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讻讛谉 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜转住讘专讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讘讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讘讗讜谞住讬讛 讘讻讞砖讛 讜讘谞驻讞转 讚诪讬讛 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇住讬驻讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖诐 驻专讛 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讻讛谉 砖砖诐 驻专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖讬诇讛讬 驻专拽讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖谉 讜注讬谉 诇讗讬砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖讛

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat at the conclusion of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪讻谞住转 砖讜诐 诇讘注诇讛 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇诪讻讜专 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻谞讬住 诇讛 砖讜诐 诪砖诇讜 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇诪讻讜专 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 诪讻专讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诇驻专谞住讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 讛讘注诇 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 prestige, is more reasonable.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诇讙讘专讗 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讘讻转讜讘转讛 砖讻讬讘 砖拽诇讜讛 讬转诪讬 讜驻专住讜讛 讗诪讬转谞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽谞讬讬讛 诪讬转谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗谞讗讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讜住专 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞讜住专 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讗讬

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鈥檛 Rava say that Rav Na岣an said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda? Accordingly, the woman鈥檚 robe must be returned. He said to him: Doesn鈥檛 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.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽讚砖 讞诪抓

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 65-71 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue the discussion on the mitzvah of 鈥淧ru u鈥檙vu鈥, procreation, and learn who is obligated. This week we...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 66: Usufruct Property (and the other kind too)

Chapter 7! And a new mishnah: Who can't eat terumah, even once married to a kohen? Plus, defining nichsei m'log...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 7: Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...

Yevamot 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 66

讗讞讜讜转讗

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

讜诇讗 诪讬驻拽讚讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻驻讜 讗转 专讘讛 讜注砖讗讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讛讙 讛驻拽专 谞讛讙讜 讘讛

The Gemara asks: Are women not commanded to be fruitful and multiply? Didn鈥檛 Rav A岣 bar Rav Ketina say that Rabbi Yitz岣k 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讜注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讬讗讻诇讜

MISHNA: A widow married to a High Priest, and a divorc茅e or a yevama who performed 岣litza [岣lutza] 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.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讗诐 诪转讜 诪转讜 诇讛 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讗诐 诪转讜 诪转讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬住转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讘讬谉 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 讜注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 讻拽谞讬谞讜 砖拽谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讜拽谞讛 注讘讚讬诐 砖讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讛讜讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜

GEMARA: The mishna states that if a priest married a woman forbidden to him, his wife鈥檚 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: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11).

讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 砖拽谞转讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜注讘讚讬讜 砖拽谞讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讛讜讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 拽谞讬谞讜 砖拽谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讗讜讻诇

And from where is it derived with regard to both the wife of a priest who acquired slaves and a priest鈥檚 slaves who acquired slaves, that the acquired slaves may also partake of teruma? As it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it,鈥 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.

讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

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鈥檚 wife in this case does not partake of teruma, as her marriage is forbidden, her slaves do not partake of teruma either.

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 注专诇 讜讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讛转诐 驻讜诪讬讬讛讜 讻讗讬讘 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And is it so that one who does not partake of teruma cannot enable others to partake? But aren鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 诪诪讝专 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 拽谞讬谉 讗讜讻诇 拽讗诪专 拽谞讬谉 讗讜讻诇 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

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.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讬 讘讛讜 讻讚讬 砖转讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讻诇转 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讝讜谞讛 讛讬讗 讗爪诇讜 讛诇讻讱 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讛

And Rava said a different solution. By Torah law, the forbidden wife鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 转讗讻讬诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻讬诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 转讗讻讬诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the decree is lest she have those slaves partake of teruma after her husband鈥檚 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鈥檚 death.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讻讛谞转 讚讗转讬讗 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讘讬 谞砖讗 讗讬谞住讘讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讙讘专讗讬 讜讛砖转讗 讛讚专讬 诇讬 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 砖讜讬转讛 诇谞驻砖讛 讞诇诇讛 讛砖转讗 砖讜讬转讛 诇谞驻砖讛 讞诇诇讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 [岣lala], but now, by marrying a High Priest unlawfully, she rendered herself a 岣lala, and both she and her slaves do not partake of teruma even upon returning to her father鈥檚 house.

转讬谞讞 讗诇诪谞讛 讻讛谞转 讗诇诪谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讗诇诪谞讜转讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉

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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讻谞住转 砖讜诐 诇讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讻诇讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬诐 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 讛讚讬谉 注诐 诪讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专

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:

讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 讜专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜

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.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讚讬讚讛 讛讜讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 诪转讜 诪转讜 诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讜讛谉 砖诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 拽转谞讬 讜诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 谞讬谞讛讜

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讛转谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讻讛谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讻讛谉 砖砖讻专 驻专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜转住讘专讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讘讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讘讗讜谞住讬讛 讘讻讞砖讛 讜讘谞驻讞转 讚诪讬讛 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇住讬驻讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖诐 驻专讛 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讻讛谉 砖砖诐 驻专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 讬讗讻讬诇谞讛 讻专砖讬谞讬 转专讜诪讛

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖讬诇讛讬 驻专拽讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖谉 讜注讬谉 诇讗讬砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖讛

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat at the conclusion of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪讻谞住转 砖讜诐 诇讘注诇讛 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇诪讻讜专 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻谞讬住 诇讛 砖讜诐 诪砖诇讜 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇诪讻讜专 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 诪讻专讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诇驻专谞住讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 讛讘注诇 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 prestige, is more reasonable.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注讬讬诇讛 诇讬讛 诇讙讘专讗 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讘讻转讜讘转讛 砖讻讬讘 砖拽诇讜讛 讬转诪讬 讜驻专住讜讛 讗诪讬转谞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽谞讬讬讛 诪讬转谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗谞讗讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讜住专 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞讜住专 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讗讬

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鈥檛 Rava say that Rav Na岣an said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda? Accordingly, the woman鈥檚 robe must be returned. He said to him: Doesn鈥檛 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.

专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽讚砖 讞诪抓

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,

Scroll To Top