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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 13, 2022 | 讬状讘 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 67

Presentation in PDF format

This month’s shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer. 鈥淚n anticipation of a beautiful Shabbat shared with cherished friends. Thank you to our gracious hosts! Also commemorating the 35th yahrzeit of Rella鈥檚 beloved father a鈥漢, Isak Levenstein.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Julie Landau on the shloshim of her mother, Irene Landau. “We miss her so much already.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in honor of thier dear grandson, Noah Samuel Zibitt (Noah Shalom ben Elon Yitzhak haKohen) on the occasion of his Bar Mitzvah, Parshat Emor in chutz l’aretz.

The Gemara finishes up the discussion of a woman鈥檚 right to claim her tzon barzel property once she is no longer married. The Mishna brings up a case of a daughter of a yisrael who is married to a kohen and when he dies, she is pregnant. According to Rabbi Yosi, her slaves cannot eat truma because of the fetus, even if she has other children with the kohen. Is it because the fetus of a non-kohen is considered a 鈥渟tranger鈥 while in utero or is it because only a born child can allow one to eat truma, but not an unborn child? Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree on this issue. A question is raised against Rav Yosef. Rav Yehuda explained in the name of Shmuel both the opinion of Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis who disagree and hold that as long as there are other brothers or others that could inherit the father, the slaves could continue to eat truma. Is it clear who Shmuel held by? Did the rabbis really disagree with Rabbi Yosi or did they concede to his opinion? A braita is brought with two other alternative opinions to Rabbi Yosi. From the braita, it is not exactly clear what they hold and the Gemara spends time explaining each approach. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai holds that it depends on whether the other children of the kohen were sons or daughters. If sons, the slaves could eat and if daughters, then they could not. If the fetus were to turn out to be male, then the daughters would in the end not inherit anything from the father and therefore, they cannot allow the slaves to eat truma even now, before the child is born. Furthermore, even if the fetus turns out to be female, then she also disqualifies the slaves from eating truma as the fetus has a share also in the inheritance and a fetus does not allow slaves to eat truma. If so, why can they eat if there are male siblings? Two answers are brought. One is that we are not concerned for a minority and whether the child will actually be born and turn out to be male and therefore will have a part in the ownership of the slave is a minority, and we are not concerned for minorities. Or if one holds we are concerned for minorities, Rav Nachman held that when orphans collect from their father鈥檚 inheritance, each one gets an apotropos who chooses part of the inheritance for his and therefore they can insure that the slaves will go to the live brothers and not to the fetus. Rav Nachman鈥檚 position is that the division by the apotroposim is final and the children have no right when they get older to change is, as otherwise, it undermines court’s power. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi held that if the kohen had a daughter, the slaves could eat truma but if he had a son, they could not. Abaye attempts to explain it that it is a case where there is a small amount of money in the estate and therefore by rabbinic law, the daughters get what is left as they are entitled to money for food and the small amount that is left goes to them. Even if the fetus turns out to be a girl, the rabbis did not institute laws to give rights to the money to an unborn child. However, two questions are brought against this explanation 鈥 one is resolved but the other is not. An alternative explanation is brought. The 鈥渄aughter鈥 actually should be read as 鈥渕other.鈥 Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 position is explained like this: when a kohen dies, if there are children, the mother can continue to eat truma as well as her slaves who are melog property, but the sons cannot permit the slaves who are tzon barzel to eat since the fetus may be male and then he owns them as well and that prevents them from being able to eat truma. If so, his opinion is actually the same as his father鈥檚 Rabbi Yosi and is not coming as a separate opinion, but to explain. The Mishna lists several cases where we are strict in both directions and a particular situation will not allow a bat yisrael who is with a kohen to eat truma. And at the same time, it will not allow a bat kohen to eat truma in her father鈥檚 house if she is in this situation with a yisrael. The Gemara begins to give explanations for each of the cases.

 

讜砖讞专讜专 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 诪讬讚讬 砖注讘讜讚

and the manumission of a slave release the property from a lien. If someone placed an asset under a lien for his debt and subsequently consecrated it; or if the asset under lien is leavened bread and the festival of Passover arrived; or if the asset is a slave and he freed him, the lien is released, and the creditor must claim his debt from the debtor鈥檚 other property. In the case of the robe as well, because it was placed over the corpse, it was consecrated for the dead. Consequently, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Therefore, it is released to the woman from under the lien.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜砖讘讞讜 讜注诪讚讜 注诇 砖谞讬 讗诇驻讬诐 讗讞讚 谞讜讟诇转讜 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谞转 讚诪讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rav Yehuda said: If the wife brought with her into the marriage two belongings of guaranteed investment worth one thousand dinars, and they appreciated until they stood at two thousand, one of them she collects as payment of her marriage contract, as it is now worth her dowry of one thousand dinars. And as for the other one, she pays its monetary value and takes it from her husband because it is an asset of her paternal family.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讚讬讚讛 讛讜讬 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟讬讗 诇诪砖拽诇 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讗讘诇 诪讬转谉 讚诪讬 讜诪讬砖拽诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? Is it that assets of her paternal family are hers? Rav Yehuda already said this once, in his previous statement. The Gemara answers: The latter statement was necessary as well, lest you say that this applies only where she comes to collect her marriage contract, which is rightfully hers, but to give money and take assets that are worth beyond what her husband owes her, you might say that she may not do so, although the property in question is an asset of her paternal family. Rav Yehuda therefore teaches us that she may take all of the assets of her paternal family and pay for what they are worth beyond her husband鈥檚 debt to her.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪转 讜讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 注讘讚讬讛 讘转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 砖讛注讜讘专 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

MISHNA: With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves of guaranteed investment may not partake of teruma during her pregnancy, due to the share of the fetus, as an inheritor of his father, in the ownership of the slaves. In the opposite case, where the Israelite husband of a priest鈥檚 daughter died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. However, in the current case, the fetus does not enable its mother or the slaves to partake of teruma, despite the fact that it is the child of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讗讞专 砖讛注讚转 诇谞讜 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讗祝 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诪转 讜讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 注讘讚讬讛 讘转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专

The Rabbis said to him: Since you testified before us about the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest, in the case of the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves should not partake of teruma either, due to the fetus鈥檚 share. The same halakha should apply whether the woman is an Israelite or the daughter of a priest.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讝专讛 讝专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei because he holds that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, as it is considered part of its mother鈥檚 body and it becomes a priest only upon birth, and therefore the slaves in which it owns a share will be allowed to eat teruma only at that stage? Or, is Rabbi Yosei perhaps of the opinion that only one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake, although it is considered a priest?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讻讛谞转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽住讘专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讝专讛 讝专 讛讜讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谉 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

What is the practical difference between the two possible reasons? It is the case of a fetus in the womb of the priestess, the daughter of a priest. If Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 rationale is that the fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, that is not the case here, and therefore the slaves should partake of teruma. What is the halakha in this case? Rabba said that this is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning: He holds that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest. Rav Yosef said: His rationale is that only one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讞专 砖讛注讚转 诇谞讜 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讝讜 砖诪注转讬 讜讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion from a baraita that continues the last clause of the mishna: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: Since you testified before us about the case of an Israelite woman married to a priest, in the case of the daughter of a priest married to a priest, what is the halakha? He said to them: With regard to the former case, I heard from my teachers that the slaves do not partake of teruma, but with regard to this one, I did not hear such a thing.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讝专讛 讝专 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讜 砖诪注转讬 讜讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谉 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇 诪讗讬 讝讜 砖诪注转讬 讜讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗讬讛讬 讛讬讗 拽砖讬讗

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning is that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, this is the reason that he said to them: This case I heard but this case I did not hear. There is a logical distinction between the two cases, as in the latter case the fetus is not in the womb of a non-priest. However, if you say that his rationale is that only one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake, what does he mean by saying: This case I heard but this case I did not hear? It is the same case with regard to this principle. The Gemara concludes: This is a difficult objection.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讻讜诇讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. However, the Rabbis say that if the dead husband has children, the slaves partake of teruma due to the children, as they inherit the slaves. If he does not have children, they partake of teruma due to his brothers, who inherit his property. If he does not have brothers either, they partake due to the entire family, which inherits his property. The fetus does not disqualify them, as it does not yet own its share of the inheritance.

讝讜 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 驻讜拽 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讘讬 注砖专讛 讚讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讘讗谞驻讬讬讛讜 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讜住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: By saying that this is only Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 stance, Shmuel seemingly indicates that he himself does not maintain that opinion. However, Shmuel said to Rav 岣na of Baghdad: Go and bring me an assembly of ten men and I will say to you before them a halakha that I seek to disseminate: One who transfers ownership of an object to a fetus, the fetus acquires it. Consequently, according to Shmuel, a fetus can own property, which is the premise of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 stance that a fetus shares the inheritance even before he is born. The Gemara answers: Rather, although Shmuel said that this is only Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 stance, he holds likewise. What is Shmuel teaching us by saying so? He is teaching us that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei.

讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讝讜 注讚讜转 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻讬 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讜拽讘诇讜 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 讚诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: But do they really disagree? Rabbi Zakkai raised an objection to this statement from a baraita: This was a testimony that Rabbi Yosei testified that he heard from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, and the Rabbis acknowledged his testimony. Apparently, they accepted his opinion. Rav Ashi said: Does that baraita state: And the Rabbis accepted his testimony? It states: And they acknowledged his testimony, which indicates that his opinion is reasonable. However, they did not accept his ruling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讻讚专讱 砖讛讬讗 讗讜讻诇转 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 砖讛注讜讘专 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest who was married to an Israelite woman and died left children, both the slaves of usufruct property and the slaves of guaranteed investment may partake of teruma. The slaves of guaranteed investment are owned by the children, who are priests, and the slaves of usufruct property are owned by the woman, who partakes of teruma due to her children. If he left his wife pregnant and did not leave children, both these slaves and those slaves may not partake of teruma. If he left children and left her pregnant, the slaves of usufruct property who belong to her partake of teruma just as she partakes due to her children. However, the slaves of guaranteed investment, who are inherited by the children, may not partake, due to the fetus鈥檚 share, as it too inherits them, as a fetus can disqualify one from partaking of teruma but it cannot not enable one to partake. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讛讘转 诪讗讻诇转 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讻讜诇谉 谞拽讘讜转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 注讜讘专 讝讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讘谉 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: If the priest left behind a daughter, she enables the slaves to partake of teruma; however, a son does not enable them to partake. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: If among the priest鈥檚 children there are males, the slaves partake of teruma. But if they are all females, they do not partake, lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters do not receive any of the inheritance where there is a son. The male fetus would be the sole inheritor, and it does not enable slaves to partake of teruma.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 注讜讘专 讝讻专 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚谞拽讘讛 谞诪讬 驻住诇讛 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚谞拽讘讛 谞诪讬 驻住诇讛 讜注讜讚 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 注讜讘专 讝讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讘谉 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i specifically explain that if the children are females, the slaves may not partake of teruma, lest the fetus be found to be a male? Derive the ruling that the slaves do not partake of teruma from the halakha that a female fetus also disqualifies its slaves from partaking of teruma. Since the priest has only daughters, they inherit from him, and the female fetus receives a share in the inheritance too. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i stated one reason and another. One reason is that a female also disqualifies its slaves from partaking of teruma, and another reason is lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters have no share in the inheritance at all in a place where there is a son.

讝讻专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注讜讘专 拽住讘专

The Gemara asks with regard to the first clause of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, that if among the priest鈥檚 children there are males, the slaves may partake of teruma: But even though sons inherit from their father, isn鈥檛 there a fetus to be accounted for, as perhaps he too is a male, and therefore has a share in the inheritance? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds

讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

that we are not concerned about the minority of cases. Only a minority of fetuses are male inheritors, as roughly half are female, and some are stillborn. Therefore, the majority of fetuses will not become male children. And if you wish, say that actually he holds that we are concerned about the minority. However, we make an arrangement for the slaves, in accordance with what Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said.

讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜讘讜专专 诇讛诐 讞诇拽 讬驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛

This is as Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: With regard to minor orphans who came to court to divide up their father鈥檚 property, the court appoints for each of them a steward [apotropos], and he selects for them a fine share. When the orphans have grown up, they may object to the manner in which the property was divided and redistribute it. And Rav Na岣an himself said that when they have grown up they may not object, as, if they may object, what good is the power of the court? Here too, an appointed steward selects a share of the inheritance on behalf of the fetus, and this share does not include any of the slaves. Therefore, the slaves may partake of teruma. However, if all of the children are females, this arrangement is impossible because if the fetus is a son all the property belongs to him.

诇讬诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Based on the use of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling to explain Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion is corresponding to one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that everyone in the dispute accepts Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling, and here they disagree only with regard to whether we are concerned about the minority, as previously suggested, in a case where the arrangement was not made.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讛讘转 诪讗讻讬诇 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘谉 讚诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讗讻讬诇 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专

It was taught in the previous clause of the baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: If the priest left behind a daughter, she enables the slaves to partake of teruma; however, a son does not enable them to partake of it. The Gemara asks: What is different about a son, who does not enable them to partake, due to the fetus鈥檚 share, as it owns a share of the property if it is a male? A daughter should not enable them to partake either, due to the fetus鈥檚 share.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讘讛讚讬 讘转

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case of an inheritance of insufficient property that is enough only to sustain the daughters until they come of age. With regard to this case, the Sages instituted that the daughters receive their sustenance while the sons get nothing. This is also a case where there is a surviving son together with the daughter.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讛讗讬 讚诪注讘专讗 讘谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 注讚讬祝 诪讛讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讗讬 讘转 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 谞驻拽 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉

Therefore, no matter what, the slaves do not partake of teruma. If this fetus, with which she is pregnant, is a son, it is no better than this son who already exists. Just as the existing son does not inherit the insufficient property, the same applies to the male fetus. If it is a daughter, it does not yet receive a share of the inheritance. This can be explained: Why does the daughter partake of the inheritance? It is by virtue of a rabbinic ordinance. Therefore, as long as the fetus has not emerged into the atmosphere of the world, the Sages did not establish that it should receive the inheritance. Consequently, the slaves partake of teruma by virtue of the existing daughter, as only she inherits them.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讛注讜讘专 讝讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 讻诇讜诐 讗讚专讘讛 谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 讚讘谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉

The Gemara asks: In what manner did you establish the baraita? You established it as referring to insufficient property. However, say the latter clause of the baraita: Lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters do not receive any of the inheritance where there is a son. Yet according to Abaye鈥檚 explanation, on the contrary, the insufficient property is the daughters鈥, whether or not there are any sons. The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we have come to a different case, in which there is sufficient property.

讜谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 讚讘谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬转讜诪讬谉 砖拽讚诪讜 讜诪讻专讜 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 诪讛 砖诪讻专讜 诪讻专讜

The Gemara raises another objection to Abaye鈥檚 explanation: Does an inheritance of insufficient property belong to the daughters? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If the male orphans proceeded to sell the insufficient property, although by rabbinic ordinance it is designated for the daughters鈥 sustenance, what they sold was sold. Apparently, the Sages did not expropriate the properties from the male inheritors, but merely designated them for the daughters鈥 sustenance. How, then, can the sons鈥 ownership be disregarded with regard to the slaves鈥 partaking of teruma?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘转 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛

Rather, what is the meaning of the word daughter in the context of the ruling that is taught by Rabbi Yishmael? It means female and is referring to the mother of the fetus. She enables her slaves of usufruct property to partake of teruma, as her husband鈥檚 heirs have no share in them, whereas the son does not enable the slaves guaranteed investment to partake, due to the fetus鈥檚 share. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement in the first clause. What was added by Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the entire baraita is taught by Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. There are not conflicting versions of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion. Rather, Rabbi Yishmael is clarifying that he is the author of that baraita.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜讘专 讜讛讬讘诐 讜讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讛讞专砖 讜讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉

MISHNA: With regard to the fetus of a divorc茅e or a widow whose husband left her pregnant; and a man whose married brother died childless [yavam]; and betrothal; and a married deaf-mute; and a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who engaged in intercourse with a woman; if any of these men are Israelites and the woman is the daughter of a priest, they disqualify her from partaking of teruma. But if she is an Israelite and they are priests, they do not enable her to partake of teruma.

住驻拽 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住驻拽 砖讗讬谞讜 住驻拽 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜住驻拽 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗

Likewise, in the case of a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, who engaged in intercourse with a woman; and in the case of a boy who betrothed a woman, with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether he has grown two pubic hairs and is considered an adult and uncertainty whether he has not grown, they too can disqualify the woman from partaking of teruma and cannot enable her to partake, as in the previous cases.

谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讘转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗讬 讝讛 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

If the house fell upon a man and upon his brother鈥檚 daughter, to whom he was married, and it is unknown which of them died first, her rival wife performs 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage. Entering into levirate marriage is not possible, as, if the wife died after her husband, the surviving wife would be rendered the rival wife of a forbidden relative, since the yavam is the father of the wife who died. This status prevents the creation of a levirate bond between him and the surviving wife as well. On the other hand, 岣litza is necessary in case the wife died before her husband, thereby allowing the creation of a levirate bond between her rival wife and her father, the yavam.

讙诪壮 讛注讜讘专 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讻谞注讜专讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪注讜讘专转 讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讛 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that the fetus disqualifies its mother from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and her husband died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). The phrase 鈥渁s in her youth鈥 excludes a pregnant woman, whose body has changed from her youth. If she is an Israelite woman married to a priest, the fetus does not enable her to partake, as one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake.

讛讬讘诐 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 驻专讟 诇砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讛 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 拽谞讬谉 讚讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗

It is taught in the mishna that the same principle applies to a yavam. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest who has a levirate bond to an Israelite, he disqualifies her, as it is stated in the verse cited above: 鈥淎nd is returned to her father鈥檚 house,鈥 which excludes a widow waiting for her yavam, who has not returned to her father鈥檚 house, as a levirate bond was created with her yavam. If she is an Israelite woman with a levirate bond to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淭he purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and this woman is his brother鈥檚 acquisition. The bond with her yavam ensued from his late brother鈥檚 marriage to her, not through any action of his own.

讜讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛

The mishna teaches that the same principle also applies to betrothal. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite, he disqualifies her,

  • 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 67: The Influence of a Fetus

A new mishnah - a bat Yisrael whose husband is a kohen, and he dies while she is pregnant -...
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 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 67

讜砖讞专讜专 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 诪讬讚讬 砖注讘讜讚

and the manumission of a slave release the property from a lien. If someone placed an asset under a lien for his debt and subsequently consecrated it; or if the asset under lien is leavened bread and the festival of Passover arrived; or if the asset is a slave and he freed him, the lien is released, and the creditor must claim his debt from the debtor鈥檚 other property. In the case of the robe as well, because it was placed over the corpse, it was consecrated for the dead. Consequently, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Therefore, it is released to the woman from under the lien.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜砖讘讞讜 讜注诪讚讜 注诇 砖谞讬 讗诇驻讬诐 讗讞讚 谞讜讟诇转讜 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谞转 讚诪讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Rav Yehuda said: If the wife brought with her into the marriage two belongings of guaranteed investment worth one thousand dinars, and they appreciated until they stood at two thousand, one of them she collects as payment of her marriage contract, as it is now worth her dowry of one thousand dinars. And as for the other one, she pays its monetary value and takes it from her husband because it is an asset of her paternal family.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讘讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讚讬讚讛 讛讜讬 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟讬讗 诇诪砖拽诇 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讗讘诇 诪讬转谉 讚诪讬 讜诪讬砖拽诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? Is it that assets of her paternal family are hers? Rav Yehuda already said this once, in his previous statement. The Gemara answers: The latter statement was necessary as well, lest you say that this applies only where she comes to collect her marriage contract, which is rightfully hers, but to give money and take assets that are worth beyond what her husband owes her, you might say that she may not do so, although the property in question is an asset of her paternal family. Rav Yehuda therefore teaches us that she may take all of the assets of her paternal family and pay for what they are worth beyond her husband鈥檚 debt to her.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪转 讜讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 注讘讚讬讛 讘转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 砖讛注讜讘专 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

MISHNA: With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves of guaranteed investment may not partake of teruma during her pregnancy, due to the share of the fetus, as an inheritor of his father, in the ownership of the slaves. In the opposite case, where the Israelite husband of a priest鈥檚 daughter died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. However, in the current case, the fetus does not enable its mother or the slaves to partake of teruma, despite the fact that it is the child of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讗讞专 砖讛注讚转 诇谞讜 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讗祝 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诪转 讜讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 注讘讚讬讛 讘转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专

The Rabbis said to him: Since you testified before us about the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest, in the case of the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves should not partake of teruma either, due to the fetus鈥檚 share. The same halakha should apply whether the woman is an Israelite or the daughter of a priest.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讝专讛 讝专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei because he holds that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, as it is considered part of its mother鈥檚 body and it becomes a priest only upon birth, and therefore the slaves in which it owns a share will be allowed to eat teruma only at that stage? Or, is Rabbi Yosei perhaps of the opinion that only one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake, although it is considered a priest?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讻讛谞转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽住讘专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讝专讛 讝专 讛讜讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谉 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

What is the practical difference between the two possible reasons? It is the case of a fetus in the womb of the priestess, the daughter of a priest. If Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 rationale is that the fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, that is not the case here, and therefore the slaves should partake of teruma. What is the halakha in this case? Rabba said that this is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning: He holds that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest. Rav Yosef said: His rationale is that only one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讞专 砖讛注讚转 诇谞讜 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讝讜 砖诪注转讬 讜讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion from a baraita that continues the last clause of the mishna: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: Since you testified before us about the case of an Israelite woman married to a priest, in the case of the daughter of a priest married to a priest, what is the halakha? He said to them: With regard to the former case, I heard from my teachers that the slaves do not partake of teruma, but with regard to this one, I did not hear such a thing.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讝专讛 讝专 讛讜讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讜 砖诪注转讬 讜讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谉 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇 诪讗讬 讝讜 砖诪注转讬 讜讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讗讬讛讬 讛讬讗 拽砖讬讗

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning is that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, this is the reason that he said to them: This case I heard but this case I did not hear. There is a logical distinction between the two cases, as in the latter case the fetus is not in the womb of a non-priest. However, if you say that his rationale is that only one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake, what does he mean by saying: This case I heard but this case I did not hear? It is the same case with regard to this principle. The Gemara concludes: This is a difficult objection.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪砖讜诐 诪砖驻讞讛 讻讜诇讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. However, the Rabbis say that if the dead husband has children, the slaves partake of teruma due to the children, as they inherit the slaves. If he does not have children, they partake of teruma due to his brothers, who inherit his property. If he does not have brothers either, they partake due to the entire family, which inherits his property. The fetus does not disqualify them, as it does not yet own its share of the inheritance.

讝讜 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 驻讜拽 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讘讬 注砖专讛 讚讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讘讗谞驻讬讬讛讜 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讜住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: By saying that this is only Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 stance, Shmuel seemingly indicates that he himself does not maintain that opinion. However, Shmuel said to Rav 岣na of Baghdad: Go and bring me an assembly of ten men and I will say to you before them a halakha that I seek to disseminate: One who transfers ownership of an object to a fetus, the fetus acquires it. Consequently, according to Shmuel, a fetus can own property, which is the premise of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 stance that a fetus shares the inheritance even before he is born. The Gemara answers: Rather, although Shmuel said that this is only Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 stance, he holds likewise. What is Shmuel teaching us by saying so? He is teaching us that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei.

讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讝讜 注讚讜转 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻讬 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗讘讟诇讬讜谉 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讜拽讘诇讜 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 讚诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: But do they really disagree? Rabbi Zakkai raised an objection to this statement from a baraita: This was a testimony that Rabbi Yosei testified that he heard from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, and the Rabbis acknowledged his testimony. Apparently, they accepted his opinion. Rav Ashi said: Does that baraita state: And the Rabbis accepted his testimony? It states: And they acknowledged his testimony, which indicates that his opinion is reasonable. However, they did not accept his ruling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 注讘讚讬 诪诇讜讙 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讻讚专讱 砖讛讬讗 讗讜讻诇转 注讘讚讬 爪讗谉 讘专讝诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 砖讛注讜讘专 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest who was married to an Israelite woman and died left children, both the slaves of usufruct property and the slaves of guaranteed investment may partake of teruma. The slaves of guaranteed investment are owned by the children, who are priests, and the slaves of usufruct property are owned by the woman, who partakes of teruma due to her children. If he left his wife pregnant and did not leave children, both these slaves and those slaves may not partake of teruma. If he left children and left her pregnant, the slaves of usufruct property who belong to her partake of teruma just as she partakes due to her children. However, the slaves of guaranteed investment, who are inherited by the children, may not partake, due to the fetus鈥檚 share, as it too inherits them, as a fetus can disqualify one from partaking of teruma but it cannot not enable one to partake. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讛讘转 诪讗讻诇转 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讝讻专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讻讜诇谉 谞拽讘讜转 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 注讜讘专 讝讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讘谉 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: If the priest left behind a daughter, she enables the slaves to partake of teruma; however, a son does not enable them to partake. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: If among the priest鈥檚 children there are males, the slaves partake of teruma. But if they are all females, they do not partake, lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters do not receive any of the inheritance where there is a son. The male fetus would be the sole inheritor, and it does not enable slaves to partake of teruma.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 注讜讘专 讝讻专 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚谞拽讘讛 谞诪讬 驻住诇讛 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚谞拽讘讛 谞诪讬 驻住诇讛 讜注讜讚 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 注讜讘专 讝讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讘谉 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i specifically explain that if the children are females, the slaves may not partake of teruma, lest the fetus be found to be a male? Derive the ruling that the slaves do not partake of teruma from the halakha that a female fetus also disqualifies its slaves from partaking of teruma. Since the priest has only daughters, they inherit from him, and the female fetus receives a share in the inheritance too. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i stated one reason and another. One reason is that a female also disqualifies its slaves from partaking of teruma, and another reason is lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters have no share in the inheritance at all in a place where there is a son.

讝讻专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注讜讘专 拽住讘专

The Gemara asks with regard to the first clause of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, that if among the priest鈥檚 children there are males, the slaves may partake of teruma: But even though sons inherit from their father, isn鈥檛 there a fetus to be accounted for, as perhaps he too is a male, and therefore has a share in the inheritance? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds

讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

that we are not concerned about the minority of cases. Only a minority of fetuses are male inheritors, as roughly half are female, and some are stillborn. Therefore, the majority of fetuses will not become male children. And if you wish, say that actually he holds that we are concerned about the minority. However, we make an arrangement for the slaves, in accordance with what Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said.

讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖讘讗讜 诇讞诇讜拽 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讛诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜讘讜专专 诇讛诐 讞诇拽 讬驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讚讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讻讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬驻讛

This is as Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: With regard to minor orphans who came to court to divide up their father鈥檚 property, the court appoints for each of them a steward [apotropos], and he selects for them a fine share. When the orphans have grown up, they may object to the manner in which the property was divided and redistribute it. And Rav Na岣an himself said that when they have grown up they may not object, as, if they may object, what good is the power of the court? Here too, an appointed steward selects a share of the inheritance on behalf of the fetus, and this share does not include any of the slaves. Therefore, the slaves may partake of teruma. However, if all of the children are females, this arrangement is impossible because if the fetus is a son all the property belongs to him.

诇讬诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Based on the use of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling to explain Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion is corresponding to one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that everyone in the dispute accepts Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling, and here they disagree only with regard to whether we are concerned about the minority, as previously suggested, in a case where the arrangement was not made.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讛讘转 诪讗讻讬诇 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘谉 讚诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讗讻讬诇 诪驻谞讬 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 注讜讘专

It was taught in the previous clause of the baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: If the priest left behind a daughter, she enables the slaves to partake of teruma; however, a son does not enable them to partake of it. The Gemara asks: What is different about a son, who does not enable them to partake, due to the fetus鈥檚 share, as it owns a share of the property if it is a male? A daughter should not enable them to partake either, due to the fetus鈥檚 share.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讘讛讚讬 讘转

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case of an inheritance of insufficient property that is enough only to sustain the daughters until they come of age. With regard to this case, the Sages instituted that the daughters receive their sustenance while the sons get nothing. This is also a case where there is a surviving son together with the daughter.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讛讗讬 讚诪注讘专讗 讘谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 注讚讬祝 诪讛讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讗讬 讘转 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讻诇讛 讘转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 谞驻拽 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉

Therefore, no matter what, the slaves do not partake of teruma. If this fetus, with which she is pregnant, is a son, it is no better than this son who already exists. Just as the existing son does not inherit the insufficient property, the same applies to the male fetus. If it is a daughter, it does not yet receive a share of the inheritance. This can be explained: Why does the daughter partake of the inheritance? It is by virtue of a rabbinic ordinance. Therefore, as long as the fetus has not emerged into the atmosphere of the world, the Sages did not establish that it should receive the inheritance. Consequently, the slaves partake of teruma by virtue of the existing daughter, as only she inherits them.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讛注讜讘专 讝讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 讻诇讜诐 讗讚专讘讛 谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 讚讘谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉

The Gemara asks: In what manner did you establish the baraita? You established it as referring to insufficient property. However, say the latter clause of the baraita: Lest the fetus be found to be a male, and daughters do not receive any of the inheritance where there is a son. Yet according to Abaye鈥檚 explanation, on the contrary, the insufficient property is the daughters鈥, whether or not there are any sons. The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we have come to a different case, in which there is sufficient property.

讜谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 讚讘谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬转讜诪讬谉 砖拽讚诪讜 讜诪讻专讜 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 诪讛 砖诪讻专讜 诪讻专讜

The Gemara raises another objection to Abaye鈥檚 explanation: Does an inheritance of insufficient property belong to the daughters? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If the male orphans proceeded to sell the insufficient property, although by rabbinic ordinance it is designated for the daughters鈥 sustenance, what they sold was sold. Apparently, the Sages did not expropriate the properties from the male inheritors, but merely designated them for the daughters鈥 sustenance. How, then, can the sons鈥 ownership be disregarded with regard to the slaves鈥 partaking of teruma?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘转 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛

Rather, what is the meaning of the word daughter in the context of the ruling that is taught by Rabbi Yishmael? It means female and is referring to the mother of the fetus. She enables her slaves of usufruct property to partake of teruma, as her husband鈥檚 heirs have no share in them, whereas the son does not enable the slaves guaranteed investment to partake, due to the fetus鈥檚 share. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement in the first clause. What was added by Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the entire baraita is taught by Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. There are not conflicting versions of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion. Rather, Rabbi Yishmael is clarifying that he is the author of that baraita.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜讘专 讜讛讬讘诐 讜讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讛讞专砖 讜讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉

MISHNA: With regard to the fetus of a divorc茅e or a widow whose husband left her pregnant; and a man whose married brother died childless [yavam]; and betrothal; and a married deaf-mute; and a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who engaged in intercourse with a woman; if any of these men are Israelites and the woman is the daughter of a priest, they disqualify her from partaking of teruma. But if she is an Israelite and they are priests, they do not enable her to partake of teruma.

住驻拽 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住驻拽 砖讗讬谞讜 住驻拽 讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜住驻拽 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗

Likewise, in the case of a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, who engaged in intercourse with a woman; and in the case of a boy who betrothed a woman, with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether he has grown two pubic hairs and is considered an adult and uncertainty whether he has not grown, they too can disqualify the woman from partaking of teruma and cannot enable her to partake, as in the previous cases.

谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讘转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗讬 讝讛 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

If the house fell upon a man and upon his brother鈥檚 daughter, to whom he was married, and it is unknown which of them died first, her rival wife performs 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage. Entering into levirate marriage is not possible, as, if the wife died after her husband, the surviving wife would be rendered the rival wife of a forbidden relative, since the yavam is the father of the wife who died. This status prevents the creation of a levirate bond between him and the surviving wife as well. On the other hand, 岣litza is necessary in case the wife died before her husband, thereby allowing the creation of a levirate bond between her rival wife and her father, the yavam.

讙诪壮 讛注讜讘专 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讻谞注讜专讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪注讜讘专转 讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讛 讬诇讜讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬诇讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that the fetus disqualifies its mother from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and her husband died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). The phrase 鈥渁s in her youth鈥 excludes a pregnant woman, whose body has changed from her youth. If she is an Israelite woman married to a priest, the fetus does not enable her to partake, as one who was born enables others to partake of teruma, whereas one who is not yet born does not enable others to partake.

讛讬讘诐 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛 讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 驻专讟 诇砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讗讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讛 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 拽谞讬谉 讚讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗

It is taught in the mishna that the same principle applies to a yavam. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest who has a levirate bond to an Israelite, he disqualifies her, as it is stated in the verse cited above: 鈥淎nd is returned to her father鈥檚 house,鈥 which excludes a widow waiting for her yavam, who has not returned to her father鈥檚 house, as a levirate bond was created with her yavam. If she is an Israelite woman with a levirate bond to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淭he purchase of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and this woman is his brother鈥檚 acquisition. The bond with her yavam ensued from his late brother鈥檚 marriage to her, not through any action of his own.

讜讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讗讬 讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 驻住讬诇 诇讛

The mishna teaches that the same principle also applies to betrothal. The Gemara explains: If she is the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite, he disqualifies her,

Scroll To Top