יבמות סח

יבמות סח

דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בַּהֲוָיָה. וְאִי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הִיא — לֹא מַאֲכִיל לָהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּעוּלָּא.

as he acquired her by means of betrothal. And if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma due to the reason given by Ulla: Although by Torah law a priest’s betrothed partakes of teruma, the Sages rendered it prohibited for her to do so, lest she allow other members of her family to eat it.

וְהַחֵרֵשׁ. אִי בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא — פָּסֵיל לַהּ, דְּהָא קַנְיַהּ בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן. וְאִי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הִיא — לָא מַאֲכֵיל, ״קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר קִנְיָן הוּא.

It is also taught in the mishna that a deaf-mute disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to do so. The Gemara elaborates: If she is the daughter of a priest married to a deaf-mute Israelite, he disqualifies her, as he acquired her through marriage sanctioned by an ordinance of the Sages. Although the marriage of a deaf-mute is invalid by Torah law, the Sages instituted an ordinance validating this type of marriage. And if she is an Israelite woman married to a deaf-mute priest, he does not enable her to partake of teruma, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “The purchase of his money, he may eat of it” (Leviticus 22:11), and this deaf-mute is not capable of acquisition by Torah law, as he is not legally competent.

וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם לְבֶן תֵּשַׁע וְיוֹם אֶחָד. לְמַאי? אִי לְמִיפְסַל — קָטָן נָמֵי מִיפְסָל פָּסֵיל, אִי לְאוֹכוֹלֵי — גָּדוֹל נָמֵי לֹא מַאֲכִיל!

§ It is also taught in the mishna that a nine-year-old boy disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma and does not enable her to partake. It enters our mind that the mishna is referring to a widow waiting for her yavam, who is nine years and one day old. The Gemara therefore inquires: With regard to what is this taught? If it is with regard to disqualifying her from partaking of teruma, a younger yavam also disqualifies her, as a levirate bond was created and she cannot return to her father’s house. And if it was with regard to enabling her to partake of teruma, an older yavam does not enable her to partake either, as discussed above.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּיָבָם בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ עָסְקִינַן. דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ וּבִיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה, אֵימָא לוֹכֵיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כְּמַאֲמָר בְּגָדוֹל.

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a nine-year-and-one-day-old yavam who already engaged in intercourse with his yevama, as she was thereby acquired by him by Torah law. It might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law she was acquired by him, as the legal status of his act of intercourse is that of intercourse, perhaps he enables her to partake of teruma. The mishna therefore teaches us that the Sages rendered the legal status of the intercourse of a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy like that of levirate betrothal by means of money or a document performed by an adult man, which is not sufficient for her to partake of teruma. Since levirate betrothal is effective only by rabbinic law, the yevama is not considered the acquisition of his money by Torah law and may not partake of teruma.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: סָפֵק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ — הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי בֶּן תֵּשַׁע לֹא מַאֲכִיל, סָפֵק מִיבַּעְיָא?!

Rava said to him: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he does not enable her to partake. Now that, according to your explanation, one who is definitely nine years old does not enable her to partake of teruma, is it necessary to teach the same concerning a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not he reached that age?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד דְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלִים קָתָנֵי, דְּפָסְלִי בְּבִיאָתָן. וְכִדְתַנְיָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, גֵּר, עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי, נָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל כֹּהֶנֶת לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית — פְּסָלוּהָ.

Rather, Rava said that the mishna is teaching this halakha with regard to a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is one of those unfit males listed in a baraita, who disqualify a woman from marrying a priest by their intercourse, as they are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, as it is taught in a baraita: A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan [kuti], a Gibeonite, a ḥalal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, i.e., the daughter of a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying a priest, and, in the case of the daughter of a priest, from partaking of teruma.

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִן לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִים, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בִּפְסוּלִים עָסְקִינַן! רֵישָׁא פְּסוּלֵי קָהָל, סֵיפָא פְּסוּלֵי כְהוּנָּה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the fact that the latter clause, the next mishna (69a), teaches that if men who are unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage engage in extramarital intercourse with women, they disqualify them from marrying into the priesthood: It may be inferred that in the first clause, the mishna above, we are dealing not with unfit individuals but with men fit to marry Jews of unflawed lineage. The Gemara answers: That inference is incorrect. The first clause of the mishna is dealing with those unfit to enter the assembly of Israel by marriage, while the latter clause is dealing with those who are merely unfit for the priesthood. That is why the mishna is referring to them separately. Accordingly, Rava’s explanation that the mishna is referring to an unfit nine-year-old boy is viable.

גּוּפָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, גֵּר, עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי, כּוּתִי, נָתִין, חָלָל וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל כֹּהֶנֶת לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית — פְּסָלוּהָ.

§ The Gemara addresses the matter itself and cites the complete baraita. A nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who is an Ammonite or a Moabite convert; or who is an Egyptian or an Edomite convert; or who is either a Samaritan, a Gibeonite, a ḥalal, or a mamzer, when he engaged in intercourse with a priestess, or a Levite, or an Israelite, he thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — פּוֹסֵל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ פָּסוּל — אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ — אִי אַתָּה נוֹשֵׂא אַלְמְנָתוֹ.

Rabbi Yosei says: Of the individuals mentioned above, anyone whose offspring is unfit to enter the assembly of Israel, disqualifies a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. However, anyone whose offspring is not unfit does not disqualify a woman through intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose daughter you may marry, you may marry his widow, even if you are a priest. Anyone whose daughter may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage does not disqualify a woman with whom he engaged in intercourse from marrying into the priesthood. And anyone whose daughter you may not marry, you may not marry his widow if you are a priest.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ — פְּסָלָהּ.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man [ish zar], she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred” (Leviticus 22:12). It may be derived that since she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as the literal meaning of the expression ish zar is a man who is excluded.

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא בַּת כֹּהֵן דְּמִינַּסְבָא לְזָר — לָא תֵּיכוּל!

The Gemara asks: That verse is necessary to teach the halakha that the Merciful One says: The daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest, even one that she is permitted to marry, may not partake of teruma. Therefore, it cannot be the source for the halakha that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest.

הָהִיא, מִ״וְּשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל״ נָפְקָא. מִדְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ … תֹּאכֵל״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא אָכְלָה.

The Gemara answers: That prohibition is derived from the verse “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). From the fact that the Merciful One says: “And is returned to her father’s house…she may eat,” it may be inferred that initially, while married to a non-priest, she was not permitted to eat. Therefore, the prohibition against a woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man partaking of teruma may be derived from the former verse, as it is not necessary for this halakha.

אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הַאי לְלָאו. [לָאו] מִ״וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״ נָפְקָא.

The Gemara rejects this answer: If the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest partaking of teruma had been derived only from that latter verse, I would have said that it is a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, as it is stated in positive form, and according to the principle that a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is a positive mitzva, she would not be liable to receive a court-imposed punishment. The Merciful One therefore writes that former verse, to establish an explicit prohibition. The Gemara counters: The prohibition against the wife of a non-priest partaking of teruma is derived from a different verse: “No common man may eat of the sacred” (Leviticus 22:10).

הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! תְּרֵי ״וְכׇל זָר״ כְּתִיבִי.

The Gemara rejects this assertion: That verse is necessary to teach its own basic halakha, that a non-priest is prohibited from partaking of teruma. The Gemara responds: Two prohibitions with regard to a “common man” are written, one in the verse previously cited and the other in Leviticus 22:13: “But there shall no common man eat of it.” One of them prohibits a non-priest from partaking of teruma, while the other is referring to the daughter of a priest married to a non-priest.

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: ״וְכׇל זָר״ — זָרוּת אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא אֲנִינוּת! דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִן ״זָר״ ״וְכׇל זָר״ נָפְקָא.

The Gemara asks: One of these verses is still necessary to teach another halakha that is taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the phrase “no common man” indicates that I, God, said to you that commonness, i.e., non-priesthood, renders one unfit to partake of teruma, but acute mourning, i.e., mourning on the day when one’s close relative died, does not render one unfit to eat teruma. The Gemara answers: This teaching of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, is derived from a superfluous word in the verse, as it could have stated: A common man may not eat of the holy thing, and it actually states: “No common man.”

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת — חוֹזֶרֶת לִתְרוּמָה וְאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: מַאי קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״ — לֹא תֹּאכַל בַּמּוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: The verse “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man” (Leviticus 22:12), from which Rav derived the halakha being discussed, that intercourse with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest, is still necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: When a priest’s daughter returns to her father’s house after the death of her Israelite husband, she resumes partaking of teruma, but she does not resume partaking of the breast and the right hind leg of sacrificial offerings. And Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina, son of Rav Sheila, said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred” (Leviticus 22:12). This implies that even after her husband’s death, she may not partake of the portion separated from consecrated offerings. Therefore, the verse cannot be the source for the above halakha.

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״הִיא בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכַל״. מַאי ״בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

The Gemara answers: If so, if this is the only halakha derived from this verse, let the verse merely write: She may not eat of the sacred. What is the significance of the seemingly superfluous expression “that which is set apart from the sacred”? Conclude from this that the prohibition is referring to two deeds: The daughter of a priest who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man may not partake of teruma, and if she weds a non-priest she may not partake of the priestly portion of offerings, the breast and right hind leg.

אַשְׁכְּחַן כֹּהֶנֶת — לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית מְנָלַן? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב — ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״, הָכָא נָמֵי — ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״.

The Gemara asks: We found a source for a priestess; from where do we derive the same halakha with regard to a Levite or an Israelite woman who engaged in intercourse with an unfit man, i.e., that they do not partake of teruma even if they marry a priest? The Gemara answers that it is as Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The verse states: “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced” (Leviticus 22:13). It could have begun: If a priest’s daughter. The word “but,” the prefix vav, is seemingly superfluous, and therefore it may indicate the expansion of the prohibition to include additional women. Here too, it may be derived from the distinction between the phrase: If a priest’s daughter, and the phrase: “And if a priest’s daughter,” which utilizes the prefix vav, that Levite and Israelite women are subject to the prohibition as well.

כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּדָרֵישׁ וָוִין? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כּוּלֵּיהּ ״וּבַת״ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this exposition possible? It is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as he derives halakhot from the prefix vav, which means “and” or “but.” The Gemara responds: Even if you say it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who do not derive halakhot from the prefix vav, the entire phrase: “And if a priest’s daughter,” is superfluous in the verse, as the previous verse already mentioned the priest’s daughter. Therefore, the inclusion of Levite and Israelite women in the prohibition may be derived from the entire expression.

אַשְׁכְּחַן לִתְרוּמָה, לִכְהוּנָּה מְנָלַן? אַטּוּ לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית לָא לִכְהוּנָּה מְרַבֵּינַן לְהוּ? דְּאִי לִתְרוּמָה, בְּנוֹת מֵיכַל תְּרוּמָה נִינְהוּ?

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the woman’s disqualification from partaking of teruma; from where do we derive that she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood? The Gemara counters: Is that to say that we did not include a Levite and an Israelite woman in the verse “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, etc.” (Leviticus 22:13), with regard to their marriage to a member of the priesthood? The derivation that a Levite and an Israelite woman are included in this verse was clearly with regard to their marriage to a priest; as if the inclusion was with regard to teruma, are these women fit to partake of teruma at all, regardless of their having engaged in intercourse with an unfit man? Clearly, their inclusion pertains to their marriage to a priest and their partaking of teruma as his wife.

אַלְּמָה לָא, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּקָאָכְלָה בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ.

The Gemara rejects this assertion: Why not? Why can’t the inclusion be referring to the partaking of teruma exclusively? You find that possibility when she partakes of teruma due to her son. If an Israelite woman has a son from a priest, she may partake of teruma. Therefore, it is necessary to include a Levite or Israelite woman in the prohibition against partaking of teruma if she engaged in intercourse with an unfit man.

בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כֹּהֶנֶת, דְּבִקְדוּשָּׁה דְנַפְשַׁהּ אָכְלָה — פָּסֵיל לָהּ, לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית, דְּלָא אָכְלָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The Gemara responds: The halakha that this woman does not partake of teruma due to her son is deduced through an a fortiori inference: If a priestess, who partakes of teruma by virtue of her own sanctity, is disqualified from partaking of teruma by an unfit man who engaged in intercourse with her, then with regard to a Levite or Israelite woman, who partakes of teruma only due to her son, is it not all the more so that it should be prohibited for her to partake of teruma after this act?

וְהִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: כֹּהֶנֶת דְּקַדִּישׁ גּוּפַהּ — פָּסֵיל לַהּ, הָא, דְּלָא קַדִּישׁ גּוּפַהּ — לָא פָּסֵיל לַהּ. אֶלָּא לִכְהוּנָּה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִגְּרוּשָׁה: וּמָה גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁמּוּתֶּרֶת בִּתְרוּמָה — אֲסוּרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה, זוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בִּתְרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁפְּסוּלָה לַכְּהוּנָּה?!

The Gemara rejects that response: But that provides support for the contrary reasoning. It is logical that a priestess, who is herself sacred, is disqualified by intercourse with an unfit man. However, with regard to this woman, who is not sacred herself, and who eats teruma only due to her son, intercourse with an unfit man should not disqualify her. Rather, the prohibition against these women marrying into the priesthood is derived by an a fortiori inference from the case of a divorcée: If a divorcée who is the daughter of a priest, who is permitted to partake of teruma, is nevertheless prohibited from marrying into the priesthood, as is written in the Torah (Leviticus 21:7), then with regard to this woman, for whom it is prohibited to partake of teruma, is it not right that she should be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?

וְכִי מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין? גִּלּוּי מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

The Gemara raises an objection to that inference: But do we warn, i.e., do we deduce a prohibition through logical derivation? The Gemara answers: This is not a new prohibition; rather, it is merely a revelation of the above prohibition’s scope. In other words, the prohibition against marrying a priest is subsumed under the prohibition against partaking of teruma.

וְאֵימָא נִבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ — חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, ״כִּי תִהְיֶה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: הָנָךְ דְּאִית בְּהוּ הֲוָיָה. חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת לָאו בְּנֵי הֲוָיָה.

Now that the source has been established, the Gemara asks: And perhaps you should say that this halakha pertaining to a woman who engaged in intercourse with a man unfit for her applies only to those liable to receive karet for their act of intercourse, but not to intercourse with a man who is unfit to marry into the assembly of Israel. The Gemara answers that the Merciful One states in the Torah: “If a priest’s daughter be married” (Leviticus 22:12), indicating that this halakha is referring to those who can have a valid marriage, while those liable to receive karet for their act of intercourse are not fit for marriage.

אִי הָכִי, גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד לָא לִיפְסְלוּ! הָנָךְ פָּסְלִי מִדְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִנַּיִן לְגוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כֹּהֶנֶת וּלְוִיָּה, שֶׁפְּסָלוּהָ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְגוֹ׳״ —

The Gemara asks: If so, a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman should not have disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, as they cannot marry her. The Gemara answers: These disqualify her, as derived by Rabbi Yishmael, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: From where is it derived with regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, or with a priestess, or a Levite woman, that they have disqualified her? As it is stated: “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13).