Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 57a

this woman also may eat.¹

Whence [is this²  proved]? Is it not possible that R. Eleazar and R. Simeon maintain [their opinion] only there because in other circumstances³  he is entitled to confer the right of eating, but not here where he is never entitled to confer the right of eating!⁴  And were you to reply that here also he⁵  is entitled to confer upon the daughter of proselytes⁶  the right of eating, surely [it may be retorted] this very question was addressed by R. Johanan to R. Oshaia⁷  who gave him no answer!⁸

It was stated:⁹  Abaye said,¹⁰  Because¹¹  he is entitled to confer upon [his wife]¹²  the right to eat [terumah] so long as he does not cohabit with her.¹³  Raba said,¹⁰  Because¹¹  he may confer the right of eating¹⁴  [terumah] upon his Canaanitish bondmen and bondwomen.¹⁵

Abaye did not give the same explanation as Raba because matrimonial kinyan may be inferred from matrimonial kinyan, but matrimonial kinyan may not be inferred from the kinyan of slaves. And Raba does not give the same explanation as Abaye because there¹⁶  it is different, since she has already been eating it previously.¹⁷  And Abaye?¹⁸  — [The argument], 'since she has already been eating' cannot be upheld;¹⁹  for should you not admit this,²⁰  a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who subsequently died should also be allowed to eat terumah since she has already been eating it!²¹

And Raba?²²  — There,²³  his kinyan had completely ceased;²⁴  here, however, his kinyan did not cease.²⁵

[To turn to] the main text. R. Johanan enquired of R. Oshaia: If a priest who was wounded in the stones married the daughter of proselytes does he confer upon her the right of eating terumah? The other remained silent and made no reply at all. Later, another great man came and asked him a different question which he answered. And who was that man? Resh Lakish. Said R. Judah the Prince to R. Oshaia: Is not R. Johanan a great man?²⁶  The other replied: [No reply could be given] since he submitted a problem which has no solution.

In accordance with whose view?²⁷  If according to R. Judah,²⁸  she is not entitled to eat terumah whether he²⁹  does or does not retain his holiness. For if he retains his holiness she may not eat since the Master said³⁰  'The daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male who is unfit for the priesthood';³¹  and if he does not retain his holiness,³²  she may not eat either, since it has been said that the assembly of proselytes is called an 'assembly'!³³  If, however, according to R. Jose,³⁴  she is entitled to eat terumah whether he does or does not retain his holiness. For if he retains his holiness she may eat, since he³⁵  stated that even when a proselyte married a proselyte his daughter is eligible to marry a priest;³⁶  and if he does not retain his holiness, she may also eat since he³⁵  said that the assembly of proselytes is not called an 'assembly'!³⁷  It must rather be³⁸  in accordance with the view of the following Tanna. For we learned: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, 'A woman who is the daughter of a proselyte must not be married to a priest unless her mother was of Israel',³⁹  And it is this that his question amounts to: Has only her eligibility⁴⁰  increased⁴¹  and consequently she is entitled to eat terumah⁴²  or has perhaps her sanctity also increased⁴³  and consequently she is not permitted to eat?⁴⁴

Come and hear: When R. Aha b Hinena arrived from the South, he came and brought a Baraitha with him: Whence is it deduced that if a priest, who is wounded in the stones, married the daughter of proselytes, he confers upon her the right to eat terumah? For it was stated, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money⁴⁵  etc.,⁴⁶  he may eat of it. Now, in accordance with whose view?⁴⁷  If it be suggested, 'according to R. Judah', surely [it may be retorted] he stated that whether he⁴⁸  does or does not retain his holiness she⁴⁹  is not permitted to eat.⁵⁰  And if⁵¹  'in accordance with the view of R. Jose', what need [it may be asked] was there for a Scriptural text? Surely, he⁵²  stated that whether he⁴⁸  does or does not retain his holiness she⁴⁹  is permitted to eat! Must it not [consequently be assumed that it⁵³  is] in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? And so it may be inferred that only her eligibility⁵⁴  had been increased and that she is consequently permitted to eat. This proves it.

It was stated: Rab said,

1. Since through the kinyan of the betrothal the woman becomes the priest's acquisition and is, therefore, like himself, entitled to eat terumah so long as she does not become profaned (a halalah) through actual marriage.
2. The ruling according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon just deduced.
3. If he married a woman permitted to him.
4. Since he is not permitted to marry any woman.
5. The incapacitated priest, since he is only forbidden to enter into the assembly of the Lord (Deut. XXIII, 2), i.e., to marry a Jewess, but he is permitted to marry a proselyte.
6. Who is not included in the assembly of the Lord. V. supra n. 7.
7. Infra.
8. As to whether such an incapacitated priest may confer upon the daughter of a proselyte the right of eating terumah. Since no answer was given, there is no proof that the right may be conferred at all. The difficulty consequently remains: How could the case of the incapacitated priest who can never confer the right upon others be inferred from the case of one who is, in certain circumstances, entitled to confer such a right?
9. In reply to the difficulty raised. V. supra n. 10.
10. The incapacitated priest is entitled to confer upon the woman he betrothed the right to eat terumah.
11. In certain other circumstances.
12. Whom he married before he had been incapacitated.
13. After becoming incapacitated (v. infra 70a). Since he may confer the privilege of eating terumah in this case he may also confer it where the betrothal was unlawful, so long as the woman had not been profaned by him through marriage.
14. [H] so MS.M. (Cur. edd [H] 'enables her to eat').
15. As he may confer the privilege in that case he may also confer it upon the woman he betrothed.
16. Where the incapacity occurred after marriage.
17. Prior to the man's incapacity. This, therefore, provides no proof that a man who is already incapacitated can also confer the privilege.
18. How does he reconcile the difference in two cases?
19. Lit., 'we do not say'.
20. But insist on upholding Raba's distinction.
21. Prior to her husband's death. As in this case the argument is obviously untenable so it is untenable in the case of the incapacitated priest.
22. How can he advance an argument that is untenable in the case cited?
23. Where the priest died.
24. As soon as the priest died, leaving no sons, their marital relationship was completely severed.
25. He is still her husband.
26. And so entitled to a reply.
27. Did R. Johanan ask his question.
28. Who, in Kid. 77a, differs from R. Jose on the question of the daughter of a proselyte.
29. The incapacitated Priest.
30. R. Judah.
31. [H]. As he may not consequently marry a proselyte's daughter she is obviously forbidden to eat of the terumah.
32. And the priestly sanctity is consequently no reason for her prohibition to marry a halal.
33. An 'assembly of the Lord' into which an incapacitated person may not enter. (Cf. supra p. 382, nn. 7 and 8). The marriage is consequently forbidden and, therefore, confers upon the woman no right to the eating of terumah.
34. Did R. Johanan ask his question.
35. R. Jose. [So MS.M. cur. edd.,'a Master said'].
36. Kid. 77a. Hence she is not inferior in this respect to the daughter of an Israelite.
37. The marriage with her being consequently permissible, the right of eating terumah should obviously be conferred upon her.
38. R. Johanan raised his question.
39. Bik. I, 5.
40. Where her mother was of Israel.
41. I.e., is she, if her mother was of Israel, thereby only enabled to marry a priests but is not regarded as a proper daughter of Israel to be included in the 'assembly of the Lord', so as to be forbidden to one incapacitated.
42. In any ease. Even if the incapacitated priest is holy he may marry her. And, as she is not included in the 'assembly' (v. supra n. 13), she is not forbidden to marry him.
43. And she is thus included in the 'assembly' and hence forbidden to marry one incapacitated.
44. Since the marriage was a forbidden one.
45. Lev. XXII, 11.
46. The Heb. [H] in the original seems to be a mistake for [H] which is the only word omitted from the Scriptural quotation.
47. Was R. Aha's Baraitha necessary.
48. A priest suffering from the incapacity mentioned in the Baraitha.
49. The woman who married him.
50. Which is contrary to the Baraitha which permits it.
51. Cf. supra n. 3.
52. R. Jose.
53. R. Aha's Baraitha,
54. V. supra p. 384, nn 13 and 14.

'The bridal chamber¹  constitutes kinyan²  with ineligible women'³  and Samuel said, 'The bridal chamber⁴  does not constitute kinyan²  with ineligible women'.³

Raba said, We also learned a similar Baraitha:⁸  A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her;⁹   one incurs through her the guilt of intercourse with a married woman; she¹⁰  defiles her cohabitor in respect of his imparting defilement to the lower, as well as to the upper couch;¹¹  if she was married to a priest she may eat terumah, and anyone ineligible¹²  who cohabited with her causes her ineligibility.¹³  Thus only a girl of the age of three years and one day, who is rendered ineligible by cohabitation, is also rendered ineligible through the bridal chamber; but a girl younger than three years and one day, who is not rendered ineligible by cohabitation, is not rendered ineligible through the bridal chamber either.¹⁴  This proves it.

Rami b. Hama stated: [In regard to the question whether] the bridal chamber¹⁵  constitutes kinyan¹⁶  with ineligible women,¹⁷  we arrive at a difference of opinion between R. Meir and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon.

1. Lit., 'there is huppah' (v. Glos.), even if it was unaccompanied by any other form of betrothal such as money, deed, or cohabitation (Rashi). On huppah v. Kid., Sonc. ed. p. 5, n. 7,
2. To deprive the woman of her right to eat terumah where, as the daughter of a priest, she had previously been entitled to this privilege.
3. Whom one is not permitted to marry; a widow, e.g., to a High Priest or a divorcee to a common priest. On Rashi's interpretation which is followed here, both Rab and Samuel hold with R. Huna (v. Kid. 3a) that huppah by itself constitutes kinyan. They differ, however, in the case of ineligible women, Samuel being of the opinion that huppah with them constitutes no kinyan, since it does not allow them to enter into marital union. Rabbenu Tam, on the other hand, explains huppah here as having been preceded by kiddushin and with reference to the last clause of our Mishnah, the point at issue being whether with ineligible women it is considered nissu'in disqualifying the widow, or erusin; v. Tosaf s.v. [H].
4. If unaccompanied by any other forms of matrimonial kinyan. V. supra n. 11.
5. I.e., Rab, whose proper name was Abba. The former name (Rab = Master) was a title of honour conferred upon him as the Master par excellence of his time. According to Rashi, a.l., 'Abba' was a term of respect synonymous with 'prince' and 'master' by which Samuel, his younger contemporary, referred to Rab.
6. V. supra p. 385, n. 12.
7. Which constitutes kinyan only where cohabitation is possible, but which is not the case with a child under the age mentioned.
8. From which the ruling on which Rab and Samuel are in agreement may he inferred.
9. She is deemed to be his legal wife.
10. During her period of menstruation.
11. If he lies on a number of couches (coverlets, bed-spreads, and the like) resting one upon the other, he imparts levitical defilement to all, though he comes in direct contact with the uppermost one only.
12. A bastard, for instance,
13. V, supra p. 385, n, 12. Cf. Kid. 10af, v. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 376, n. 2.
14. Cf. supra note 3.
15. V. p. 385, n, 11.
16. V. loc. cit., n. 12.
17. V. loc. cit., n. 13.