Ketubot 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

We have learned:

it turns out

that the slave

is a thief or a gambler

[a kidnapper],

have reached

the purchaser, and the sale is not thereby void, because the presumption regarding slaves is that they are such.

What is there

for you to be concerned about further?

Perhaps the slave will turn out to be

an armed bandit

which is not the practice of slaves, and the sale will consequently be void,

or

the slave

will be listed

as

wanted by the government,

having committed an offense against the government, so that the king ordered that anyone who finds him should kill him; in that case it is a mistaken transaction and it is void—

This is not a concern, because

those—

an armed bandit or one wanted by the government—

have a public reputation [they are known], and since the purchaser paid money for the slave

and did not inquire about these defects, which he could have ascertained since they are publicly known, the master presumably understood and accepted that even if the slave is in fact an armed bandit or wanted by the government, he wishes to purchase him!

The Gemara asks:

Since, according to both the Master

Ulla

and according to the Master

Rav Shemuel bar Yehuda,

she does not eat

teruma while betrothed—according to Ulla because of “lest she give him to drink,” and according to Rav Shemuel because of sifon—

and if so,

what is the difference between them,

what practical difference in law is there between them?

The Gemara explains:

There is a difference between them,

between Ulla and Rav Shemuel bar Yehuda: a.

“He accepted”

that even if she has blemishes, he wants to retain the betrothal. In that case, the concern of sifon does not apply, and she eats teruma according to Rav Shemuel bar Yehuda, whereas according to Ulla she does not eat teruma because of “lest she give him to drink.”

b.

The father “handed over”

his daughter, the bride, to the husband’s messengers for the wedding. There is no longer concern of “lest she give him to drink,” since she is no longer in her family’s home. According to Ulla she is permitted to eat teruma, whereas according to Rav Shemuel bar Yehuda she is prohibited from eating teruma.

c.

And

so too,

“he went,”

meaning: the father’s messengers went, together with the bride, with the husband’s messengers. There is no concern of “lest she give him to drink,” and she is permitted to eat teruma according to Ulla, but prohibited from eating teruma according to Rav Shemuel bar Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her

—to a woman whose time to marry has arrived—

everything as teruma;

Rabbi Akiva says: half non-sacred produce—for the days of her ritual impurity—and half teruma:

Abaye said:

The dispute

between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, as Rabbi Tarfon maintains that they give her everything as teruma—

applies only

to a priest’s daughter—

because, having been accustomed to eating teruma, she is expert in guarding teruma and selling it during the days of her ritual impurity— who is betrothed

to a priest.

Only in this case does Rabbi Tarfon maintain that they give her all her provisions from teruma, even though during the days of her ritual impurity she cannot eat the teruma, since she can sell it and purchase non-sacred produce with the proceeds.

But with regard to a daughter of Israel

who is betrothed

to a priest,

who is not expert in this,

everyone agrees—

even Rabbi Tarfon—that he gives her

half non-sacred produce and

only

half teruma,

so that she will have non-sacred produce to eat during the days of her ritual impurity.

And

Abaye

also said:

The dispute

between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, as Rabbi Tarfon maintains that they give her everything as teruma—

applies only

to

a priest’s

betrothed daughter

who is betrothed to a priest and whose time to marry has arrived, since she is in her father’s home, and her father, who is accustomed to this, will sell the teruma during the days of her ritual impurity.

But with regard to a married woman

married to a priest who eats teruma in her home—for example, her husband went overseas and appointed a trustee to provide his wife with her provisions in her home—in such a case

everyone agrees

that he gives her

half non-sacred produce

for the days of her ritual impurity, because “all the honor of the king’s daughter is within”; her father and brothers are not with her to attend to her needs,

and half

alone is what he gives her as

teruma.

It was taught likewise

explicitly, in accordance with Abaye’s words:

Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her everything as teruma; Rabbi Akiva says: half non-sacred produce and half teruma.

In what case is this statement said? With regard to a priest’s daughter married to a priest; but with regard to a daughter of Israel married to a priest, everyone agrees that it is half non-sacred produce and half teruma.

In what case is this statement said? With regard to a betrothed woman; but with regard to a married woman, everyone agrees that it is half non-sacred produce and half teruma.

The beraita adds:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: They give her two portions

[that is, two-thirds]

of teruma, and one portion of non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Yehuda

also maintains like Rabbi Tarfon, who says, “They give her everything as teruma,” but according to Rabbi Tarfon they do not increase the provisions given to her from teruma on account of the fact that teruma is worth less than non-sacred produce, whereas Rabbi Yehuda

says:

He gives her everything as teruma

and increases her provisions so that when she sells the teruma cheaply, she will be able to purchase half non-sacred produce with the proceeds,

and she sells it and purchases with the money

that she received the half

non-sacred produce

she needs for the days of her ritual impurity.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

also maintains like Rabbi Yehuda that her provisions should be increased; moreover, he maintains that the sale of teruma should be made easier for her, and therefore he

says: Whenever teruma is mentioned

in connection with provisions,

they give her twice as much as non-sacred produce,

meaning: the quantity of teruma given to her so that she will have half non-sacred produce is twice what it would be if they gave her non-sacred produce, so that she can sell the teruma cheaply and find many purchasers for it.

What is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

There is a difference between them: the effort required,

for according to Rabbi Yehuda she—or, that is, her father and brothers—must take the trouble until she finds an opportunity to sell the teruma at its low market price, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel she need not take the trouble; rather, she receives enough teruma that she can sell it easily.

We learned in the Mishna:

The yavam does not enable her to eat teruma:

And we explain:

What is the reason

that a yevama does not eat teruma by virtue of the yavam, who is a priest?

It is only with regard to

“the acquisition of his money”

that

the Merciful One said that a priest enables her to eat, as it is stated: “And when a priest acquires a person, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it”; and the woman is included in “the acquisition of his money”—

but

this one—

the yevama—

is the acquisition of his brother.

We learned in the Mishna:

She spent six months in the presence of the husband

and six months in the presence of the yavam; and even if all of them were in the presence of the husband less one day in the presence of the yavam, or all of them were in the presence of the yavam less one day in the presence of the husband, she does not eat teruma:

The Gemara is perplexed by the last clause, “or all of them were in the presence of the yavam less one day in the presence of the husband”: Why did the tanna need to state it at all? After all, now

all of them

in the presence of the husband

less one day,

you have said that she does not

eat teruma by virtue of the yavam— if all of them were

in the presence of the yavam,

is it necessary

to say that she does not eat teruma by virtue of the yavam? Why, then, did the tanna need to state this clause!?

And we answer:

“This case

[six months in the presence of the husband less one day]

and it is unnecessary to say this case

[six months in the presence of the yavam less one day in the presence of the husband]”—he

teaches them both.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the initial Mishna,

but the court of those who came afterward said: A woman does not eat teruma until she enters the bridal canopy:

And we explain:

What is the reason

for the later Mishna?

Ulla said, and some say Rav Shemuel bar Yehuda: Because

perhaps a

defect

will be found in her and the betrothal will be annulled.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Ulla,

who said above that the reason a betrothed woman does not eat teruma is lest they mix a cup for her in her father’s home and she give it to her brother or sister to drink, this is entirely understandable, because:

The reason of the

first Mishna

[the initial Mishna] for which a betrothed woman does not eat teruma is

lest they mix a cup for her in her father’s home—

but

the reason of the

later Mishna

[the later Mishna] is

because of a defect,

and we are concerned about it until she enters the bridal canopy.