Ketubot 58a — the Talmud in English

We have learned:

it is found

that the slave is

a thief or a kubiostos

[a kidnapper of persons],

they have reached

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

What is there

and what further is there for you to be concerned about?

Perhaps the slave will be found to be

an armed bandit,

which is not the way of slaves, and the sale will consequently be annulled,

or

that the slave is

proscribed

the slave

to the kingdom,

having sinned against the kingdom, until the king commanded that everyone who finds him kill him; and it is a mistaken sale, and it is annulled—

This is not a concern, because

those—

an armed bandit or one proscribed to the kingdom—

have a public reputation

[they have a report], and since the purchaser gave money for the slave and did not inquire about these defects, which he could ascertain since they have a public reputation, the presumption is that the master considered and accepted that even if the slave is indeed an armed bandit or proscribed to the kingdom, he wishes to purchase him!

The Gemara asks:

Since both according to the Master

Ulla

and according to the Master

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda

she does not eat

teruma while betrothed—according to Ulla because of “perhaps she will give to drink,” and according to Rav Shmuel because of simpon—

and if so,

what is between them,

what practical legal difference is there between them?

And the Gemara explains:

There is between them

between Ulla and Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: a.

“He accepted”

the husband upon himself that even if she has defects, he wants her betrothal; thus simpon is not relevant, and she eats teruma according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, whereas according to Ulla she does not eat teruma because of “perhaps she will give to drink.”

b.

The father handed over

his daughter, the bride, to the husband’s agents for marriage, and there is no longer concern for “perhaps she will give to drink,” since she is no longer in their house; according to Ulla she is permitted to eat teruma, whereas according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda she is forbidden to eat teruma.

c.

And

so too

“he went,”

that is: the father’s agents went [and the bride with them] together with the husband’s agents; there is no concern for “perhaps she will give to drink,” and she is permitted to eat teruma according to Ulla, while she is forbidden according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her

—the woman whose time to marry has arrived—

everything teruma;

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

Abaye said:

The dispute

of Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, for Rabbi Tarfon holds: They give her everything teruma—

is only

in the case of a daughter of a priest—

because, since she is 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,

and only in this case does Rabbi Tarfon hold that they give her all her provisions from teruma, even though during the days of her ritual impurity she cannot eat from the teruma, since it is possible to sell it and purchase non-sacred produce with its value.

But in the case of a daughter of Israel

who is betrothed

to a priest,

who is not expert in this,

everyone agrees—

and 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

further

Abaye said:

The dispute

of Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, for Rabbi Tarfon holds: They give her everything teruma—

is only

in

the case of a daughter of a priest who is

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

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 in the case of a married woman

to a priest who eats teruma in her house—for example, her husband went overseas and appointed a trustee to provide his wife with provisions in her house—in this situation

everyone agrees

that he gives her

half non-sacred produce

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

and half

alone is what he gives her

of teruma.

It was taught likewise

It was also taught so

explicitly, in accordance with Abaye’s words:

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

In what case are these words said? In the case of a daughter of a priest married to a priest; but in the case of a daughter of Israel married to a priest, everyone agrees that it is half non-sacred produce and half teruma.

In what case are these words said? In the case of a betrothed woman; but in the case of a married woman, everyone agrees that it is half non-sacred produce and half teruma.

And the baraïta adds:

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: They give her two portions

[that is, two-thirds]

of teruma, and one of non-sacred produce.

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

Rabbi Judah

also holds like Rabbi Tarfon, who says, “They give her everything as teruma,” except that according to Rabbi Tarfon they do not increase her provisions that they give her from teruma because the value of teruma is less than that of non-sacred produce, whereas Rabbi Judah

says:

He gives her everything teruma

and increases her provisions so that when she sells the teruma cheaply, she can purchase half non-sacred produce with its value,

and she sells 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 Gamaliel

also holds like Rabbi Judah that her provisions should be increased, and furthermore he holds that she should be eased in selling the teruma; therefore he

says:

Every place where teruma is mentioned

concerning provisions,

they give her double in non-sacred produce,

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

What is between them,

between Rabbi Judah and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel?

There is between them: trouble,

for according to Rabbi Judah she [namely, her father and brothers] must trouble herself until she finds someone to purchase the teruma at its cheap market price, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel she need not trouble herself, but receives so much teruma that she can sell it easily.

We learned in the Mishna:

The levir does not feed her teruma.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that a woman awaiting levirate marriage does not eat teruma by virtue of the priestly levir?

Because when it comes to

“the acquisition of his money,”

it is that

the Merciful One said

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

but

if

this one—

the woman awaiting levirate marriage—

is the acquisition of his brother.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

If she spent six months in the presence of the husband

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

The Gemara wonders about the final clause, “or all of them in the presence of the levir less one day in the presence of the husband”:

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

now,

if all of them

in the presence of the husband,

less one day,

you have said: no

shall she eat teruma on account of the levir—

if all of them are

in the presence of the levir,

is it necessary

We learned in the Mishna:

And we answer:

“This

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

and it is not necessary to say this

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

he teaches.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the first Mishna,

the court after them said: A woman does not eat teruma until she enters the marriage canopy:

And we explain:

What is the reason

of the later Mishna?

Ulla said, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: because

perhaps there will be found in her

a simpon

and the betrothals will be annulled.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Ulla,

who said above that the reason a betrothed woman does not eat teruma is because perhaps they will mix her a cup in her father’s house and she will give it to her brother or sister to drink, this is well, because:

the reason of the

first

[first Mishna] Mishna, that a betrothed woman does not eat teruma, is because

perhaps they will mix her a cup in her father’s house—

and

the reason of the

later

[later Mishna] Mishna is

because of simpon,

and until she enters the marriage canopy we are concerned for it.