Yevamot 66a — the Talmud in English

And likewise

Pazi and Tovi

the daughters of Rabbi Hiyya

were sisters [

they were twin sisters].

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if

they are not obligated

in procreation and reproduction?!

But did Rav Aha bar Ketina not say in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak: There was an incident involving a certain woman, who

was

half a maidservant and half a free woman, and they compelled her master

to free her,

and made her a free woman.

And it entered our minds that they compelled her master to free her just as they compel the master of a slave who is half-free to free him, since he is unable to procreate and reproduce.

For he is unable to marry a free woman because he is half a slave. And, on the other hand, he is unable to marry a maidservant, since he is half-free [as we learned in Gittin, page 41].

And it is proven that even a woman is commanded in procreation and reproduction, for if not, why would they compel her master to free her?!

Said

—he answered—

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

They did not compel her master to free her because of the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation and reproduction; rather, since she was unable to marry,

they practiced toward her the conduct of abandonment

for she abandoned herself to sinners, and therefore they compelled her master to free her, so that she would be able to marry.

We have returned to you, chapter “The One Who Has Relations with His Yevama”

Introduction

These are the

women disqualified

from marrying

a kohen:

A High Priest is forbidden to marry a widow or a woman who has been violated.

As it is stated concerning the High Priest: “A widow or a divorced woman, and a profaned woman or a harlot—these he shall not take; rather, he shall take a virgin from his people as a wife.”

And all kohanim are forbidden to marry a divorced woman [and likewise a halutza, by rabbinic decree], and a harlot, or a profaned woman.

As it is stated: “They shall not take a woman who is a harlot or profaned [the kohanim]; and they shall not take a woman divorced from her husband.”

The harlot

mentioned in the Torah is every woman who had intercourse with a man with whom she is forbidden to have intercourse.

According to Rashi, this is the established halakha. The tannaim disagreed concerning this matter above, on page 61.

The profaned woman

mentioned in the Torah is one who had intercourse with someone who is forbidden to her because of his priestly status [those disqualified among the kohanim], or one who was born from this intercourse.

The ḥalal

disqualifies his wife through his intercourse with her, and his offspring after him, who also become ḥalalim.

And these are those who eat

of

teruma,

in addition to the kohanim:

A daughter of a kohen eats teruma [and her eating is called “the eating of teruma of the father’s household,” that is, the teruma of her father’s house]. A kohen’s daughter who marries an Israelite does not eat teruma. However, if she becomes widowed or divorced, and has no offspring from him, she returns to eating the teruma of her father’s house; the details of this law are explained in the chapter before us.

The wife of a kohen eats teruma by Torah law immediately when she becomes betrothed, whereas by rabbinic decree she eats only once she marries.

The Canaanite male and female slaves of a kohen, and likewise a kohen’s animal, eat teruma.

An Israelite woman who married a kohen and has living offspring from him—even if he was a non-kohen or disqualified—her mother, or her mother’s mother, eats teruma, even when her husband is no longer alive. As it is stated: “And when a kohen acquires a person, the members of his household born in his house—they shall eat of his bread.” The Sages expounded: They shall “feed others” of his bread.

And the details of this law are explained in the chapter before us.

3.

Women disqualified from eating teruma:

Every woman who becomes profaned through intercourse with one disqualified among the kohanim does not eat either the teruma of her father’s house or the teruma of her husband.

The later authorities were uncertain whether she eats teruma on account of her son from a kohen.

The Tosafot were uncertain whether a “harlot” is disqualified from teruma, since she was equated with a profaned woman [see their words on page 35a and 44b]. The view of several early authorities is that the harlot is disqualified from teruma.

However, concerning Rashi’s view, the later authorities proved that the name “harlot” in itself is not sufficient to disqualify her from teruma.

The Torah further stated: “And if a daughter of a kohen shall be [married] to a non-kohen, she shall not eat of the holy offerings,” teaching that every woman who had intercourse with a man who is a non-kohen and disqualified to her is forbidden to eat teruma. The details of this law are explained in the chapter before us.

The Torah further stated: “And if a daughter of a kohen shall become a widow or divorced [from her husband, and when she married him she became disqualified from eating the teruma of her father’s house], and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread.”

The Sages expounded from this verse that a woman eats teruma only if she had intercourse with one with whom she has betrothal and divorce. But if a woman had intercourse with one for whom betrothal does not take effect with her, she no longer eats teruma. The details of this law are explained in the chapter before us.

A kohen’s daughter who has a son from an Israelite is disqualified from eating teruma.

As it is stated: “And if a daughter of a kohen shall become a widow or divorced, and she has no offspring, she shall return to her father’s house as in her youth.” Scripture taught that if she has offspring who is not a kohen, she does not eat teruma. The details of this law, too, are explained in the chapter before us.

Mishna:

A widow

who married in prohibition

to a High Priest,

and likewise

a divorced woman and a ḥalutza

who married in prohibition

to an ordinary kohen,

and

she brought in to him

slaves whom the woman brought with her to her husband’s house when she married, so that they would be under his authority by the law of

“melog slaves”

as he proceeds to explain,

and

slaves who would be under his authority by the law of

“iron-flock slaves”

as he proceeds to explain—

these

melog slaves,

who belong to the woman,

shall not eat teruma,

since she married in prohibition; and the Gemara explains the reason.

Iron-flock slaves—

these

shall eat

teruma by virtue of the husband, who is a kohen [and further on in the Mishna it will be explained what iron-flock slaves are, and for what reason the husband feeds them teruma].

And these are melog slaves: if they die—

they die for her

she is the one who loses through the death—

and if they increase—

they increase for her

she is the one who profits from the improvement of the slaves.

That is, the husband has no right in these slaves except the right to their produce [use of the slaves and the right to their offspring] alone, whereas the substance of the slaves belongs to the woman. The husband does not assume responsibility for the substance of the slaves; rather, if the slaves die, the woman loses and the husband is not obligated to pay her their value. Likewise, if the slaves improve, she is the one who benefits from this, and not he.

And since the slaves belong to her, and she herself cannot feed them teruma, since she has been disqualified,

even though

the husband, the kohen,

is

the one who

is obligated to provide their sustenance,

nevertheless

these

slaves

shall not eat teruma,

because the obligation of sustenance for the slaves imposed upon the kohen does not permit them to eat teruma.

And these are iron-flock slaves: if they die,

the slaves,

they die for him

for the husband, and he must pay their value.

And if they increase,

the slaves, having improved or increased in price,

they increase for him.

That is, their value is assessed at the time of the marriage, and the husband assumes responsibility to pay their value to the woman together with her ketuba when he dies or divorces her.

This sum is a fixed sum, whether the slaves exist or whether they do not exist, and even if the assets decrease in value. Conversely, if the slaves improved or increased in price, the husband is not obligated to pay his wife more than the amount at which the slaves were assessed at the time of the marriage.

And

since he is responsible for them—

these shall eat teruma.

And it will be explained in the Gemara whether the reason the husband feeds them teruma is that through the obligation of responsibility the slaves are considered “the acquisition of his property,” or because they are actually his.

But

an Israelite woman

who is not among those disqualified from the priesthood

who married a kohen, and brought slaves to him, whether

they were

melog slaves,

which belong to the woman while the husband eats the produce,

or iron-flock slaves,

which belong to him—

these shall eat teruma.

The reason that melog slaves, which belong to her, eat teruma despite her being an Israelite woman, is that “the kohen’s acquisition that acquired an acquisition eats teruma.” For example, the wife of a kohen or his slave, who acquired for themselves an “acquisition” of a slave: this “acquisition” eats teruma as though it were the kohen’s own acquisition, as the source of this law is explained in the Gemara.

And a kohen’s daughter who married an Israelite,

and became disqualified from eating teruma, which she had eaten until then, when she was in her father’s house,

and brought slaves to him—

whether melog slaves or iron-flock slaves,

since neither the man nor the woman eats teruma—

these

slaves

shall not eat teruma.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A widow to a High Priest. If she brought melog slaves to him, they shall not eat teruma:

It enters our mind that the slaves of a disqualified woman who married a kohen do not eat teruma, since the woman became profaned when she had intercourse with the kohen in a disqualified manner.

And since she became profaned, she herself does not eat teruma. Therefore, her slaves do not eat teruma.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And melog slaves shall not eat teruma—

why?

For even if the slaves cannot eat teruma by virtue of the woman, since she herself became profaned—

nevertheless,

let them be

these slaves

like his acquisition,

that of the kohen [such as his slave and his wife],

who acquired

for himself

an acquisition,

such as slaves, whose “acquisition” the kohen has the right to feed teruma.

And since the woman’s slaves have the right to eat teruma by virtue of the kohen, since they are his acquisition’s acquisition, why should they be disqualified from eating teruma because of the woman’s profanation? And

as it was taught

in a beraita, that the kohen feeds his acquisition’s acquisition teruma:

From where is it derived that a kohen who married a woman and acquired slaves, that they shall eat

the woman or the slaves

teruma?

[No corresponding source segment.] As it is stated: “And when a kohen acquires a person, the acquisition of his property—

he shall eat of it.”

And from where concerning a woman

of a kohen, who is the acquisition of the kohen husband,

who acquired slaves,

that they also eat teruma?

And

likewise, from where that

his slaves

of the kohen, who are his acquisition,

who acquired slaves

for themselves —

that they shall eat

even the slaves of the slaves

teruma?

As it is stated: “And when a kohen acquires a person, the acquisition of his property—

he shall eat of it.”

The verse could have said: “And when a kohen acquires a person—he shall eat of it.”

Rather, Scripture teaches that

his acquisition that acquired an acquisition

is

eating

teruma.

You have learned that the kohen feeds his acquisition’s acquisition teruma. If so, what concern is it to us that the acquisition itself is profaned and does not eat teruma? And we answer: Only

anyone who eats

teruma himself

feeds

others teruma.

But

anyone who does not eat

teruma himself

does not feed

others.

And this woman, who married the kohen in prohibition and became profaned, does not eat, and therefore does not feed.

And the Gemara assumed that this principle applies to everyone who causes others to eat teruma: if he himself does not eat, he cannot cause others to eat teruma. Therefore, we ask:

But not, does one who does not eat—does he not feed?

[No corresponding source segment.]

For behold,

a kohen

who is uncircumcised, and all the impure ones who do not eat, and

nevertheless

feed

their slaves teruma, as we taught below [70a]: The uncircumcised man and all the impure ones shall not eat teruma; their wives and slaves shall eat teruma!

And we answer:

There,

their mouths hurt them!

It is their mouths that hurt and prevent them from eating teruma, temporarily.

That is, they are merely lacking correction, and stand destined to be corrected and to eat teruma. But this woman, who becomes profaned, has no remedy ever.

And we still challenge:

For behold, a mamzer,

that is, an Israelite woman married a kohen and bore a daughter, and the daughter married a mamzer and bore a son and died, while the son still exists; and we learned below, 69a, that if his mother eats teruma because of him, for every woman who became pregnant from a kohen and whose offspring or offspring’s offspring is alive eats teruma, even if he is an Israelite, and even if he is an Israelite mamzer—

that

he—the offspring’s offspring himself

does not eat

teruma, for he is a non-kohen,

and

nevertheless

feeds

his mother’s mother teruma!

Said

he explained

Ravina

the Gemara’s resolution, “one who eats feeds; one who does not eat does not feed”:

This principle was not stated concerning all those who feed, but only:

“An acquisition

which itself

eats”

is what he

says

also feeds, and this is what he means:

An acquisition

which itself

eats—

it

feeds.

An acquisition

which does not eat—

does not feed.

Therefore: a woman—who is an acquisition—her slaves do not eat teruma when she is a ḥalala, for she is not an “acquisition that eats.” But the offspring of the offspring of an Israelite woman by a priest, behold, it feeds its maternal grandmother teruma, even though it itself does not eat, for the offspring of an Israelite woman by a priest does not feed [her] because it is an acquisition.

And Rava said

to reconcile the reason of our Mishna—that the slaves of a widow who married a High Priest in prohibition do not eat teruma, by the rule of “the acquisition of a priest that acquired an acquisition”—in another manner:

By Torah law,

indeed

they do eat,

since it is his acquisition that acquired an acquisition.

And it was the Rabbis who decreed concerning them

[the slaves of a woman who married a priest in prohibition] that they should not eat teruma.

And the reason is:

so that she will say,

this woman who married a priest in prohibition:

I do not eat

from my husband’s teruma, and even

my slaves do not eat;

if so,

she is a woman forbidden to him

in his presence

[I am a woman forbidden to my husband]. And

therefore he will come to remove her

[her husband will divorce her], and he will not remain with her in prohibition.

Rav Ashi said

he too follows the words of Rava: by Torah law the slaves can eat teruma by the rule of “his acquisition that acquired an acquisition,” and it was by rabbinic law that they prohibited the slaves from eating teruma, because of

a decree lest she feed

her slaves even

after the death

of her husband, whereas when her husband dies there is no one who can feed them teruma.

And we raise an objection:

But from now on,

even

an Israelite woman

fit

who married a priest should not feed

her slaves teruma,

a decree lest she feed

them even

after the death,

for what reason is there to decree this only concerning an unfit Israelite woman who married a priest?

But in our Mishna we learned: “An Israelite woman who married a priest and brought him slaves, whether slaves of usufruct property and so forth, they shall eat teruma”!

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

indeed, concerning an Israelite woman who married a priest, there is no place, as a matter of basic law, to decree lest she come to feed them after death, when she returns to being a non-priestly woman, for she knows that after her husband’s death she no longer feeds either herself or her slaves teruma.

But the essential decree of the Sages was

concerning a priestly widow

[a daughter of a priest] who married a High Priest [or a priestly divorcee who married an ordinary priest].

And because

if

she says: “Her slaves eat teruma by virtue of her husband’s priesthood, even though she is a ḥalala,”

the widow will come

to

teach

permission to feed her slaves even after her husband’s death, by virtue of her own priestly status [for she has returned to her father’s household and eats teruma], and she will not be concerned that she has become a ḥalala, for she will say:

Behold,

initially,

before I married,

my slaves ate

teruma

from my father’s house

[from the teruma of my father’s household], meaning: since I myself ate because I was the daughter of a priest, my slaves too ate teruma.

And even when

I married this one

[and when I married this man] and became disqualified,

my slaves ate

teruma

from my husband’s teruma

[of my husband].

And

if so,

now, after I have become widowed from my husband, although I myself do not eat since I have become disqualified, nevertheless

I return to my initial state

[I return to my previous condition], to feed my slaves teruma, even though I have become disqualified, for the disqualification did not prevent the slaves from eating when I was in my husband’s household.

And

she, however,

does not know that initially,

before she married, her slaves indeed ate teruma, since

she had not rendered herself a ḥalala

[she was not a ḥalala].

But

now she has rendered herself a ḥalala

[she has become a ḥalala], and she can no longer feed her slaves teruma.

That is to say, she will not know to distinguish that the disqualification, when she was in her husband’s household, does not prevent the slaves from eating, but now, when they eat by virtue of her, the disqualification does prevent her slaves from eating.

And therefore the Sages said that even while she is with her husband, when the disqualification does not invalidate her as a matter of basic law, this woman should not eat teruma.

And we explain:

This works for a priestly widow,

for properly you say that her slaves do not eat from her husband’s teruma.

But

an Israelite widow—

what is there to say!?

What is the reason that her slaves should not eat teruma by virtue of her priestly husband, for she will not come to feed them after death, when she has returned to being a non-priestly woman, like all non-priestly women?!

And we answer:

In widowhood—

the Rabbis did not distinguish.

Since concerning a priestly widow it is proper to decree that her husband should not feed her, the Sages did not distinguish further, and prohibited even the slaves of an Israelite widow from eating teruma by virtue of her priestly husband.

And for that same reason the Sages prohibited all the women disqualified from marrying a priest who married a priest in prohibition, such as a divorcee and a ḥalutza who married an ordinary priest.

It was stated: “A woman who brought an assessed asset to her husband”

[she brought him iron-flock assets, whose value he assessed when she brought them, and he accepted upon himself in her ketuba to pay her this valuation when he dies or divorces her].

And when her husband divorced her, the utensils or lands that she had brought were still in existence:

She,

the woman,

says: “The utensils

that I brought—I will take

them

themselves, according to the value of the obligation that you undertook for them in my ketuba, and I will not take money.”

And he,

the husband,

says:

Only

money will I give,

as I accepted upon myself in the valuation, in the obligation of your ketuba, for the iron-flock assets. From then they were under my responsibility, and they are mine, [Rashi], and I do not wish to give the objects themselves.

With whom is the law?