Yevamot 67b — the Talmud in English

We are not concerned with the minority of fetuses who are viable males, but we may attribute the fetus to the majority, who are females or miscarriages.

the minority of fetuses that are viable males. Rather, we assume that the fetus belongs to the majority, which are females or stillborn.

And if you wish, say:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai always holds that

we are concerned for the minority

of viable male fetuses.

And as for what is difficult for you: if so, why will the slaves eat by virtue of the other male sons? After all, we should be concerned that perhaps a male fetus will be found, and it has a share in the slaves and disqualifies them from eating teruma—this is not difficult:

We make for him

for the fetus

a remedy,

as Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel

as will be explained below: they set aside for the fetus a different share in his father’s property, and it is found that the slaves belong only to his male brothers.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: Orphans

minors

who came to divide their father’s property,

the

court

appoints a guardian for them

for each one,

and he selects for them

each guardian for the orphan for whom he was appointed

a choice share.

And if

the orphans grow up,

the orphans

can

they

protest

the manner of the division and annul it; the division is effective only so that they may eat the produce until they grow up and protest.

And Rav Naḥman himself—

not in the name of Shmuel—

says: If they grow up

the orphans,

they cannot

they

protest.

Since

if so,

that you say that they can protest and annul the division—

what is the power of the court worth?!

And since we have explained the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, that it is by means of a remedy that they make and appoint a guardian for the fetus, then the Sages who disputed him in the beraita necessarily disputed him even when a remedy is made.

And since this is so, we must consider:

Shall we say

his position

of Rav Naḥman—

it is a dispute among tannaim,

and according to the Sages, the court does not make a remedy!?

And we answer:

No.

It cannot be explained that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s words are by means of a remedy, so that you would infer from here that according to the Sages a remedy is not made.

Rather,

everyone—

both the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai—

holds Rav Naḥman’s position,

that a remedy is made.

And if they had wanted to make this remedy, even the Sages would concede that it is made, and the slaves would eat. Rather, the case is one in which they did not make a remedy.

And here, they disagree concerning whether we are concerned for the minority.

That is to say: the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai is because we are not concerned for the minority, and not because of a remedy, and this is like the Gemara’s first answer.

We learned in a baraita:

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: A daughter enables the slaves to eat, but a son does not enable them to eat.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: The daughter makes eligible, the son does not make eligible:

And the Gemara assumes that his intention is to say that if there were females, they would all eat, and if there were males, the slaves of iron flocks would not eat.

And therefore we ask:

What is different about a son—

who remains with the fetus—

that he does not make eligible

the slaves, because of the fetus’s share, since perhaps a male will be found and it has a share in the slaves.

A daughter also —

who remains with the fetus—

should not make eligible, because of the fetus’s share?!

He said,

Rabbi

Abaye

explained the words of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the name of Rabbi Yosei, his father:

The Sages instituted: one who dies and leaves sons and daughters.

When the property is “ample,” such that the sons and daughters have enough to be sustained from the property until they mature—the sons inherit the property, and the daughters are sustained from the property until they mature or until they marry a man [for it is a condition of the marriage contract that the daughters be sustained from the property until then].

And when the property is less than the aforementioned measure—the daughters are sustained from the property, and the sons ask for their sustenance at the doors.

Here—

where Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says, “The daughter makes eligible”—it deals with a daughter who has not yet matured and has not married another, who has the right to receive sustenance from the inheritance property.

And

with

slaves that are

“property of little”

we are dealing,

for the daughter acquires them by virtue of the Sages’ institution and makes them eligible to eat teruma.

And this is when there is a son together with the daughter

with the daughter,

and through this the fetus, if it is female, is removed from the law of Torah inheritance, for the son precedes it. Therefore the existing daughter can make the slaves eligible to eat teruma. For:

Whichever way you look at it

whether the fetus is male or female, the daughter who was born and is alone is the one who acquires the slaves by virtue of the Sages’ institution, whereas the fetus has no share in the slaves at all and does not disqualify them from eating teruma—

For

if this one who is pregnant is carrying a son

if the fetus with which she is pregnant is male, then it has no share in the slaves, since

it is not superior

to this

son

who stands

[to the other son who remains], who has no share in the slaves, since the daughter acquires them by virtue of the Sages’ institution.

And

if

this fetus

is a daughter, then it has no share in the slaves at all, since there is a male son before us, who removes the daughters from Torah inheritance.

Lest you say: let it too acquire a share in the slaves by the law of “property of little” and disqualify the slaves from eating teruma through the daughter who was born—this is not so, for:

Why does she eat

a daughter from property of little?—

By virtue of a rabbinic institution!

But

as long as it has not emerged into the air of the world

a fetus that has not yet emerged into the air of the world

the Rabbis did not institute

for it

the Rabbis

a right in property of little.

a right to a small estate.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

In what did you establish

the beraita—

with property of little?

If so,

say the latter clause,

in the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:

Perhaps the fetus will be found to be male, and the daughters have nothing where there is a son.

And if the beraita deals with property of little, then

on the contrary, property of little—

belongs to the daughters?!

And we answer:

The latter clause—

the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai—

we have arrived at property of ample [A0149]it deals with property of ample.

[it deals with large estates].

And we still ask:

And

does this mean

that property of little belongs to the daughters—that is to say: are slaves of property of little considered actually theirs, so that they may make them eat teruma?!

But Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Orphans

males

who preceded

before the daughters came to court and the court placed the property under the daughters’ control [Rashi in Sota and Ketubot]

and sold property of little, whatever they sold is sold,

which shows that with regard to sale they remain under the authority of the sons; and since this is so, how can the daughter make them eat teruma? For perhaps the fetus is male and has a share in the slaves.

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara gives another explanation of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei’s words:

And on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara explains Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei’s words, in another manner:

But rather, what

is the

“daughter”

that he teaches

in his words:

“If

she makes eligible,”

her usufruct slaves by virtue of her sons whom she has from her husband, even though he also left a fetus that cannot make her eligible; and “the son—whether male or female—does not make eligible” his slaves of iron flocks, because of the fetus’s share. And this is as though he said: the usufruct slaves will eat as she eats; the slaves of iron flocks will not eat.

And we ask:

If so, it is the same as

the first tanna in the name of

Rabbi Yosei, for he too said: the usufruct slaves will eat as she eats; the slaves of iron flocks will not eat because of the fetus’s share.

And we answer:

The entire

beraita

is taught by Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, that is to say: this is what the beraita says: And so Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, would say in the name of his father: the daughter makes eligible and the son does not make eligible [Meiri].

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna we learned: “The fetus disqualifies” his mother, an Israelite woman who was widowed or divorced from her husband, from returning to eat teruma in her father’s house, just as one who has been born disqualifies her; “and it does not make eligible” his mother, an Israelite woman who married a kohen and became pregnant from him, and it is not like one who has been born, who makes his mother eligible.

The Mishna before us lists together with the fetus other persons who disqualify a daughter of a kohen from eating teruma in her father’s house, while, on the other hand, they do not have the power to make an Israelite woman eligible to eat teruma, unlike those comparable to them who do make her eligible.

The fetus

with which a daughter of a kohen became pregnant from her Israelite husband, or with which an Israelite woman became pregnant from her kohen husband.

And the levir

that is to say: a daughter of a kohen who was widowed from her husband and is obligated to an Israelite levir for levirate marriage, or an Israelite woman who was widowed from her husband and is obligated in levirate marriage to his brother, the kohen.

that is, a daughter of a kohein who was widowed by her husband and is bound to an Israelite levir for levirate marriage, or an Israelite daughter who was widowed by her husband and is bound by the levirate obligation to his kohein brother.

and the betrothal,

that is: a daughter of a kohen who became betrothed to an Israelite, or a daughter of an Israelite who became betrothed to a kohen.

and the deaf-mute

[who neither hears nor speaks, and has no understanding:] an Israelite who married a daughter of a kohen, but whose marriage takes effect only by enactment of the Sages, or one who was a kohen and married a daughter of an Israelite.

A minor becomes fit for intercourse from the time that he becomes nine years and one day old, but below this age his intercourse is not considered intercourse with regard to the entire Torah.

And one who is nine years and one day old,

this clause is explained in the Gemara.

These

disqualify

the daughter of the kohen from eating teruma in her father's household,

but do not enable

a daughter of an Israelite to eat teruma when they are kohanim, [the explanation of this clause with regard to one who is nine years and one day old is explained in the Gemara].

And even if

it is uncertain whether he is nine years and one day old, and it is uncertain whether he is not,

he too is included, stringently, in the law stated concerning one who is certainly nine years old.

And likewise, what we learned: the betrothal disqualifies, this law applies even to a minor who betrothed the woman,

it is uncertain whether he produced two pubic hairs,

and his betrothal is a valid betrothal,

and it is uncertain whether he did not produce

two pubic hairs, and his betrothal is not a valid betrothal, for since it is uncertain, we are stringent with him.

And since we learned two laws concerning uncertainties stringently, the Mishna further adds:

The house collapsed upon him and upon

his wife who was

his brother’s daughter,

and both of them died, and he had no sons, and he had another wife, the co-wife of his brother’s daughter,

and it is not known which one—

he or his brother’s daughter—

died first.

Since it is uncertain, we are stringent with him and say:

her co-wife

of his brother’s daughter

performs halitza

to his brother

but does not enter into yibum

with him.

For it is uncertain whether his co-wife is subject to yibum and permitted for yibum.

For if the husband died first, and his daughter and her co-wife fell before his brother for yibum, then his co-wife was exempted from yibum and from halitza, according to the law of the co-wife of a forbidden relation; and she is forbidden for yibum like a brother’s wife where there is no mitzva, and therefore she does not enter into yibum.

But if the woman, the daughter of the man obligated in yibum, was the one who died before her husband, then only her co-wife fell before his brother for yibum, and she is subject to yibum; therefore, she performs halitza.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

the fetus

disqualifies and does not enable to eat:

And we explain the reason:

if

his pregnant mother

is a daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite,

whose husband died,

it disqualifies her

the fetus from returning to the teruma of her father’s household, since the Torah said: “And she shall return to her father’s household,”

“as in her maidenhood

”, teaching you: she returns to her father’s household only when she resembles her maidenhood—

excluding a pregnant woman.

And

if

his pregnant mother

is a daughter of an Israelite married to a kohen

whose husband died,

it does not enable her

the fetus to eat teruma, because the Torah said: “And those born in his household—they shall eat of his bread,” and we read in it, “they shall enable to eat of his bread,” teaching you:

one who is born

is the one who

enables to eat,

but

one who is not born does not enable to eat.

We learned in the Mishna:

the brother-in-law

and so forth disqualify and do not enable to eat:

And we explain the reason:

if she is a daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite, he disqualifies her

the brother-in-law from the teruma of her father’s household, since the Torah said

“and she shall return” to her father’s household.

One who has the ability to return to her father’s household—

excluding a woman awaiting yibum,

who cannot return, since she is subject to yibum.

And

if she is a daughter of an Israelite married to a kohen, he does not enable her to eat

the kohen brother-in-law does not enable her to eat teruma before he takes her in marriage, since: “And when a kohen acquires a person,”

“an acquisition with his money”

he shall eat of it,

said the Merciful One, but this is his brother’s acquisition.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the betrothal

disqualifies and does not enable to eat:

A daughter of a kohen who married an Israelite, who disqualifies her from the teruma of her father’s household, is learned from what the Torah said: “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes a widow or divorced, shall return to her father’s household; she shall eat of her father’s bread.”

You have therefore learned: until she returns to her father’s household, she does not eat teruma.

And even though we do not need this verse, for the Torah said: “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes the wife of a foreign man, she shall not eat of the sacred offerings,” the Sages explained that this verse does not come to teach that a woman who marries a foreign man is thereby disqualified from teruma, for we have to learn this from the verse: “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes a widow or divorced.”

Rather, this verse comes only to teach concerning a woman who has intercourse with a foreign and disqualified man, that she is disqualified from eating teruma, [and all this is explained in the Gemara below on this page].

Nevertheless, since if it were not for the verse “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes a widow or divorced,” we would interpret the verse “And a daughter of a kohen, when she becomes the wife of a foreign man” as referring to one who marries an Israelite, the Gemara here brings this verse to teach the details of the laws concerning a daughter of a kohen who marries an Israelite [Tosafot].

And we explain the reason:

if

her betrothed

is a daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite, he disqualifies her

the Israelite betrothed from the teruma of her father’s household,