If the daughter of an Israelite married a Cohein, and he died, leaving her pregnant, her bondsmen do not eat terumah because of the portion of the fetus (in the bondsmen). [Even though she has children from him and she eats terumah, her tzon-barzel bondsmen do not eat terumah; for they belong to the heirs, and the fetus has a portion in them, and the fetus lacks power to cause them to eat terumah — either because he holds that a fetus in the womb of a stranger (to the priesthood), (i.e., an Israelite) is a stranger, or because he holds that one who is born causes (others) to eat; one who is not yet born does not cause to eat, it being written (Leviticus 22:11): "And one that is born in his house — they may eat," which may be read: "They may cause to eat."] For a fetus disqualifies [If the daughter of a Cohein were married to an Israelite, and he left her pregnant, and she had no other child, the fetus disqualifies her from returning to her father's house.], and it does not cause to eat. [If the daughter of an Israelite were married to a Cohein, and he left her pregnant, the fetus lacks power to cause her to eat, and the same applies to his bondsmen.] These are the words of R. Yossi. They said to him: Now that you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite to a Cohein, the daughter of a Cohein, too — her bondsmen should not eat terumah because of the portion of the fetus (in them). For they are his bondsmen, and they eat only because of him, and he lacks the power to cause them to eat. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן – even מגול slaves (i.e., that the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration) , they may consume [Terumah/priest’s due] because they are the acquisition of a Kohen who purchased merchandise, meaning to say, the wife that is his purchase of a Kohen who purchased these particular slaves, as it is written (Leviticus 22:11): “But a person who is a priest’s property by purchase [may eat of them (i.e., the sacred donations) and those born into his household may eat of his food],” for the inference of "קנין כספו"/”the priest’s property” does not come other than for this exegesis: that a Kohen who has as purchased property with his money, that soul, which is the slave of the Kohen who bought a soul may eat of it (i.e., his food as a member of his household).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Introduction
This mishnah continues to discuss slaves that are part of a wife’s dowry and their ability to eat terumah, which depends on her status as a daughter of an Israelite or a priest, as well as the status of her husband, Israelite or priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, and she brought him in slaves, they are permitted to eat terumah whether they are melog slaves, or tzon barzel slaves. When the daughter of an Israelite marries a priest she is allowed to eat terumah. The melog slaves (see yesterday’s mishnah for a definition of melog and tzon barzel) may eat terumah because they belong to her and she eats terumah. The tzon barzel slaves may eat terumah because they belong to her husband who is a priest, and a priest’s slaves eat terumah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite and she brought him in slaves, they may not eat terumah whether they are melog slaves or tzon barzel slaves. When the daughter of a kohen is married to an Israel, she forfeits her right to eat terumah. Her melog slaves cannot continue to eat terumah because they are owned by her and she cannot eat. The tzon barzel slaves belong to the husband, who obviously cannot eat nor give them terumah.
