Talmud for Eduyot 8:2

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בָּבָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַכֹּהֵן עַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֻפָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעָלָה. הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן וְרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶן הַקַּצָּב עַל תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֻרְהֲנָה בְאַשְׁקְלוֹן, וְרִחֲקוּהָ בְנֵי מִשְׁפַּחְתָּהּ, וְעֵדֶיהָ מְעִידִים אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָאָה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים, אִם מַאֲמִינִים אַתֶּם שֶׁהֻרְהֲנָה, הַאֲמִינוּ, שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמָאָה. וְאִם אֵין אַתֶּם מַאֲמִינִים שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה וְשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה, אַל תַּאֲמִינוּ שֶׁהֻרְהָנָה:

R. Yehudah b. Bava and R. Yehudah Hakohen testified about the minor daughter [an orphan] of an Israelite, who married a Cohein, that she eats terumah as soon as she enters the chupah, even though she had not yet had conjugal relations (see 7:9). [It is added here that once she enters the chupah, even though she had not yet had conjugal relations, (she may eat terumah). For from the preceding testimony, we can conclude that she eats terumah only when she has had conjugal relations]. R. Yossi Hakohen and R. Zecharyah ben Hakatzav testified about a minor who was taken as a pledge [by gentiles] in Ashkelon and whose family "distanced" her (from marrying a Cohein), and whose witnesses (to her having been taken as a pledge) testify that she had not been secreted and had not been violated — the sages said to them (the family): If you believe (the witnesses) that she had been taken as a pledge, then believe that she had not been secreted and had not been violated. And if you do not believe that she had not been secreted and not been violated, then do not believe that she had been taken as a pledge. [And it is only of this one, about whom the witnesses testify that she had not been violated, that the rabbis said — "Believe her," and that she had been wrongfully distanced by her family. But if she had no witnesses (that she had not been violated), then a woman who had been taken as a pledge for money at a time when the gentiles had the upper hand is forbidden to her husband, a Cohein, whether she had been taken willingly or forcibly.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles,” etc. There, we have stated¹⁵⁴Mishnah Idiut 8:2; quoted in extenso in the Babli, 26b/27a. The argument is about the part of the Mishnah not quoted here, that the Sages forced the family to accept her as marriageable by a Cohen.: “Rebbi Yose the Cohen and Rebbi Zachariah the son of the butcher testified about a girl who was given as a pledge in Ascalon¹⁵⁵That she could be sold as a slave if her parents did not pay their debt. and her family excluded her¹⁵⁶Declared her unfit to be married by a Cohen., but her witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure.” Because the witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure; therefore, not if no witnesses testified that she never was in a secret place and was not impure¹⁵⁷She was held for money, and according to the Mishnah should need no witnesses.! Rebbi Eleazar said, there is a difference about a pledge, because many treat her as permitted¹⁵⁸People assumed that ultimately she would be sold as a slave and, therefore, could be treated as such even beforehand. In the Babli, 27a, this explanation is offered by Rava (cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot, p. 6), but is rejected in that Talmud..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Rebbi Eleazar said to him: Is not the dough widow²⁴⁸As a dough is a mixture of several ingredients, so the dough widow is a mixture; she is a woman qualified for priesthood who was married to a husband with a questionable family background (one whose females are permitted to marry Israels but not Cohanim). The problem is that there is the knowledge that something was wrong in the marriages of that family but the exact nature of the defect is not known. qualified but her daughter is disqualified²⁴⁹She carries the possible disabilities of the father’s family.? He said to him, whoever declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified²⁵⁰If the daughter might be disqualified then the mother might be desecrated, i. e., her husband might have been the offspring many generations back of a union forbidden to Cohanim.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, did he not say “whoever declares her to be qualified”? This implies that there is another who disqualifies! Who declares qualified? Rebbi Meïr. Who disqualifies? The rabbis. As we have stated²⁵¹In the Tosephta (Qiddušin 5:2) and the Babli (14a; Qiddušin 4:4, 66a 1.29), there is no mention of the desecrated, but there is the added category of “king’s slaves”, who were used by the king to run the state and, by their influence and riches, were able to marry Jewish women even if not manumitted. In Jewish tradition (Rashi 14a), Herod was a slave of the Hasmoneans.
In the Babli tradition (cf. Otzar haGeonim 8, Ketubot, הפירושים p. 12), the dough widow was a woman who had married a man possibly descending from a desecrated woman. This definition is reproduced by Rashi, 14a. The difference between the Galilean and Babylonian traditions was already highlighted by Rabbenu Hananel (Otzar ha-Geonim l. c., לקוטי פירוש רבינו חננאל p. 12).: What is qualified dough, anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with one of these is qualified for thepriesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared²⁵²The nature of the disability was no longer known., Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers²⁵³These are really 8 mothers, spanning 3 to 4 generations, enumerated in Mishnah Qiddušin 4:4. and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever²⁵⁴Until he finds the source of the trouble..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse