בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּסֵּת לְכֹהֵן וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים, בֵּין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג, בֵּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּסֵּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ, בֵּין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג, בֵּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה:
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.]
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
Rebbi Eleazar explains the reason given in the Mishnah, that if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Since the time of danger they used to marry on Tuesdays and the Sages did not object; about Monday one does not listen to him, but if it was because of a danger it is permitted. What is “because of a danger”? because of sorcery. What is the difference between Monday and Tuesday? One who waits one day cannot be compared to one who waits two days. Why not let him wait two days? That his acquisition should not be sweet for him. Why should his acquisition not be sweet for him? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. Could we not suspect that she was raped? A rape is public knowledge. And even if you suspect that she was raped, there is no other doubt. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened. From the words of the Torah one has to be stringent. Rebbi Yose said, if you suspect that she was raped, there are two doubts. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened; there is a doubt whether it happened after she was preliminarily married or before. From the words of the Torah, with two doubts one has to be lenient.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
