Talmud sobre 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 y R. Yehudah Hakohen testificaron acerca de la hija menor [huérfana] de un israelita, que se casó con un Cohein, que ella come terumah tan pronto como ingresa a la chupah, a pesar de que aún no había tenido relaciones conyugales (ver 7: 9 ) [Se agrega aquí que una vez que ingresa a la chupah, a pesar de que aún no había tenido relaciones conyugales (puede comer terumah). Por el testimonio anterior, podemos concluir que ella come terumah solo cuando ha tenido relaciones conyugales]. R. Yossi Hakohen y R. Zecharyah ben Hakatzav testificaron sobre un menor que fue tomado como prenda [por gentiles] en Ashkelon y cuya familia la "distanció" (de casarse con un Cohein), y cuyos testigos (a ella la tomaron como una promesa) testificar que ella no había sido secretada y no había sido violada—los sabios les dijeron (a la familia): si crees (a los testigos) que ella fue tomada como prenda, entonces crees que no había sido secretada ni violada. Y si no crees que ella no haya sido secretada y no haya sido violada, entonces no creas que la han tomado como una promesa. [Y es solo de este, de quien los testigos testifican que no fue violada, que los rabinos dijeron—"Créela", y que su familia la había distanciado injustamente. Pero si ella no tenía testigos (que no había sido violada), entonces una mujer que había sido tomada como prenda por dinero en un momento en que los gentiles tenían la ventaja está prohibido para su esposo, Cohein, si ella había sido tomado de buena gana o por la fuerza.]

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

Versículo anterior Capítulo completo Versículo siguiente