Commentaire sur Yevamot 7:7

אלמנה לכ"ג: עבדי מלוג – what the woman leaves for herself and does not write in her Ketubah is called

If a widow [who married] a high priest, or if a divorced woman or a halutzah [who married] an ordinary priest brought in to her husband melog slaves and tzon barzel slaves, the melog slaves may not eat terumah but the tzon barzel slaves may eat of it.
The following are melog slaves: those who, if they die, are the wife’s loss and, if their value increases, are her profit. Even though it is the husband's duty to maintain them, they may not eat terumah.
The following are tzon barzel slaves: if they die, they are the loss of the husband and, if their value increases, they are a profit to him. Since he is responsible for them, they are permitted to eat terumah.
The slave of a kohen is allowed to eat terumah, which can only be eaten by kohanim and those under their domain (Leviticus 22:11). Our mishnah discusses the issue of slaves brought into a marriage by the wife as part of her dowry, in a case where the marriage was against the halakhah and therefore she herself cannot eat terumah.
When we learned mishnah 4:3, we discussed the terms “tzon barzel” and “melog” or “pluckable property”. This is what I wrote there:
Dowry can come in two forms. The first form is called “pluckable property” (nikhse melog). This is money that she brings from her father’s house that remain hers and the husband may not use. The husband has rights to the profit earned from this money during the marriage. He has no responsibility for the money. For instance, if she brings in a piece of land, the land is hers but the husband may use the fruits of the land. If the land should be taken by the Romans, he is not responsible to pay his wife the value of the land. Money that she receives as a gift or as an inheritance is part of this category.
The second form is “property of iron sheep” (nikhse tzon barzel). This is written in the ketubah and hence the husband has responsibility for it, should the property be lost, stolen or destroyed. The husband may use the property. His sole responsibility is to return the value of the original property upon death or divorce.
Section one: In the case of our mishnah, a woman who is not allowed to marry a kohen, nevertheless goes ahead and marries him. When she has intercourse with him, she becomes a halalah, a woman profaned from the priesthood, and she can no longer eat terumah, neither in her husband’s home nor in her father’s (if he was a kohen). Since she can no longer eat terumah, her slaves can also no longer eat terumah. The mishnah teaches that since tzon barzel slaves belong more to her husband than they do to her, they may eat terumah. Melog slaves, who belong more to her than to him, cannot eat terumah.
Section two: This section discusses the difference between melog and tzon barzel slaves. Melog slaves belong to the woman, although while the marriage is still going they work for the husband. The fact that they belong to the woman means that if they die it is her loss, and if they go up in value, it is her gain. Despite the fact that the husband must maintain them with food, clothing and shelter, they still belong to the woman. Since she cannot eat terumah due to her forbidden marriage, they too cannot eat terumah.
In contrast, tzon barzel slaves belong to the husband, and his only obligation is to pay their value back to the woman upon the termination of the marriage through death or divorce. If they die, he must still pay back the value. If they appreciate in value, it is his profit. Since he is responsible for their worth, meaning that if something happens to them he must pay back the woman for the loss, they may eat terumah.
In summary, the mishnah defines ownership by who profits or loses when the value of the slaves rises or falls. The obligation to maintain the slaves does not cause the husband to be the owner.

נכסי (עבדי) מלוג – a wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration - that the husband “plucks” that property like the plucking of chickens because he consumes the fruits of those properties and if they lessened [In value] they lessened for her, and if they increased, they increased for her. But נכסי צאן ברזל (mort-main, the wife’s estate held by her husband, which, in the case of her death or divorce, he must restore “in specie,” being responsible with all his landed property for loss or deterioration) – they are the properties that she brought in to him and what he adds to it is hers, and they wrote into the Ketubah: the total amount that so-and-so accepted upon himself is such -and such, in her Ketubah, and therefore, they are called צאן ברזל – as the principal exists like iron, and if everyone died, the husband is liable to because they are accustomed to place the sheep in such-and-such an appraisement of valuables (brought into the marriage by the wife) , and the shepherd would be responsible for them (if lost), according to the estimate even if all the sheep died, hence, they are called properties that the husband accepts responsibility for - נכסי צאן ברזל (that must be returned to the wife “in specie” in the event of death or divorce.

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).

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.

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.

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.

והניחה מעוברת – even though she has children from him and she consumes Terumah, the slaves of her mort-main do not eat Terumah because they belong to the heirs, and the fetus has a portion in them and the fetus does not have the ability to provide them with Terumah either because he holds that a fetus in a foreign womb (of a non-Kohen), he is a foreigner or because he holds that someone born can feed; someone who is not born cannot feed, as it is written (Leviticus 22:11): “and those that are born into his household may eat [of his food],” and we call him they who will feed.

Introduction When a man dies and leaves children, his wife’s status with regard to terumah goes according to the child’s status. If the father was a priest and his child eats terumah, the wife continues to do so as well. If the father was an Israelite, even if his wife was the daughter of a priest, if the father had a child with her, she does not go back to eating the terumah from her father’s house. In other words a child fixes a wife into the status of her husband. Our mishnah discusses a situation where a priest died while his wife was pregnant. The issue at hand is do the tzon barzel slaves, who are now in a sense owned by the fetus, eat terumah.

שהעובר פוסל – if the daughter of a Kohen is married to an Israelite [male], and she was left pregnant (because her husband died), and she has no other son, it disqualifies her from returning to her father’s home.

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus, since a fetus prevents [its mother] from eating [terumah] but does not cause her to be able to eat [terumah], the words of Rabbi Yose. If a priest dies and leaves his wife pregnant, her tzon barzel slaves do not eat terumah, even if she has other children and she, her children and her melog slaves can eat terumah. This is because the fetus, as an inheritor of its father, has ownership over the tzon barzel slaves, and a fetus disqualifies its mother from eating terumah and does not qualify her to eat terumah. A fetus disqualifies its mother from eating terumah in that if she is the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and he dies with no kids and she is pregnant, she does not return to her father’s home to eat terumah. In the opposite case, if she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest and her husband dies with no children and she is pregnant, the fetus does not allow her to eat terumah. Rabbi Yose reasons that just as a fetus does not allow a wife to eat terumah, so too it does not allow tzon barzel slaves to eat terumah.

ואינו מאכיל – if she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a Kohen and she was left pregnant (because her husband died), the fetus does not have the strength to sustain her and the same law applies to his slaves.

They said to him: since you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, even concerning the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest, and he died and left her pregnant her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus! The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose, that if his testimony about the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest is correct, then even concerning the daughter of a priest married to a priest, if her husband died leaving her pregnant, her tzon barzel slaves do not eat terumah. After all, in either case we could explain that a fetus disqualifies tzon barzel slaves from eating terumah. The difficulty with this section is whether or not the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yose. According to a literal reading of the mishnah they only point out a consequence of Rabbi Yose’s halakhah, without expressing their opinion on the matter. However, it would seem that they only point this out if they disagree with Rabbi Yose. According to the Talmud, the rabbis do disagree with Rabbi Yose. The rabbis hold that the fetus does not actually own the slaves and therefore cannot prevent them from eating terumah.

אף בת כהן לכהן כו' – since you said that he is not born, he does not sustain, even the daughter of a Kohen who is married to a Kohen, the slaves don’t consume Terumah because of the fetus’ portion because they are his slaves and they don’t consume, other than for him, and he lacks the strength to sustain them, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

העובר והיבם וכו' -this fetus if [it is the product of] the daughter of a Kohen and an Israelite [male], it disqualifies her [from eating Terumah] as it is written (Leviticus 22:13): “[But if the priest’s daughter is widowed or divorced and without offspring, and is back in her father’s house] as in her youth, [she may eat of her father’s food],” excluding someone pregnant, if she is an Israelite woman [awaiting the act of a levir] to a Kohen, he does not feed [Terumah] and that which is not born does not cause feed [either].

Introduction The first section of this mishnah broadens the category of those who disqualify women from eating terumah but cannot allow them to eat terumah. The second two sections discuss cases of doubt.

והיבם – if the daughter of a Kohen is [to engage in a levirate marriage] with an Israelite man, he disqualifies her [from partaking of Terumah] as it is written (Leviticus 22:13): “and is back in her father’s house,” excluding the widow waiting for her brother-in-law to act, who is not able to return [to her father’s house] because she is in union with the widow waiting for her brother-in-law to act and if it is the daughter of an Israelite [who is to engage in a levirate marriage] with a Kohen, he does not feed her [Terumah]. The All-Merciful said (Leviticus 22:11): “[But a person who is a priest’s] property by purchase [may eat of them],” but this is the purchase of his brother.

A fetus, a yavam, betrothal, a deaf-mute, and a boy who is nine years and one day old, disqualify [a woman] from [terumah], but do not allow her to eat terumah, In all of the cases listed in this section, if the boy/man was an Israelite he disqualifies the woman from eating terumah, and if he was a priest, he does not allow his wife to eat terumah. For instance, if a priest dies and leaves his wife pregnant, the fetus does not allow her to eat terumah. If he was an Israelite and she was the daughter of a priest, the fetus disqualifies her from eating terumah. When the daughter of an Israelite is betrothed to a priest she does not yet begin to eat terumah. However, if she is the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite she already loses the right to eat terumah. A deaf-mute cannot contract marriage, according to Torah law. This is because he is not considered to have intelligence. [As a side note, now that sign language has been developed this concept no longer exists.] The status of his marriage is only derabbanan (of rabbinic origin). If he is a priest he does not allow his wife to eat terumah, but if he is an Israelite he disqualifies her from eating terumah. Intercourse with a boy less than nine years and one day of age is not considered real intercourse. The mishnah teaches that once the boy reaches this age, if he has intercourse with a woman forbidden to him, he disqualifies her from eating terumah. However, if he is a priest, he does not cause her to be able to eat terumah, since a boy who has not reached puberty (concretized by the appearance of two pubic hairs) cannot contract betrothal or marriage.

והאירוסין – if she [the widow waiting for her brother-in-law to act] is the daughter of Kohen [to undergo levirate marriage with] with an Israelite [male], he disqualifies her, as he acquires her through “becoming,” and from the time of “becoming” he disqualifies her, as it is written (Leviticus 22:12): “If a priest’s daughter marries a layman, [she may not eat of the sacred gifts],” if it is the daughter of an Israelite [to be taken through levirate marriage] to a Kohen, he does not feed her [Terumah], as a decree lest they pour for her a cup of wine of Terumah in the house of her father and she causes her brothers and sisters to drink of it [as well]

If it is doubtful whether the boy is nine years and one day old or not, or whether he has produced two hairs or not, According to the Rambam, this section is the beginning of the second halakhah in this mishnah. If it is doubtful whether a boy is nine years old and he does yibbum with her, or it is doubtful whether he has reached puberty or not, and he does halitzah with her, the woman still requires another halitzah, lest the first yibbum or halitzah was done by a child incapable of such an action. However, she may not have subsequent yibbum, lest the first action was valid.

והחרש – if the daughter of a Kohen is [the widow waiting for her brother-in-law to act] [to be married by levirate marriage] to an Israelite male, he disqualifies her [from eating Terumah] for he has acquired her through the Rabbinic ordinance, and if it is a daughter of an Israelite man [who is the widow waiting for her brother-in-law to act] and he is a Kohen, he does not feed her [Terumah] for she is his “property by purchase”(Leviticus 22:11), but a deaf-mute, according to the Torah does not acquire.

If a house collapsed upon a man and upon his brother’s daughter, and it is not known which of them died first, her rival must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum. This section deals with another case of doubt. If a house falls on a husband and his wife, who is his brother’s daughter, and it is not known who died first, the rival wife must have halitzah and cannot have yibbum. She must have halitzah, lest her rival wife died first, and she was obligated to yibbum, because at the time of her husband’s death she had no rival wife who was forbidden to the yavam. She cannot have yibbum lest the husband died first, and therefore at the time of his death she was the rival wife of a woman forbidden to the yavam (the yavam’s sister).

ובן תשע שנים ויום אחד וכו' – one those who are ineligible to be married into the priesthood when he is nine years and one day old and comes upon the daughter of a Kohen or upon the daughter of a Levite, or upon the daughter of an Israelite he has disqualified her from eating Terumah for someone who is nine years and one day old, his act of sexual intercourse is considered sexual intercourse, and he has profaned/degraded her through his act of sexual intercourse. But if the daughter of an Israelite is married to a Kohen who is nine years and one day old, he does not feed her Terumah/priest’s due, for his acquisition is not a complete acquisition.

וכן ספק בן תשע שנים וכו' – his law is like someone who is definitely nine [years old an one day] and he disqualifies her [from eating Terumah – if he is a Kohen].

ספק הביא שתי שערות ספק לא הביא – a minor who betrothed a woman – it is doubtful if he had brought forth two [pubic] hairs or not, and her betrothal is a doubtful betrothal. His wife may remove the shoe of the brother of her dead husband, but she may not be placed in a levirate marriage.

נפל הבית עליו ובת אחיו – and she is his wife, it is doubtful if he died first and both of them fell to a levirate marriage in the presence of his brother, but she exempts her rival wife because it is doubtful if the daughter’s associate died first, and a the time when she fell to the levirate marriage, her rival wife was not forbidden on account of consanguinity as it teaches in the Mishnah, and if they died, or refuses, their rival wives are permitted [to marry]; her rival wife undergoes Halitzah but does not enter into a levirate marriage and since we are speaking of doubtful cases, it is taught stringently in their presence.

והשוטה – even through marriage and betrothal/חופה וקידושין – he does not disqualify [her from consuming Terumah, but he does not feed it as his acquisition is not an acquisition.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss who gives a woman the right to eat terumah and who deprives her of such a right.

נחתך העובר שבמעיה תאכל – immediately [she may consume Terumah] and the same law applies if she gave birth to him and he died.

The rapist, the seducer and the insane man neither disqualify [a woman from eating terumah] nor do they allow her to eat [terumah].
If they are unfit to enter into the assembly of Israel they do disqualify [a woman from eating terumah]. How is this so? If an Israelite had intercourse with the daughter of a priest she continues to eat terumah.
If she becomes pregnant she may no longer eat terumah.
[Even if] she becomes pregnant she may not eat.
And if his father’s mother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, she may not eat terumah;
And if his mother’s mother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, she may eat terumah; This section teaches that intercourse outside the framework of marriage does not disqualify a woman from eating terumah, nor does it give the woman the right to eat terumah. The mishnah illustrates some of these principles. If an Israelite has intercourse with the daughter of a priest, whether that intercourse was rape or seduction (which means she consented), she continues to eat terumah. Only betrothal to an Israelite would disqualify her from eating terumah. However, if she becomes pregnant she loses her right to eat terumah. This is what we learned in the previous mishnah: a fetus can disqualify from eating terumah. If she should miscarry, she may resume eating terumah. If a priest has relations with the daughter of an Israelite, the intercourse does not allow her to eat terumah. In this case only full marriage will allow her to eat terumah. If she becomes pregnant she still does not eat terumah. This is because a fetus does not allow a woman to eat terumah. However, if she gives birth she can eat terumah. In this way, the power of the son is greater than the father, because the son allows her to eat terumah whereas the father did not. There are two other notes that we need to make on this section. An insane person cannot contract betrothal. Therefore, if he is a priest, his betrothal does not allow the wife to eat terumah. However, if he is an Israelite he does not disqualify the daughter of a priest from eating terumah. If any of these people were “forbidden from entering the assembly of Israel”, meaning they were mamzerim or netinim or another category of people forbidden from marrying Israelites (see Deuteronomy 22:2-4), they do disqualify the woman from eating terumah.

עיברה לא תאכל – for the fetus does not feed/cause others to eat [Terumah].

If the embryo was miscarried in her womb she may eat. If a priest had intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, she may not eat terumah.
If she gave birth may eat.
A slave disqualifies a woman from eating terumah through intercourse but not as her offspring.
If she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she may eat terumah.
If she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite she may not eat terumah. This section explains how it is that a woman can have a descendent who is a slave but not be disqualified from eating terumah. As a side note, the opening line states that if a woman has intercourse with a slave she is disqualified from eating terumah, since this is forbidden intercourse. If a woman has a son, and the son goes and has intercourse with a slave-woman, the child is a slave. This is because of the matrilineal principle. If the grandmother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, and her husband and son die, the grandson does not bestow upon his grandmother the right to eat terumah. This is because he is not an Israelite. However, if the grandmother was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and her son and husband die, she goes back to her father’s house to eat terumah. Again, the grandson who is not Jewish, does not effect her right to eat terumah.

גדול משל אב – for the man who has sexual intercourse does not sustain [his partner with Terumah] because he did not come upon her for the sake of Kiddushin/Jewish betrothal, and she is not his property/possession but he provides for his son.

It is found that the power of the son is greater than that of the father. How is this so? If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore a son by him, and the son went and had intercourse with a slave-woman who bore a son by him, such a son is a slave;
A mamzer disqualifies a woman from eating terumah and can allow her to eat terumah. How is this so? If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore a daughter by him, and the daughter went and married a slave or a Gentile who bore a son by him, such a son is a mamzer; This section teaches a law that is almost opposite of the last halakhah. If a woman has relations with a mamzer, she is disqualified from eating terumah, because this is forbidden relations. However, if a woman has a mamzer as a grandson, he may cause her to eat terumah. We will now explain. If a woman has a daughter and the daughter goes and is married to a slave or Gentile, the son born of such a marriage is a mamzer. [Note, that this halakhah was not accepted by many sages in the Talmud. Today such a child is not considered a mamzer]. If the grandmother was a daughter of an Israelite and she was married to a priest, and her husband and son die, the grandson does bestow upon his grandmother the right to eat terumah. This is because he is an Israelite, although he is a mamzer. However, if the grandmother was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and her son and husband die, she does goes back to her father’s house to eat terumah. Again, the grandson who is Jewish, does effect her right to eat terumah. In summary the final two sections of this mishnah teach that a grandson who is Jewish can bestow upon his grandmother the right to eat terumah or cause her to lose that right. A mamzer, the child of a Jewish woman and non-Jewish man is Jewish. A non-Jewish grandchild, the child of a slave-woman and a Jewish man, neither gives a woman the right to eat terumah nor causes her to lose it.

העבד פוסל משום ביאה – if he comes upon the daughter of a Kohen, he has disqualified her from consuming Terumah/priest’s due.

ואינו פוסל משום זרע – if she ha seed as the daughter of a Kohen from an Israelite man, it is legitimate.

נכבש – he was pressed and came upon her.

הרי זה עבד – for the daughter of a maid-servanet is like her.

היתה אם אביו בת כהן לישראל תאכל בתרומה – if his father died, even though the child exists, and it is merely aa child who disqualifies; this one does not disqualify for it is not after her father that we judge him, for it is not his seed.

ופוסל את אם אמו – for if it we not him, his grandmother would return to eat Terumah of her father’s home after the death of her daughter, and all the while that he lives, she does not return to Terumah , as it is written (Leviticus 22:13): “[but if the priest’s daughter is widowed or divorced] and without offspring, [and is back in her father’s house as in her youth, she may not eat of her father’s food],” examine – upon her or the daughter of her daughter’s daughter, or the son of his son’s son or the daughter of son’s daughter, until the end of all generations.

Introduction This mishnah introduces the strange case where a woman can have a grandson who is a high priest and that high priest actually disqualifies her from eating terumah.

לא כבני כהן גדול – meaning to say, there should not be man like him in Israel who disqualify me from the Terumah.

A high priest sometimes disqualifies [his mother’s mother] from being able to eat terumah. How is this so? If a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite and she bore a daughter by him, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore a son by him, such a son is fit to be a high priest, to stand and serve at the altar. He allows his mother to eat terumah but disqualifies his mother’s mother. And she can say, “[May there] not be like my grandson the high priest who disqualified me from eating terumah.” If the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite, she loses the right to eat terumah as long as he is alive or she has a descendent through him. When she has a daughter and the daughter goes and marries a priest and has a son the son is a priest and is eligible to become a high priest. If his father dies, his mother may continue to eat terumah, because she has had a son. If his mother also dies, and his grandmother did not have any other children, she does not return to her father’s home (remember her father was a priest) to eat terumah, because she has a grandson through her marriage to the Israelite. Although her grandson might even be a high priest, he still prevents his grandmother from eating terumah. The mishnah then brings up the strange possible complaint of a grandmother, who has a grandson who is the high priest, and yet he disqualifies her from eating terumah. I imagine that if this was my Bubby, she would have gotten over the loss of terumah and just been proud of her grandson!