R. Yehudah b. Bava e R. Yehudah Hakohen testimoniarono della figlia minore [orfana] di un israelita, che sposò un Cohein, che mangia teruma non appena entra nella chupah, anche se non ha ancora avuto relazioni coniugali (vedere 7: 9 ). [Si aggiunge qui che una volta che entra nella chupah, anche se non aveva ancora avuto relazioni coniugali, (potrebbe mangiare terumah). Perché dalla testimonianza precedente, possiamo concludere che mangia teruma solo quando ha avuto relazioni coniugali]. R. Yossi Hakohen e R. Zecharyah ben Hakatzav hanno testimoniato di un minore che è stato preso in pegno [dai gentili] ad Ashkelon e la cui famiglia l'ha "allontanata" (dal matrimonio con un Cohein), e i cui testimoni (per essere stata presa come un impegno) testimoniano che non era stata secreta e non era stata violata—i saggi dissero loro (la famiglia): Se credete (i testimoni) che fosse stata presa come una promessa, allora credete che non fosse stata secreta e non fosse stata violata. E se non credi che non sia stata secreta e non violata, non credi che sia stata presa in pegno. [Ed è solo di questo, su cui i testimoni testimoniano che non era stata violata, che i rabbini dissero—"Credici" e che era stata ingiustamente allontanata dalla sua famiglia. Ma se non avesse avuto testimoni (che non era stata violata), allora una donna che era stata presa in pegno per denaro in un momento in cui i gentili avevano il sopravvento sarebbe vietata a suo marito, un Cohein, se fosse stata preso volontariamente o forzatamente.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
קטנה בת ישראל – and she is an orphan a has been explained at the end of the chapter above (i.e., Eduyot, Chapter 7, Mishnah 9), and he adds here that when she came to get married even though she had not yet engaged in sexual relations, because from the testimony of above (i.e., Eduyot, chapter 7, Mishnah 9), we did not hear/learn that she eats Terumah/priest’s due [if she married a Kohen] other than after she had engaged in sexual relations.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction
Two more testimonies, both of which deal in some way with marital law.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שהורהנה – that she had been deposited as a pledge with idolaters.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Rabbi Judah ben Baba and Rabbi Judah the priest testified concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah as soon as she entered the bridal chamber even though she had not engaged in marital intercourse. According to the Torah when a woman from an Israelite family marries a priest she may eat terumah, food which is normally reserved for the priests. However, the question must be asked, when is the marriage considered valid such that she may eat terumah? Furthermore, this question must also be asked with regards to a minor girl, who was married off by her mother or brother. As we learned in mishnah 7:9, this type of marriage is not valid deoraita (from the Torah) and is only a rabbinic institution. Therefore, if she is not married according to the Torah, when can she eat terumah, a right normally reserved for those married deoraita? [We learned in 7:9 that when married she can eat terumah.] This is an important question, since the penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah is quite harsh (death by the hands of heaven). Our mishnah teaches that she may eat terumah once she has entered the bridal chamber (huppah) even though she has not yet had relations with her husband. She may not eat, however, while she is merely betrothed, a period that could last a year or even more.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ועדיה – those who testified that she had been deposited as a pledge.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatzav testified concerning a young girl who had been taken as collateral (by in Ashkelon, and that her family had distanced her, even though her witnesses testified that she had not secluded herself [with any Man] and that she had not been defiled. The Sages said to them: if you believe that she had been taken as collateral, believe also that she did not seclude herself [with any man] and that she was not defiled; and if you do not believe that she did not seclude herself and that she was not defiled, neither believe that she had been taken as collateral. In the sad case under discussion in this mishnah a girl is taken by gentile debt collectors as security on a debt that a Jewish family owes them. The family, assuming that the girl has been raped by the gentiles, distances themselves from her. This “distancing” means that they refused to marry her (those in the family that would have been eligible to marry her, such as uncles and cousins), even though there was no law that prevented them from doing so. This family distanced her even though she had witnesses who testified that she had not been so much as secluded with a gentile, let alone raped. The Sages respond to this family that their position vis-a-vis the girl is illogical. If they believed the witnesses that she had been taken as collateral, then they must believe the same witnesses who testify that she had not been raped. If they don’t believe the witnesses that she had not been raped, then they shouldn’t believe them that she had been taken in the first place. The Sages do not tolerate the family’s overly stringent and extremely cruel position. While the Sages did believe that under certain circumstances, a girl who had been raped could no longer marry certain men (priests), they did not seek to compound this difficult situation by assuming that this had happened when witnesses testify explicitly that it had not. The family’s distancing the girl is a case of a stringency run amok, and one against which the Sages rightly put down their halakhic feet.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
האמינו שלא נסתרה ושלא נטמאה – and specifically to this one that her witnesses testify about her that she had been defiled, It is this that the Rabbis said that they believed her, for not according to the law did the members of her family distance her from them. But if she doesn’t have witnesses, any woman detained through money at the time when the idolaters are in power, she is prohibited for a Kohen to engage in sexual relations with her. There is no difference whether she was deposited as a pledge or whether she had been detained/imprisoned.
