Talmud do Edujot 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 ur. Bava i R. Yehudah Ha-Kohen zeznali o nieletniej córce [sierocie] Izraelity, która poślubiła Coheina, że zjada terumę, gdy tylko wchodzi do chupy, mimo że nie miała jeszcze związków małżeńskich (zob. 7: 9 ). [Dodaje się tutaj, że kiedy wchodzi do chupy, mimo że nie miała jeszcze stosunków małżeńskich (może jeść terumah). Z poprzedniego świadectwa można bowiem wywnioskować, że terumah zjada tylko wtedy, gdy pozostaje w związku małżeńskim]. R. Yossi Hakohen i R. Zecharyah ben Hakatzav zeznali o nieletniej, która została przyjęta jako przysięga [przez nieżydów] w Aszkelonie i której rodzina „zdystansowała” ją (od małżeństwa z Coheinem) i którego świadkowie (zostali zabrani jako zastaw) zeznają, że nie została utajniona i nie została naruszona—mędrcy rzekli do nich (rodziny): Jeśli wierzycie (świadkom), że została wzięta w zastaw, to wierzcie, że nie została tajemnicą i nie została naruszona. A jeśli nie wierzycie, że nie została skryta i nie została naruszona, to nie wierzcie, że została przyjęta jako zastaw. [I tylko o tej, o której świadkowie świadczą, że nie została zgwałcona, rabini powiedzieli—„Wierz jej” i że została niesłusznie zdystansowana przez rodzinę. Ale jeśli nie miała świadków (że nie została zgwałcona), to kobiecie, która została wzięta jako zastaw za pieniądze w czasie, gdy Gojowie mieli przewagę, nie wolno jej mężowi, Coheinowi, czy była wzięte dobrowolnie lub przymusowo.]

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

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset