💍 Mishnah Yevamot 7

אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה, עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יֹאכֵלוּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג, אִם מֵתוּ, מֵתוּ לָהּ, וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ, הוֹתִירוּ לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתָן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, אִם מֵתוּ, מֵתוּ לוֹ, וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ, הוֹתִירוּ לוֹ. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה:

A widow married to a High Priest, and a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest are all unions prohibited by Torah law. If one of these women brought with her into the marriage slaves of usufruct [melog] property or slaves of guaranteed investment, then the slaves of usufruct property do not partake of teruma but the slaves of guaranteed investment do partake of teruma. And these are slaves of usufruct property: They are those with regard to whom the couple stipulated that if the slaves die, their death is her loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is her gain. Although the husband is obligated in their sustenance, they do not partake of teruma, as they belong to her, not to him. He owns only the right of their use while he is married to her. And these are slaves of guaranteed investment: They are those with regard to whom the couple stipulated that if they die, their death is his loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is his gain. Since he bears financial responsibility for compensating her in the event of their loss, they partake of teruma, as they are considered his property.

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:

In the case of an Israelite woman who married a priest in a halakhic marriage and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they partake of teruma. And in the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they do not partake of teruma, although, as she is the daughter of a priest, it is permitted for her and her slaves to partake of teruma beforehand.

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּסֵּת לְכֹהֵן, וּמֵת, וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַּתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עֻבָּר, שֶׁהָעֻבָּר פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵעַדְתָּ לָנוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, אַף בַּת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, וּמֵת, וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עֻבָּר:

With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves of guaranteed investment may not partake of teruma during her pregnancy, due to the share of the fetus, as an inheritor of his father, in the ownership of the slaves. In the opposite case, where the Israelite husband of a priest’s daughter died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. However, in the current case, the fetus does not enable its mother or the slaves to partake of teruma, despite the fact that it is the child of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. The Rabbis said to him: Since you testified before us about the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest, in the case of the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves should not partake of teruma either, due to the fetus’s share. The same halakha should apply whether the woman is an Israelite or the daughter of a priest.

הָעֻבָּר, וְהַיָּבָם, וְהָאֵרוּסִין, וְהַחֵרֵשׁ, וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין. סָפֵק שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ, סָפֵק הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא, נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בַּת אָחִיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת:

With regard to the fetus of a divorcée or a widow whose husband left her pregnant; and a man whose married brother died childless [yavam]; and betrothal; and a married deaf-mute; and a nine-year-and-one-day-old boy who engaged in intercourse with a woman; if any of these men are Israelites and the woman is the daughter of a priest, they disqualify her from partaking of teruma. But if she is an Israelite and they are priests, they do not enable her to partake of teruma. Likewise, in the case of a boy with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is nine years and one day old and uncertainty whether he is not, who engaged in intercourse with a woman; and in the case of a boy who betrothed a woman, with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether he has grown two pubic hairs and is considered an adult and uncertainty whether he has not grown, they too can disqualify the woman from partaking of teruma and cannot enable her to partake, as in the previous cases. If the house fell upon a man and upon his brother’s daughter, to whom he was married, and it is unknown which of them died first, her rival wife performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage. Entering into levirate marriage is not possible, as, if the wife died after her husband, the surviving wife would be rendered the rival wife of a forbidden relative, since the yavam is the father of the wife who died. This status prevents the creation of a levirate bond between him and the surviving wife as well. On the other hand, ḥalitza is necessary in case the wife died before her husband, thereby allowing the creation of a levirate bond between her rival wife and her father, the yavam.

הָאוֹנֵס, וְהַמְפַתֶּה, וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה, לֹא פוֹסְלִים וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִים. וְאִם אֵינָם רְאוּיִין לָבֹא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פוֹסְלִין. כֵּיצַד, יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן, תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. עִבְּרָה, לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. נֶחְתַּךְ הָעֻבָּר בְּמֵעֶיהָ, תֹּאכַל. כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. עִבְּרָה, לֹא תֹאכַל. יָלְדָה, תֹּאכַל. נִמְצָא כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן גָּדוֹל מִשֶּׁל אָב. הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה, וְאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם זָרַע. כֵּיצַד, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵן, וְהָלַךְ הַבֵּן וְנִכְבַּשׁ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵן, הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד. הָיְתָה אֵם אָבִיו בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. כֵּיצַד, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִשֵּׂאת לְעֶבֶד, אוֹ לְגוֹי, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵן, הֲרֵי זֶה מַמְזֵר. הָיְתָה אֵם אִמּוֹ בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, תֹּאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה:

In the case of one who rapes a woman without marrying her; or one who seduces a woman without marrying her; or an imbecile who engages in intercourse with a woman, even if he did marry her, if they are non-priests they do not disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma, and if they are priests they do not enable an Israelite woman to partake of teruma. And if they are not fit to enter the assembly of Israel through marriage, they disqualify the daughter of a priest from partaking of teruma. How so? If it was an Israelite who engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma, as this act of intercourse does not disqualify her. If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e., she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does. A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her offspring. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her offspring? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter’s father’s mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father’s offspring. A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving offspring from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband’s death, as she has offspring from him.

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל. כֵּיצַד, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִסֵּת לְכֹהֵן, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵן, הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַאֲכִיל אֶת אִמּוֹ וּפוֹסֵל אֶת אֵם אִמּוֹ, וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, לֹא כִבְנִי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה:

Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother’s mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her offspring from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter’s son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.