But does not the commandment apply to women? Surely, R. Aha b. R. Kattina related in the name of R. Isaac: It once happened in the case of a woman who was half slave and half free, that her master was compelled to emancipate her!2 R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: People were taking liberties with her.3
MISHNAH. IF A WIDOW [WHO MARRIED] A HIGH PRIEST,4 OR IF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH [WHO MARRIED] A COMMON PRIEST BROUGHT IN TO HER HUSBAND MELOG5 SLAVES AND ZON BARZEL5 SLAVES. THE MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH BUT THE ZON BARZEL SLAVES MAY EAT OF IT.6
THE FOLLOWING ARE MELOG SLAVES: THOSE WHO, IF THEY DIE, ARE THE WIFE'S7 LOSS AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE HER PROFIT. THOUGH IT IS THE HUSBAND'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN THEM, THEY MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH.6
THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES: IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE A PROFIT TO HIM. SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM,8 THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH.
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 ZON BARZEL SLAVES.6 IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, HOWEVER, WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH WHETHER THEY ARE MELOG SLAVES OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.6
GEMARA. And MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH! What is the reason? Let them rather be regarded as a possession that was acquired by one in his possession [who is permitted to eat terumah]. for it was taught: Whence is it deduced that the wife whom a priest married or the slaves which he purchased may eat terumah.? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul the purchase of his money, he may eat of it.9 And whence is it deduced that if a woman10 purchased slaves11 or if a priest's slaves purchased12 other slaves, these may eat terumah? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it;9 a possession which his possession has acquired may eat!13 — Whosoever may himself eat may confer the right of eating upon others but whosoever may not himself eat may not confer the right of eating upon others.14 May he not, indeed?15 There is, surely, the case of16 an uncircumcised man and that of all levitically unclean persons who may not themselves eat terumah and yet confer the right of eating it upon others!17 — In those cases18 they are merely suffering pain in their mouths.19 But there is, surely, the case of16 the bastard20 Who may not eat terumah himself21 and yet may confer the right of eating it upon others!22 — Rabina replied. He speaks of an acquisition23 that is permitted to eat: Any acquisition that may eat may confer the right of eating upon others, and any acquisition that may not eat may not confer the right upon others.
Raba, however, stated24 that pentateuchally they23 may in fact eat terumah; but it is the Rabbis who instituted the prohibition in order that the woman might complain, 'I am not allowed to eat; my slaves are not allowed to eat; I am only his mistress!', in consequence of which he would be likely to divorce her. R. Ashi stated:24 The prohibition is a preventive measure against the possibility of her feeding them25 with terumah after the death [of her husband].26 Now, then,27 a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest should also be forbidden to feed [her melog slaves with terumah] as a preventive measure against her feeding them after [her husband's] death!28 — But, said R. Ashi, [our Mishnah refers to] a priestly widow29 who30 might draw the following conclusion:31 'At first32 they33 ate terumah at my paternal home;34 and when I married this man35 they33 ate36 of the terumah of my husband; they33 should now,37 therefore, revert to their former condition',38 and she would not know that at first39 she had not made of herself a profaned woman40 while now41 she has made herself a profaned woman.40 This explanation is quite satisfactory in the case of a priestly widow;42 what explanations however, is there in the case of a widow who is the daughter of an Israelite?43 — The Rabbis made no distinction between one widow and another.44
It was stated: If a wife: who brought to her husband45 appraised goods,46 demands,47 'I will accept only my own goods',48 and he replies 'I am only paying their value'49 — in whose favour is judgment to be given? Rab Judah said:
Judgment is to be given in her favour;1 and R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour. 'Rab Judah said: Judgment is to be given in her favour because [they represent] assets of her paternal property [which] belong to her. R. Ammi said: Judgment is to be given in his favour' for, as the Master said, [THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES:] IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES — ARE A PROFIT TO HIM; [AND] SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH [they are therefore obviously regarded as his own].2 R. Safra said: Was it stated, 'and they belong to him? The statements surely. only reads, SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! In fact, then, they may not belong to him at all. But [is it a fact that] those for whom he3 is responsible invariably eat terumah? Surely we learned: An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest may feed her on vetches of terumah. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, though it is his duty to supply her with food,4 must not feed her on vetches of terumah!5 — How could you understand it thus! Granted that he is liable for theft or loss, is he also liable for accidents, emaciation or reduction In value!6 [The case7 in our Mishnah], surely, can only be compared to that in the final clause:8 An Israelite who hired a cow from a priest, guaranteeing him its appraised value,9 may not feed it on vetches of terumah. A priest, however, who hired a cow from an Israelite, guaranteeing him its appraised value,9 may feed it on vetches of terumah.10
Rabbah and R. Joseph were sitting at their studies at the conclusion of R. Nahman's school session, and in the course of their sitting they made the following statement: [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah; and [another Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi. ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Ammi': Zon barzel slaves procure their freedom when the man,11 but not when the woman [struck out] a tooth or an eye.12 ['A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with Rab Judah': If a wife brought in to her husband appraised goods,13 the husband may not sell them even if it is his desire to do so.14 Furthermore, even if he brought in to her appraised goods of his own,15 he may not sell them even if he desired to do so. If either16 of them sold [any of the appraised goods] for their maintenance. Such an incident was once dealt with by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled that the husband17 may seize them from the buyers.18
Raba19 stated in the name of R. Nahman: The law is in agreement with Rab Judah. Said Raba to R. Nahman: But surely [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi! Although [a Baraitha] was taught in agreement with R. Ammi, Rab Judah's view is more logical, since any asset of a woman's paternal property [should rightly belong to her].
A woman once brought20 in to her husband a robe of fine wool [which was appraised and included] in her kethubah. When the man died it was taken by the orphans and spread over the corpse. Raba ruled that the corpse had acquired it.21
Said Nanai son of R. Joseph son of Raba to R. Kahana: But, surely, Raba22 stated in the name of R. Nahman that the law is in agreement with Rab Judah!23 The other replied: Does not Rab Judah admit that the robe had still to be collected [by the wife]?24 Since it had still to be collected it remained in the husband's possession.25 [In this ruling] Raba acted in accordance with his view [elsewhere expressed]. For Raba stated:26 Consecration,26 leavened food,26 and
- To Next Folio -