Thus we have found [the law concerning] the daughter of a priest;3 whence, however, [is the law concerning] the daughter of a Levite and of an Israelite to be inferred? — As R. Abba stated in the name of Rab [that deduction is made from the Scriptural use of] 'And a daughter', [where only] 'daughter' [could have been used],4 so here also [deduction is made from the use of] 'And a daughter', [where only] 'daughter' could have been used.5 In accordance with whose view?6 Is it only in accordance with that of R. Akiba, who bases expositions on [superfluous] Wawin!7 — It8 may be said to have been made even according to the view of the Rabbis, because the entire [Scriptural expression] And a daughter9 is a superfluous text.10 But might it be suggested that in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood and divorce is possible,11 [the woman]12 may eat terumah if she13 has no children,14 and may not eat if she has children, but in the case of a man in relation to whom widowhood and divorce are not possible15 she may eat terumah even if she13 has children?16 — If so,17 what need was there to include the daughter of a Levite and of an Israelite!18
According to R. Akiba, however, who stated that betrothal with those whose intercourse involves the penalty of a negative commandment has no validity and that the meaning of19 If … be married20 to a strange man21 is 'if she cohabits',22 what need was there23 [for] 'widow or divorced'?24 — The widow was stated25 in order to restrict her privilege;26 and the divorced woman, in order to relax her restrictions.27 And [both28 were] required. For had only the widow been mentioned it might have been assumed that only a widow may eat terumah if she has no children because she is eligible to marry a priests but, a divorced woman who is ineligible to marry a priest may not eat it even if she has no children. And had the divorced woman only been mentioned it might have been suggested that only a divorced woman may not eat terumah if she has children because she is ineligible to marry a priest, but a widow who is eligible to marry a priest may eat it even if she has children. [Hence both were] necessary.
Might it not be suggested [that the statement], 'She had connubial relations with a disqualified person'29 refers also to one who remarried his divorced wife!30 — The All Merciful said, To a strange man, only one who was formerly a stranger to her.31 Her former husband32 is excluded since he was not formerly a stranger to her.
If so, a halal,33 who is not a stranger34 to her,35 should not cause her disqualification! Scripture stated, He shall not profane his seed among his people;36 'his seed'37 is compared to himself, as he disqualifies38 so does his seed disqualify.39
Might it be suggested [that the disqualification40 is effected] from the moment of betrothal?41 — [His case42 must be] similar to that of a High Priest with a widow. As a High Priest, in the case of a widow, [causes her disqualification] by cohabitation only,43 so does this [person44 cause disqualification] by cohabitation only.
Might it be suggested [that disqualification40 is effected] only where there was betrothal as well as cohabitation? — His case42 must be similar to that of a High Priest with a widow. As the High Priest, [when he marries] a widow, [causes her disqualification] by cohabitation alone45 so does this [person46 cause disqualification] by cohabitation alone.
'R. Jose however said: 'Anyone whose children are disqualified causes disqualification, but he whose children are not disqualified does not cause disqualification'. What is the practical difference between the first Tanna and R. Jose? — R. Johanan replied: The difference between them is the case of an Egyptian proselyte of the second generation and an Idumean proselyte of the second generation.47 And both of them48 deduced their respective views from none other than [the disqualification] of a widow by a High Priest. The first Tanna reasons: As a High Priest whose cohabitation with a widow is forbidden causes her disqualification, so does this person49 also cause disqualification. R. Jose, however, reasons thus: Like a High Priest. As a High Priest whose seed is disqualified causes disqualification, so does any other person cause disqualification only when his seed is disqualified; an Egyptian proselyte of the second generation is thus excluded, since his children are not disqualified, for it is written, The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the Lord.50
'R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whenever you may marry his daughter, you may marry his widow etc.' What is the practical difference between R. Jose and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? 'Ullah replied: The difference between them is the case of an Ammonite and a Moabite proselyte.51 And both of them52 derived their respective views from none other than [the disqualification] of a widow by a High Priest. R. Jose reasons thus: As with a High Priest who married a widow, his seed is disqualified and he himself causes disqualification, so does any other person cause disqualification only when his seed is disqualified. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, reasons thus: As with a High Priest who married, a widow, all his seed53 is disqualified and he himself causes disqualification, so does only such a person cause disqualification, all whose seed is disqualified; an Ammonite and a Moabite are, therefore, excluded since not all their seed are disqualified.54 For a Master said: An Ammonite,55 but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite,55 but not a Moabitess.56
MISHNAH. THE VIOLATOR, THE SEDUCER AND THE IMBECILE57 CAN NEITHER DEPRIVE A WOMAN58 OF THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH NOR CAN THEY BESTOW THE RIGHT UPON HER.59 IF THEY ARE, HOWEVER, UNFIT TO ENTER INTO THE ASSEMBLY OF ISRAEL60 THEY DO DEPRIVE A WOMAN58 OF HER RIGHT TO THE EATING OF TERUMAH.61 HOW? IF62 AN ISRAELITE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST63 SHE MAY STILL CONTINUE TO EAT TERUMAH.
IF SHE BECOMES PREGNANT SHE MAY NO LONGER EAT TERUMAH.1 IF THE EMBRYO WAS CUT IN HER WOMB SHE MAY EAT.2 IF3 A PRIEST HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. [EVEN IF] SHE BECOMES PREGNANT SHE MAY NOT EAT.4 IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD SHE MAY EAT.5 THE POWER OF THE SON IS THUS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE FATHER.6
A SLAVE, BY HIS COHABITATION, DEPRIVES A WOMAN7 OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH8 BUT NOT AS HER OFFSPRING.9 HOW? — 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 VIOLATED A BONDWOMAN WHO BORE A SON BY HIM, SUCH A SON IS A SLAVE;10 AND IF HIS FATHER'S MOTHER WAS AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH;11 BUT IF SHE WAS A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER AND MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH.12
A BASTARD DEPRIVES A WOMAN13 OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH AND ALSO BESTOWS THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER.14 HOW? IF AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST OR A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, AND SHE BORE A DAUGHTER BY HIM, AND THE DAUGHTER WENT AND MARRIED A SLAVE OR AN IDOLATER AND BORE A SON BY HIM, SUCH A SON IS A BASTARD; AND IF HIS MOTHER'S MOTHER WAS AN ISRAELITE'S DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH; BUT IF SHE WAS A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH.
A HIGH PRIEST SOMETIMES DEPRIVES A WOMAN13 OF HER RIGHT TO EAT TERUMAH. HOW? 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 MINISTER AT THE ALTAR. HE ALSO BESTOWS UPON HIS MOTHER,15 THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH, BUT DEPRIVES16 HIS MOTHER'S MOTHER17 OF THIS PRIVILEGE. THE LATTER18 CAN RIGHTLY SAY, '[MAY THERE] NOT [BE ANOTHER] LIKE MY GRANDSON THE HIGH PRIEST WHO DEPRIVES ME OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH.
IF AN ISRAELITE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST SHE MAY STILL CONTINUE TO EAT TERUMAH. IF SHE BECOMES PREGNANT SHE MAY NO LONGER EAT. Since she may not eat when she is definitely with child, precaution should be taken against the possibility that she might be with child!21 Did we not learn, 'They22 must be kept apart23 for three months, since it is possible that they are pregnant'?24 Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: In respect of genealogy25 precautions were taken;26 in respect of terumah no such precautions were considered necessary. But was no such precaution considered necessary in respect of terumah? Surely, it was taught: [If a priest said]27 'Here is your letter of divorce [which shall become effective] one hour before my death', she is forbidden to eat terumah at once!28 — In fact,29 said Rabbah son of R. Huna, precautions were taken in respect of legitimate marriage,30 but in respect of illegitimate intercourse31 no such precaution was considered necessary.32 But was such precaution, taken in respect of legitimate marriage? Surely, it was taught: If a priest's daughter was married to an Israelite who died,33 she may perform her ritual immersion34 and eat terumah the same evening!35 — R. Hisda replied: She performs the immersion but may eat terumah only until the fortieth day. For if she is not found pregnant36 she never was pregnant;37 and if she is found pregnant,38 the semen, until the fortieth day, is only a mere fluid.39 Said Abaye to him: If so,40 read the final clause: If the embryo in her womb can be distinguished she is considered to have committed an offence41 retrospectively!42 — The meaning is that43 she is considered to have committed an offence41 retrospectively44 to the fortieth day.45
It was stated: Where a man cohabited with his betrothed in the house of his [future] father-in-law, Rab said: The child is a bastard; and Samuel said: The child is a shethuki.46 Raba said: Rab's view is reasonable in the case where the betrothed woman was suspected of illicit relations with strangers.47 Where, however, she is not suspected of illicit relations with strangers the child is ascribed to him.48 Said Raba: Whence do I infer this? From the statement, IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD SHE MAY EAT. For how is this to be understood? If it be suggested to refer to a woman who is suspected of illicit relations with strangers, why should she be allowed to eat terumah when she bore a child!49 Consequently it must refer to a woman50 who was suspected of illicit relations with him only but not with strangers. Now, if there51 where she is forbidden to the one as well as to the other,52 the child is regarded as his53 how much more so54 here55 where she is forbidden to all other men and permitted to him. Said Abaye to him: It may still be maintained that Rab is of the opinion that wherever she is suspected of illicit relations with him,56 the child is deemed to be a bastard even where she is not suspected of such relations with others. What is the reason? Because it is assumed that as she exposed herself to the man who betrothed her so she exposed herself to others also; but our Mishnah57 deals with the case where both of them58 were imprisoned in the same gaol.59
Others say: Where he56 cohabited with her, no one disputes that the child is regarded as his; but the statement made was in the following form. Where a betrothed woman became pregnant, Rab ruled: Such a child is a bastard; and Samuel ruled: The child is a shethuki.60 Raba said: Rab's view is reasonable where the woman was not suspected of illicit relations with him,56 but was suspected of such relations with others,61
- To Next Folio -