, but where she is suspected of illicit relations with him, the child is regarded as his, although she is also suspected of such relations with others. Said Raba: Whence do I derive 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 him but not with strangers, was it at all necessary to state that she may eat terumah?1 Consequently it must refer to a woman2 who was suspected of illicit relations with strangers also. Now, if there,3 where she is forbidden to the one as well as to the other,4 the child is regarded as his,5 how much more so6 here7 where she is forbidden to any other man and is permitted to him.8 Said Abaye to him: It may still be maintained that Rab is of the opinion that wherever she is suspected of illicit relations with strangers the child is deemed to be a bastard even if she is also suspected of such relations with him; and our Mishnah deals with one who had not been suspected at all.9
A BASTARD DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH AND ALSO BESTOWS THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER. Our Rabbis taught: And have no child.13 So far I only know14 of her own child; whence her child's child? It was consequently stated, And have no child,13 implying 'any child whatsoever'.15 So far I only know of a legitimate child; whence the illegitimate child? It was stated, And have no [en lah]16 child,13 which implies, 'hold an enquiry17 concerning her.'18 But from this text,13 surely, the deduction concerning a child's child was made! — No Scriptural text is really required for the inclusion of one's child's child, since children's children are like children;19 if a text is at all required it is for the inclusion of an illegitimate child.
Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: In accordance with whose view?20 Is it only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who maintains that the offspring of a union between such whose intercourse involves them in the penalty of a negative precept is regarded as a bastard!21 — It may even be said to represent the view of the Rabbis, since in respect of an idolater and a slave they agree.22 For when R. Dimi came23 he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abdimi in the name of our Master:24 If an idolater or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite, the child born from such a union is deemed a bastard.
A HIGH PRIEST SOMETIMES DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF HER RIGHT. Our Rabbis taught: [The grandmother might justly say], 'I would [willingly] be an atonement25 for my grandson, the little cruse26 who bestows upon me the privilege of eating terumah,27 but would not be an atonement for my grandson, the big jar28 who deprives me of the privilege of eating terumah.27
MISHNAH. AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]29 AND ALL LEVITICALLY UNCLEAN PERSONS MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. THEIR WIVES AND SLAVES, HOWEVER, MAY EAT TERUMAH.30 [A PRIEST WHO IS] WOUNDED IN HIS STONES31 AND ONE WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF,32 AS WELL AS THEIR SLAVES, MAY EAT TERUMAH, BUT THEIR WIVES MAY NOT.33 IF, HOWEVER, NO COHABITATION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MAN WAS WOUNDED OR HAD HIS MEMBRUM CUT OFF, THE WIVES34 ARE PERMITTED TO EAT.35
WHO IS TERMED A PEZU' A DAKKAH?31 A MAN WHO IS WOUNDED EITHER IN BOTH HIS STONES, OR EVEN ONLY IN ONE OF THEM. AND A KERUTH SHOFEKAH? A MAN WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF. IF, HOWEVER, [ANY PART] OF THE CORONA REMAINED, EVEN SO MUCH AS A HAIR'S BREADTH, THE MAN IS REGARDED AS FIT.
GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer36 stated, Whence is it deduced that an uncircumcised [priest] may not eat terumah? A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb,37 and A sojourner and a hired servant were also mentioned in respect of terumah,38 as the paschal lamb, in connection with which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised,39 so is terumah, in respect of which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised. R. Akiba stated: This deduction is unnecessary. Since it was stated, What man soever,40 the uncircumcised also is included.41
The Master said, 'R. Eliezer stated, "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb, and "A sojourner and a hired servant" were also mentioned in respect of terumah,'42 as the paschal lamb, in connection with which "A sojourner and a hired servant" were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so is terumah, in respect of which "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised'. Is it43 free for deduction?44 For if it is not free, the objection might be raised45 that the paschal lamb may be different46 since in connection with it one may also incur penalties47 for pigul,48 nothar48 and uncleanness!49 — It is certainly free for the deduction. Which expression50 is free? Is it that of terumah? Surely it is required for its own purpose. For it was taught: A sojourner51 means one who is acquired for life52 and a hired servant51 means one who is acquired for a number of years.53 But let 'sojourner' only be mentioned and a 'hired servant' be omitted and one would infer: If one who is acquired for life54 is not permitted to eat terumah how much less one who is acquired only for a number of years! If so,55 it might have been assumed that 'a sojourner' means one who is acquired for a number of years [and that only he may not eat terumah],56 but that one who is acquired for life may eat,57 hence the insertion of the expression, 'a hired servant', which explains the meaning of sojourner,58 [viz.,] that it signifies one who, though acquired for life, may not eat!59 — But [in fact] the one60 mentioned in respect of the paschal lamb is free for deduction. For what could be the meaning of 'A sojourner and a hired servant' which the All Merciful wrote in connection with the paschal lamb?61 If it be suggested that it means the actual sojourner and hired servant,62 [could it have been imagined] that [an Israelite]63 is exempt from the Paschal lamb because he is a sojourner or a hired servant? Surely, we have it as an established law in regard to terumah that such a person is not permitted to eat it,64
which proves1 that his master does not acquire his person2 so that here also3 his master does not acquire his person!4 [The expression]5 must consequently [have been written] for the purpose of the deduction.6
But is it7 not free in one direction only,8 while R. Eliezer9 was heard to state [that an analogy between expressions of which only] one10 is free11 may be drawn, but may also be refuted!12 — Since [the expressions]13 are not required [for their own context]14 one of them is allotted to the law15 in respect of which the inference is made16 and the other is allotted to the law from which the inference is made,17 so that a word analogy is obtained which is free in both directions.
Might18 [not the deduction be made:]19 As the paschal lamb is forbidden to an onan20 so is terumah forbidden to an onan21 — R. Jose son of R. Hanina replied: Scripture stated, 'There shall no common man,22 I commanded you concerning its prohibition to the common man23 but not concerning that of the onan. But might it be suggested: But not the uncircumcised!24 Surely 'A sojourner and a hired servant'25 was written.26 And what reason do you see?27 — It is logical to infer that the case of the uncircumcised is to be included, since28 it involves the absence of an act29 and that act is one affecting the man's own body; [the uncircumcised] is punishable by kareth;30 the law29 was in force before the Revelation;31 and the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars [one from eating of the paschal lamb].32 On the contrary; the case of the onan should have been included,33 since mourning is an ever- present possibility,34 is common to men as well as to women, and no man has the power to cure himself of it!35 — Those36 are more in number.
Raba said: Even if those36 were not more in number, you could not suggest that uncircumcision, which is actually mentioned in respect of the Paschal lamb, should be excluded37 while the mourning of an onan, which in the case of the paschal lamb itself was deduced from that of the tithe,38 should be deduced from it.
Might39 [it not be said:]40 As the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating of the paschal lamb, so should the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debar one from the eating of terumah! — Scripture stated, When thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof,41 the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating thereof, of the Paschal lamb only; the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves does not, however, debar one from the eating of terumah. If so,42 [why not] say, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof43 [also implies:] He may not eat 'thereof' only but may eat terumah!44 — Surely it was written A sojourner and a hired servant.45 And what reason do you see?46 — It is only logical to include a man's own circumcision, since the act is performed on his own person and its neglect is punishable by kareth. On the contrary; the circumcision of one's male children and slaves should have been excluded because it may occur at any time! — The former restrictions are more in number. And if you prefer I might say that even if those were not more in number your suggestion could not be entertained; for is there anything which is not debarred by his own state of uncircumcision but is debarred by that of the other!
- To Next Folio -