Monday, July 09, 2007

Rif Yevamot 23a {67b; 69a} Denying and Bestowing the Right to Eat Terumah

23a

{Yevamot 67b}
Mishna:

העובר והיבם והאירוסין והחרש ובן ט' שנים ויום אחד פוסלין ולא מאכילין
ספק שהוא בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ספק שאינו בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ספק שהביא שתי שערות ספק לא הביא נפל הבית עליו ועל בת אחיו ואין ידוע אי זה מת ראשון צרתה חולצת ולא מתיבמת:
The fetus, the yavam {brother-in-law}, betrothal, the deaf-mute, and a boy who is 9 years and a day invalidate and do not feed {teruma}.
{even} If it is a doubt whether he is 9 years and a day or not 9 years and a day; a doubt whether he brought forth two hairs or did not bring forth.

If the house fell upon him and on his brother's sisters and it is not known which of them died first, her rival undergoes chalita and not yibbum.

Gemara:
האי עובר אי בת כהן לישראל הוא פוסל לה כנעוריה פרט למעוברת
אי בת ישראל לכהן היא לא מאכיל לה ילוד מאכיל שאינו ילוד אינו מאכיל

This fetus, for she {the mother} is the daughter of a kohen, he invalidates her, {as is written in Vayikra 22:13}
יג וּבַת-כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ--וְשָׁבָה אֶל-בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ, מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל; וְכָל-זָר, לֹא-יֹאכַל בּוֹ. 13 But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread; but there shall no common man eat thereof.
to the exclusion of a pregnant woman.
If she is the daughter of an Israelite {who was married } to a kohen, he does not bestow upon her the right to eat {terumah}, for a born child bestows the right to eat, while an unborn child does not bestow the right to eat.

{derived from two pesukim earlier:
יא וְכֹהֵן, כִּי-יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ--הוּא, יֹאכַל בּוֹ; וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ, הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ. 11 But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread.
}

והיבם אי בת כהן לישראל היא פוסל לה ושבה אל בית אביה פרט לשומרת יבם
אי בת ישראל לכהן היא לא מאכיל לה קנין כספו אמר רחמנא והאי קנין דאחיו הוא

"And the yavam {brother-in-law}", if she is the daughter of a kohen {who was married} to an Israelite, he {the yavam} invalidates her, for same pasuk:
יג וּבַת-כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ--וְשָׁבָה אֶל-בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ, מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל; וְכָל-זָר, לֹא-יֹאכַל בּוֹ. 13 But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread; but there shall no common man eat thereof.
to the exclusion of the one waiting for her brother-in-law {to perform yibbum or chalitza}.
If she is the daughter of an Israelite {who had been married} to a kohen, he {the yavam} does not feed her {while she is yet a yevama}, for

יא וְכֹהֵן, כִּי-יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ--הוּא, יֹאכַל בּוֹ; וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ, הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ. 11 But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread.
{stress the word "his"}
says the All-Merciful, and this one is the "acquisition" of his brother.

והאירוסין אי בת כהן לישראל היא פסיל לה דקני דכי תהיה אמר רחמנא והא קניה בהא הויה
אי בת ישראל לכהן היא לא מאכיל מאי טעמא משום דעולא דאמר דבר תורה ארוסה בת ישראל לכהן אוכלת בתרומה ומה טעם אמרו אינה אוכלת בתרומה שמא ימזגו לה כוס בבית חמיה ותשקה לאחיה ולאחיותיה:
"And betrothal", if she is the daughter of a kohen {who had been married} to an Israelite, it {betrothal to another person} invalidates her,
{Yevamot 68a}
since he {the non-kohen who betrothed her} "acquired her," for {same perek}
יב וּבַת-כֹּהֵן--כִּי תִהְיֶה, לְאִישׁ זָר: הִוא, בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל. 12 And if a priest's daughter be married unto a common man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things.
stated the All-Merciful, and he has acquired in her having her. {parallel to tihyeh}.
If she is the daughter of an Israelite {who was now betrothed} to a kohen, he does not bestow upon her the right to eat. What is the reason? Because of that of Ulla, who said that Biblically, the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a kohen may eat terumah, and for what reason did they {Rabbinically} say that she does not eat of teruma? Lest she mix for herself a cup while in her father's house {where she dwells after all during betrothal} and give her brother or sister to drink.

והחרש אי בת כהן לישראל היא פסל לה דהא קנייה בתקנתא דרבנן אי בת ישראל לכהן היא לא מאכיל לה קנין כספו אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר קנין הוא:
"And the deaf-mute," if she is the daughter of a kohen who married an Israelite {who is a deaf-mute}, he invalidates her, for he acquired her by Rabbinic enactment.
If she is the daughter of an Israelite who married a kohen {who is a deaf-mute}, he cannot feed her {teruma}, for {in terms of marriage allowing feeding teruma} the All-Merciful said {in Vayikra 22:11}:
יא וְכֹהֵן, כִּי-יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ--הוּא, יֹאכַל בּוֹ; וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ, הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ. 11 But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread.
and this one {the deaf-mute} is not someone capable of making an acquisition.

בן תשע שנים ויום אחד קא סלקא דעתין ביבם בן תשע למאי אי למיפסל קטן בן יומו נמי פסיל אי להאכיל גדול נמי לא מאכיל
אמר רבא בן תשע שנים ויום אחד דהנך פסולין קתני דפסלי בביאתן
כדתניא בן תשע שנים ויום אחד עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי כותי נתין חלל וממזר שבאו על הכהנת ועל הלויה ועל בת ישראל פסלוה
והא מדקתני סיפא אם אינן ראויין לבא בישראל הרי אלו פסולין מכלל דרישא לאו בפסולין עסקינן
רישא פסולי כהונה סיפא פסולי קהל
פירוש קתני רישא להני פסולין גבי העובר והיבם וחביריו לפסול את הכהנות מן התרומה וקתני להו סיפא לפסול את הקהל מלינשא לכהונה:
"A boy nine-years and a day," it entered their minds that this was dealing with a yavam {brother-in-law} who was 9 years. To what end? If to invalidate, a child even a day also invalidates {if present as a yavam}. If to feed, an adult also cannot feed!
Rava said: A boy 9 years and a day in this case that invalidate means that they invalidate with their intercourse.
As they learnt {in a brayta}: A boy 9 years and a day, whether an Ammonite, Moabite, Egyptian, or Edomite {convert}, Cuthean, Netin {i.e. a Gibeonite convert}, a chalal, or a bastard who had intercourse with a female kohen, a female Levite, or a female Israelite, he invalidates her.
And this that it stated in the final clause {in a later Mishna, on 69a} "if they are unfit to enter into the community of Israel {via marriage} they render her unfit {following our gemara: poslin, rather than psulin, which is the printed text of Rif}, we may derive that in the first clause, we are not dealing with unfit people {pesulin}. The first clause is dealing with those unfit to marry the priesthood, while the final clause is dealing with those unfit to enter into the assembly {of Israel}. {Note: in our gemara, the first and final clauses are assigned the opposite roles - the first clause about those unfit to enter the assembly, etc.}

To explain: it taught in the first clause {of the Mishna} about those unfit, by the fetus and the brother-in-law {levir} and his fellows, to invalidate a female kohen from {eating} teruma, and it teaches in the final clause in order to invalidate the congregation from marrying to the priesthood.

גופא בן תשע שנים ויום אחד גר עמוני וכו'
מנא הני מילי
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דאמר קרא ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר כיון שנבעלה לפסול לה פסלה
אשכחן כהנת לויה וישראלית מנא לן
מבת ובת
אשכחן לתרומה לכהונה מנא לן
קל וחומר מגרושה ומה גרושה שמותרת בתרומה פסולה לכהונה זו שאסורה בתרומה אינו דין שפסולה לכהונה
וכי מזהירין מן הדין
גלויי מילתא בעלמא הוא
Returning to the main text: "a boy nine years and a day, a convert who is Ammonite, etc.":
How do we know these words?
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: For the verse stated {Vayikra 22:12}
יב וּבַת-כֹּהֵן--כִּי תִהְיֶה, לְאִישׁ זָר: הִוא, בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל. 12 And if a priest's daughter be married unto a common man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things.
One she had intercourse with one who is unfit for her, she is rendered unfit.
We have found a female kohen; a female Levite, from where do we know? From bat becoming uvat {in the same verse, the vav being inclusive of others besides the daughter of a kohen}.
We have found in terms of teruma. In terms of {becoming unfit to marry} the priesthood, from where do we know? As a kal vachomer {inference a minori ad majus} from a divorcee. If a divorcee is permitted to eat teruma but if forbidden to marry a kohen, this one who is forbidden to eat teruma, is it not the case that she is forbidden to marry a kohen?
And do we establish a prohibition {involving lashes} from a kal vachomer?
It is simply an elucidation {rather than the source of the law}.

וכותי ועבד פסלי מדר' יוחנן
דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל מניין לכותי ועבד שבאו על הכהנת ועל הלויה ועל בת ישראל שפסלוה שנאמר ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה
מי שיש לו אלמנות וגירושין בה יצאו כותי ועבד שאין להם אלמנות וגירושין בה אשכחן כהנת לויה ובת ישראל מניין נמי מהכא בת ובת

And a Cuthean and a slave invalidate from that of Rabbi Yochanan. For Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: How do we know that a Cuthean and a slave who had intercourse with a female kohen or a female Levite or with the daughter of an Israelite, that he invalidates her. For it is stated {next pasuk}:
יג וּבַת-כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ--וְשָׁבָה אֶל-בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ, מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל; וְכָל-זָר, לֹא-יֹאכַל בּוֹ. 13 But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread; but there shall no common man eat thereof.
{Yevamot 69a}
He who has the impact of widowhood or divorce in her, to the exclusion of a Cuthean and a slave who do not have to them widowhood or divorce in her.
We have found a female kohen. A female Levite and the daughter of an Israelite, from where? Also from here {the parallel derasha, but on this verse instead}. bat {it could have said but instead it said} uvat {and the vav includes others besides the daughter of a kohen}.

No comments: