משנה: בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וּמֶת וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַּתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלָּעוּבָּר. הָעוּבָּר פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵיעַדְתָּה בָנוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן וְאַף בַּת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַּתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלָּעוּבָּר. MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves51Mortmain slaves who become the property of her child once he will be born. may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies52A widowed, pregnant, otherwise childless daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel is precluded from returning to “her father’s house” because of the fetus who, once born, will not be a Cohen. but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rebbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen [was married] to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus53Even if she has other children, the fetus will be co-heir of the mortmain slaves and, since he is not a person, cannot have a “house” in which they eat heave..
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. עֲבָדֶיהָ יֹאכֵלוּ. עֲבָדָיו לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ. דִּלֹ כֵן הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וַעֲבָדֶיהָ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין. רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מִזּוֹ אֲפִילוּ הִיא לֹא תֹאכֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּלִיג. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ אֲפִילוּ הִיא לֹא תֹאכֵל. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמַר. צֵא וּרְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הַצִּיבּוּר נוֹהֵג. רִבִּי אָבוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וְלֹא דְבַר הֲלָכָה זוֹ. אֶלָּא כָּל־הֲלָכָה שֶׁהִיא רוֹפֶפֶת בְּבֵית דִּין וְאֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִיבָהּ צֵא וּרְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הַצִּיבּוּר נוֹהֵג וּנְהוֹג. וַאֲנָן חָמֵיי צִיבּוּרָא דְּלָא מֵיכְלוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה אֵין העבד פּוֹסֵל אֶת מִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא מַאֲכִיל אֶת מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֵאֱכוֹל. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: Her slaves54Paraphernalia slaves. The Tosephta, 9:1, disagrees except if she has other children (since otherwise if for any reason the pregnancy did not result in a viable baby she had left the priestly clan at her husband’s death). The Babli, 67a, formulates: “Paraphernalia slaves eat if and only if she eats.” may eat, his slaves55Mortmain slaves. may not eat. For if it were not so, she would eat56Since the Mishnah mentions only her slaves but not herself. The childless widow of a Cohen reverts to her status before marriage with regard to heave. On the other hand, the Mishnah does not state that the rule applies only to a widow without other children. If she has children from the Cohen then certainly she remains part of his house and eats heave. There is no reason why the paraphernalia slaves should not eat because of her status. but her slaves would not eat! Rebbi Josia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is from this, she also should not eat57One could find an argument that if the fetus disables her slaves it must disable her also.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Not that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, he only said, for if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat. There came a case before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. 58This text, position, and argument is from Peah 7, Note 137. He said, go out and look how the public behaves. Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not eat. Rebbi Yose said, this means that [the fetus] does not disable anybody able to eat and does not enable anybody unable to eat59This disproves R. Joḥanan’s attempted argument. Since the Mishnah does not mention her but mentions her mortmain slaves, the fetus does not disable her but cannot enable her slaves whose enabler has died and was not yet replaced..
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר יוֹסֵף מִשּׁוּם אַבָּיֵי. הָיָה בַת מַאֲכֶלֶת. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵּׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁכֵּן הָיָה רְאוּיָה לְתוֹפְשָׂן מִן הַמְּזוֹנוֹת. וְאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְתוֹפְשָׂן מִן הַמְּזוֹנוֹת. רְאוּיָה הִיא לִתְבוֹעַ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּלְאַבֵּד כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. וְקַשְׁיָא כְּתוּבָּה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה וּמָזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. מֵאֵילֵיהֶן קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: If there was a daughter, she enables to eat60Tosephta 9:1; Babli 67a. In both sources it is emphasized that only a daughter lets mortmain slaves eat during the pregnancy of her mother but not sons. As R. Moses Margalit points out, the thrust of the argument of the Babli (not its details) must be understood also in the Yerushalmi that a daughter enables only in the presence of a son. By biblical rules (Num. 27:6–11), a daughter inherits only in the absence of sons, but the standard marriage contract assures the upkeep of unmarried daughters as a lien on the estate (Mishnah Ketubot 4:11). This means that the claim of the daughter to be fed as a member of the priestly clan is prior to and independent of any claim of the male heirs; since she is fed, the slaves who secure her claim also may eat. But if there are no male heirs, the daughters are heirs according to biblical standards. If the fetus is male, he becomes the sole heir. If female, she becomes a co-heir and the slaves cannot eat because of her part. If there are male heirs, a female fetus has no influence since the marriage contract stipulates only support for living daughters.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because she is able to take her upkeep away from them. Is a wife not also able to take her upkeep away from them61The widow has a choice of either claiming her ketubah or staying in her house and being supported by the estate (Mishnah Ketubot 4:12).? She might request her ketubah be paid or lose her ketubah62By any of the transactions mentioned in Mishnah Ketubot.. This is difficult! The ketubah is a biblical institution63At least for a virgin bride, Ex.22:16. The rabbinic document is reported to be an institution of Simeon ben Šetaḥ, cf. Ketubot, Yerushalmi 8:11 (fol. 32c), Babli 82b. The opinion that the origin of the ketubah of a virgin (not the details of the text) is rabbinic is found only in the Babli, attributed to R. Jehudah (Ketubot 56a, 10a)., the upkeep of the daughters is rabbinical; do their institutions uproot a word of the Torah? It follows him who said that they accepted tithes voluntarily64The laws connected with the distribution of land alter the first conquest became moot with the Babylonian exile. They were voluntarily reintroduced in the times of Ezra; cf. Ševi‘it 7:1, Note 11..
אַשְׁכָּחַת אָמַר. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵה חָלוּק עַל ר׳ אבון. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם חִילְפַיי. רִבִּי וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּבַר הַקַּפָּר נִמְנוּ עַל [אֲוֵיר] אַשְׁקְלוֹן וְטִיהֲרוּהוּ מִפִּי רִבִּי פִּינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר שֶׁאָמַר. יוֹרְדִּין הָייִנוּ לְסִירְקִי שֶׁלְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְלוֹקְחִין חִטִּים וְעוֹלִין לְעִירֵינוּ וְטוֹבְלִין וְאוֹכְלִים בִּתְרוּמָתֵינוּ. לְמָחָר בִּיקְּשׁוּ לְהִימָּנוֹת עָלֶיהָ לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּמָשַׁךְ רִבִּי יִשְּׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת יָדָיו. שֶׁהָיָה מִסְתַּמֵּךְ עַל בֶּן הַקַּפָּר. אָמַר לוֹ. בְּנִי. לָמָּה לֹא אָמַרְתָּ [לִי]. לֹא מָשַׁכְתָּ אֶת יָדֶיךָ. וְהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר לָךְ. אֶתְמוֹל אֲנִי טִימֵּאתִי וַאֲנִי טִיהָרְתִּי. עַכְשָׁיו אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָךְ. שֶׁמָּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּבְּשָׁה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה הֵיאַךְ אֲנִי פוֹטְרָהּ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. מֵאֵימָתַי הִיא טְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם אַבָּיֵי. מֵאֵילֵיהֶן קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. וְאָמַר. יְאוּת מַעְשְׂרוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וּמָזוֹן הַבָּנוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵיהֶן עוֹקְרִין אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶן. We find that Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagrees with his father65Conjectural reading required by the context. 66This paragraph is from Ševi‘it, Halakhah 7:1, explained there in Notes 52–57. since Rebbi Simon said in the name of Hilfai: Rebbi, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they wanted to vote to free it from tithes but Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand.67He declined to vote positively. He was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: did you not remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah? 68The following sentence was copied in error; it belongs to the next item in Ševi‘it. When is it impure because of territory of Gentiles? But we found that he stated in the name of his father that they accepted tithes voluntarily69In the previous paragraph it was shown that R. Yose must hold that all rules of heave are rabbinical since biblical heave would require that every farmer till his ancestral soil given to the family by Joshua. In the present paragraph, R. Ismael holds that the rules are biblical.! And he said, it is correct that if tithes are from their words and the food of the daughters is of their words that their words may uproot their words70In rabbinic institutions it is of the essence that the originators can settle the order of precedence..
הָיוּ שָָׁם זְכָרִים מַאֲכִילָן. נְקֵיבוֹת אֵין מַאֲכִילוֹת. הָיוּ שָָׁם זְכָרִים מַאֲכִילָן. שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק אֶחָד. סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵבָה. וְסָפֵק מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה לְהַחֲמִיר. נְקֵיבוֹת אֵינָן מַאֲכִילוֹת. שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת. סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵיבָה. מִשֶׁנִּתְאָֽרְסָה סָפֵק עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָֽרְסָה. וְסָפֵק דִּבְרֵיהֶן לְהָקֵל. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. זָכָר הוּא כוּלָּהּ דִּידֵיהּ. נְקֵיבָה הִיא נָֽסְבָה חוּלְקָהּ עִימְּהֹן. 70In rabbinic institutions it is of the essence that the originators can settle the order of precedence.“If there are males they enable to eat, females do not enable to eat.” 71The following text does not make much sense. The discussion in the Babli, 67a/b, is too hypothetical to be of much help here. If there are males, they enable to eat since there is one doubt, whether he is male or female72As Rashi (Ketubot 67a) points out, there are two doubts, whether the pregnancy leads to a live birth or not and if there is a live birth whether it will be a male or a female. If there is no live birth, the males are the heirs and the slaves may eat because of them. If the baby is female, again the existing males are the heirs. The Yerushalmi probably holds that the miscarriages and female births just about equal the male births so that there are equal probabilities that the existing males are all heirs and the slaves may or may not eat because of them.. A doubt in biblical matters forces restriction73,A generally accepted principle, Babli Beṣah 3a.74If heave were a biblical precept, the slaves could not eat if there was a male heir; if heave is rabbinic, they are enabled by him.. Females75The deceased had only daughters, no son. do not enable to eat since there are two doubts76There is only one doubt but it has two sides, both of which support the position of R. Simeon., whether he is male or female, (after she was betrothed or maybe before she was betrothed.)77The text in parentheses makes no sense here; it belongs to another category of doubts, discussed at length in Tractate Ketubot, cf., e.g., Mishnah Ketubot 1:6–7. A doubt regarding their words forces leniency73A generally accepted principle, Babli Beṣah 3a.. However you take it, if he is male, everything is his78Then the slaves are disabled since before the birth they have no master who might enable them.. Female, she takes her part with them79This parallels the case of boys. In this case there is a doubt concerning the applicability of biblical law which requires restrictive interpretation..