משנה: הָעוּבָּר וְהַיָּבָם וְהָאֵירוּסִין וְהַחֵרֵשׁ וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין. סָפֵק שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָפֵק הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא. נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בַּת אָחִיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. MISHNAH: The fetus80As explained in the previous Mishnah., the levir81The (not priestly) childless widow of a Cohen who waits for the levir is prevented from eating heave, Mishnah Ketubot 5:3., the betrothal82The daughter of a Cohen betrothed to a non-Cohen is disabled., the deaf-and-dumb83Since the deaf-and-dumb cannot legally acquire, his marriage is only of rabbinic validity., and the male nine years and one day old84Who had intercourse with a woman, cf. Chapter 5, Note 79. If he is a Cohen and marries the woman rabbinically, he cannot enable her to eat heave until he grows two pubic hairs. disable but do not enable to eat. If there was a doubt whether or not he had reached nine years and one dayt85If he did not reach the age of nine years and one day, his intercourse is inoperative and he did not disable a priest’s daughter. If he did reach that age, she is disabled.; whether or not he had grown two pubic hairs86If he had not grown two pubic hairs his betrothal is not valid by biblical standards. If he is an Israel betrothed to the daughter of a Cohen she is not disabled. If he had grown two pubic hair his betrothal is valid by biblical standards and his betrothed is disabled. If the male is a Cohen and his wife an Israel, she can start eating heave only after he reaches adulthood (in the opinion of the Babli, once he had intercourse with her after growing two pubic hairs.); when the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate87If he died first, the niece who was his wife frees the co-wife from the obligation of ḥalîṣah and levirate. If she died first, the co-wife is permitted to the levirs..
הלכה: הָעוּבָּר וְהַיָּבָם וְהָאֵירוּסִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. בְּזוֹ מִידַּת הַדִּין לוֹקָה. שֶׁאִם מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא לִפְסוֹל יְהֵא מַעֲשֶׂה לְהַאֲכִיל. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְסוֹל. לֹא יְהֵא מַעֲשֶׂה לְהַאֲכִיל. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. הֵם יֹאכְלוּ וְהֵם יַאֲכִילוּ. הָרָאוּי לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי מַמְזֵר הְרֵי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וּמַאֲכִיל. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב יְלִיד בַּיִת. מֵעַתָּה הַיָּלוּד מַאֲכִיל וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָלוּד אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ. פְּרָט לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ פְּרָט לִמְעוּבֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הַעִיבּוּר עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לִפְסוֹל וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לְהַאֲכִיל. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן פְּלִיגִין. דָּמַר זְעִירָא. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּמְעוּבֶּרֶת מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאִינָן מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשּׁ. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִילוּ יוֹלֶדֶת הִימֶּינּוּ בָנִים אֵינָהּ זָרָה לוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. הָעוּבָּר עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לִפְסוֹל וְלֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְמַמָּשׁ לְהַאֲכִיל. לָמָּה מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאִינָן מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וִישַׁלְּמוּ קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable88The wording is correct in Tosephta 9:3: “For if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to enable it also should not be action to disable.” S. Lieberman (Tosephta ki-fshutah Yebamot, pp. 83–85) shows that the question is restricted to the fetus.. Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat89See above, Notes 9–10. Since in Sifra this is an argument of R. Simeon, S. Lieberman (l. c.) concludes that the objection of R. Simeon is a rhetorical device.. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat90This is a quote from Sifra Emor Pereq 5(4), quoted in Babli 69b; the scenario is elaborated in Mishnah 7. According to Halakhah 6, Gentile or slave disable the woman partner from the priesthood; whether the child is a bastard is a matter of dispute (in Galilee, not in Babylonia). One has to assume that the desecrated mother of the disabled child has died. Since the verses Lev. 22:11,12 speak only of “born in the house” and “descendants” without qualifications, the child from an improper union is as good as one from a proper union for the rules of eating heave. The biological fathers do not disable since they cannot be legal fathers; the child is the child of his mother and God alone, cf. Peah 1:1, Note 116, Babli Niddah 31a.! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house91Lev. 22:11. The simple meaning of the text is that slaves of a Cohen may eat heave, whether they are born in the house or bought by the master. The expression “born in the house” is extended here to disqualified children of the house.”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, 92Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1) on Lev.22:12, speaking about the issueless daughter of a Cohen returning to her father’s house to eat sanctified food. The text is also quoted in Babli 67b. since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that93The language is not quite appropriate; it is influenced by the context of the quote at the end of the paragraph. R. Yose notes that the Tanna of Sifra interprets the biblical verse as implying the status of the fetus as described in the sentence; he should have said “the verse considers …”. The formulation as given is appropriate for the version of Ze‘ira/the rabbis who refer to rabbinic rules; “they” are the men of the Great Assembly who voluntarily reintroduced the rules of heave and tithes. means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira94Cf. Berakhot 2:1, Note 54. said, there95In Babylonia. No parallel to this statement is found. they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth96If a person who is not enabled to eat heave transgresses and eats it, in general he is liable to pay for the amount he took plus a 25% fine to the priesthood; cf. Terumot, Chapters 6,7. Mishnah Terumot 7:2 states that the daughter of a Cohen never loses her priestly status, even if she is disabled from eating heave, to the effect that she never pays the fine.. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth97Since even the marriage of the daughter of an Israel to a Cohen does not free her from the fine incurred before her marriage, Mishnah Terumot 6:2. This proves that the rule cannot be biblical; the reference to the verse is not a proof.?
חֵרֵשׁ פּוֹסֵל. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחֵרֵשׁ וְשֶׁלַּשׁוֹטֶה טוֹבֶלֶת מִחֵיק בַּעֲלָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. חַד אָמַר. בְּחֵרֵשׁ פּוֹסֵל. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר בְּחֵרֵשׁ יָיבָם. “The deaf-and-dumb disables.” Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats98In Tosephta 9:4: “The sane daughter of a Cohen married to an insane Israel …” Since marriages of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane are not valid, the woman does not lose her priestly status. She has to immerse herself after intercourse with her husband (Lev. 15:18) but is not disabled from eating heave. This contradicts the Mishnah.”? Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah, one said, a disqualified deaf-and-dumb99A person whose intercourse would disable the woman even if he were hearing., the other said, a deaf-and-dumb levir100He disqualifies as levir, whose standing is not different from a hearing man; cf. Chapter 6, Note 35..
סָפֵק שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ. כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד לִפְסוֹל. סָפֵק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. כְּמִי שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת לְהַאֲכִיל. “Whether he had reached nine years and one day or not”, he is as if he were nine years and one day old to disable85If he did not reach the age of nine years and one day, his intercourse is inoperative and he did not disable a priest’s daughter. If he did reach that age, she is disabled.; “whether he had grown two pubic hairs or not”, he is as if he had grown two pubic hairs to make her eat86,If he had not grown two pubic hairs his betrothal is not valid by biblical standards. If he is an Israel betrothed to the daughter of a Cohen she is not disabled. If he had grown two pubic hair his betrothal is valid by biblical standards and his betrothed is disabled. If the male is a Cohen and his wife an Israel, she can start eating heave only after he reaches adulthood (in the opinion of the Babli, once he had intercourse with her after growing two pubic hairs.)101The Yerushalmi states here that a young man whose vows are valid can marry by biblical standards, an open question in the Babli. Cf. Mishnah Terumot 1:3, Note 105; Babli Niddah 46b..
נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל בַּת אָחִיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן. צָרָתָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. וְהָכָא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן צָרוֹת תַנִּינָן סְפֵק צָרוֹת. “When the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” Why do we come here to state doubts? Since we had stated [the rules for] co-wives, we now state for doubts concerning co-wives.