Les Nombres 18:11 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin, Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot & Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

If she³⁸An underage or adolescent girl. was preliminarily married with agreement³⁹The father’s agreement. but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave⁴⁶If the bride was an Israel but the groom a Cohen. The wife of a Cohen is a member of his family and as such entitled to eat heave (Num. 18:11).? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement⁴⁷The father’s agreement to the preliminary marriage implies his acquiescence in a definitive marriage unless he explicitly objects. A definitive marriage without consent or objection by the father is marriage with consent. The treatment of this topic in the Babli, 45b, is not comparable to the argument here since the Babli distinguishes between a marriage in the presence of the father and one contracted when the father was on a far away trip. The Babli notes that Rav in a real case followed Samuel’s opinion, attributed in the Babli to Rav Assi.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah⁴⁸Only the preliminary marriage is an act of acquisition which brings the bride into the husband’s family; cf. Ketubot 5:3, Note 66. The denial of heave to the bride before the definitive marriage is a later rabbinic institution; Mishnah Ketubot 5:4., a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave⁴⁹By biblical standards, definitive marriage is irrelevant for the bride to be able to eat heave.. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband⁵⁰Since the earnings are the husband’s from the moment of definitive marriage which for R. Mana is valid unless vetoed explicitly.; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father⁵¹One would have to say that the father might have the right to the earnings, since R. Yose ben R. Abun does not say that the definitive marriage is invalid, only that its status is irrelevant.. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies⁵²For the wife’s estate, the same rules apply as for the wife’s earnings.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies⁵³The prior speculation about the difference between the two arguments attributed to Rav is false; R. Yose ben R. Abun also will agree that the definitive marriage is valid unless explicitly vetoed by the father. He only stated that the problem of validity of the definitive marriage is irrelevant for the problem of heave.. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat⁵⁴In the Babli, 45b, this is attributed to Rav Huna.. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan⁵⁵Since everything was done without consulting the father, one may assume that the latter would have indicated his disapproval had he disapproved. His silence therefore is considered as formal approval and the underage girl is emancipated from him; she becomes “an orphan during the father’s lifetime” (cf. Giṭṭin 6:1, Note 20). The same argument is given in the Babli..

It was stated⁵²Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 2:16–17, formulated as anonymous statement. {In the Rome ms., the name of the tradent is R. Yose. This reading is proven false in the next paragraph.} The Tosephta cannot represent the Yerushalmi tradition since for תרומה גדולה it has תרומת ראשית “beginning heave”, a reference to Num. 18:12.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, about what was this said? About Great Heave which must be given from what is earmarked. But for the heave of the tithe, everything is supposed to be whole. If he gave Great Heave and heave of the tithe together, it is not whole.” Jehudah ben Rebbi said, he certainly did not want to overstep the words of the Torah in giving heave of the tithe before the Great Heave⁵³He explains why heave of the tithe is under the rules of Great Heave in case both are taken together. If Great Heave were invalidated but not heave of the tithe, it would turn out retroactively that heave of the tithe was given before the Great Heave, which not only is forbidden but also is very difficult to rectify. Therefore, we assume that he did not want any complications and, if made aware of this problem, would himself want to nullify the entire transaction.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Did we not state that “one may not give heave from impure produce for pure”? Think about it, when he did it and said, I did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah⁵⁴Since one may not give impure heave for pure produce, why do we not stipulate that if the person giving in error would be made aware of what he did, he automatically would want to nullify the transaction. The answer is that in this case, the remedy would be worse than the problem.! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if you say so, you let him flee from a minor sin to a major one! Ṭevel is a deadly sin, but an impure person who ate pure food oversteps a positive commandment⁵⁵This is the text in both mss. but it is impossible since the impure Cohen who eats heave transgresses a karet prohibition. It must read: “a pure person who ate impure food”, cf. Num. 18:11: “Every pure person in your house shall eat it,” viz., pure heave. The details are given in Bikkurim 2:1; there the text is as corrected here..

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may eat heave. But if a daughter of a Cohen married an Israel and brought him paraphernalia or mortmain slaves, they may not eat⁵⁰Heave may be eaten by “every pure person in [the Cohen’s] household” (Num. 18:11); this includes his wife and her circumcised slaves. But the daughter of a Cohen who marries outside the clan is barred from eating heave (Lev. 22:12) and so are her slaves..