Talmud su Levitico 22:11

HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition⁴Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat⁵Note the incongruous plural in Lev. 22:11. Up to here the text is a baraita; Babli 66a, Sifra Emor Parasha5(1).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat⁴Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property⁶Anything a slave buys is his owner’s property. Usually, what he otherwise acquires is also his owner’s property. But if he received something as a gift (e. g., money to buy his freedom) with the express stipulation that his master shall have no claim to it, then it is the slave’s direct property. If the slave received other slaves as such a gift, these are not the master’s acquisition and are barred from eating sanctified food.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them⁷They are ownerless. Since a slave can become free only by an act of manumission, these slaves are not freed by the death of their master and can be taken by anybody.. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property⁸The slave’s slave is not the slave’s master’s property..

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.?

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated⁹¹A similar statement is in Tosephta 5:1, where, however, the intermediate Mishnah is not mentioned. Cf. also Terumot 8:1, Note 9.: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money⁹²Lev. 22:11. The verse ends: “He shall eat [the Cohen’s sacred food]”. A parallel statement in the Babli, 57b.;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl⁹³The slave girl, by becoming the property of a Jew, is presumed to become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. Then she has to follow all Jewish laws valid for women (only that, being unable to marry, she is permitted guiltless unmarried sex with everybody except Jewish men). By manumission she would become a full Jewish woman. While a Gentile cannot become impure by biblical standards, the immersion in the ritual bath makes her subject to all rules of purity. If her owner is a Cohen, she may eat his sacred food if in the appropriate state of ritual purity.
A wife is usually acquired in preliminary marriage, as far as criminal law is concerned, by a gift of money or its equivalent. The argument is shaky since one should mention that if the wife is acquired by a matrimonial contract or by sexual relations without a gift of money (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1), there would be no reason to permit heave to the Israel woman preliminarily married to a Cohen. Nowhere do we find that the way the preliminary marriage is effected makes any difference.? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber⁹⁴Tosephta 5:1. However, the same Tosephta (and the Yerushalmi. Yebamot 4:12, Note 197) mentions that in a famine, R. Tarphon (a Cohen) preliminarily married 300 women to give them access to sanctified food. This means that the “later Mishnah” has to be dated some time after the destruction of the Temple when, probably, the importance of heave for the income of Cohanim was rapidly diminishing.. ⁹⁵Tosephta 5:1.”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra⁹⁶The leader of Babylonian Jewry in the first half of the 2^nd Century C.E. at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations⁹⁷Being Gentile, she could be married to a Gentile by sexual relations. But sexual relations with her are forbidden to a Jew and, therefore, she cannot be acquired by a Jew through sexual relations either as a slave or a wife. to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave⁹⁸If preliminary and definitive marriage are enacted together in the bridal chamber without any gift of money, the woman is a wife and entitled to eat her husband’s food by biblical standards., it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse⁹⁹Num. 18:11. The wife is part of the household only after the definitive marriage. The argument is rejected in Sifry Num. 117, since in. v. 13 a similar restriction is noted, “every pure person in your household shall eat it,” and it is a generally accepted hermeneutical principle that “two consecutive restrictions mean a relaxation”, in this case, that the wife may eat heave from the moment of the preliminary marriage. Therefore, the restriction to definitively married wives is purely rabbinical.: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession¹⁰⁰The word חֲזָקָה “grasping” can have two very different meanings. In legal arguments, it denotes a general assumption which generates prima facie evidence. In the law of real estate and slaves, it denotes the exercise of possession. For example, if an intestate person dies without heirs (e. g., a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family), his property becomes ownerless and is up for grabs. Therefore, if somebody goes to the ownerless real estate and acts as proprietor, fencing in or harvesting a field or painting a house, he has acquired the piece of real estate by his action. Similarly, if somebody takes an ownerless slave from the estate and tells him to work on his orders, the work of the slave makes him the property of the person giving the orders. The work can be quite symbolical, such as carrying a stone for a short stretch, to qualify as חֲזָקָה and if the acquirer is a Cohen, the slave is qualified to eat heave. Therefore, the means of acquisition of slave girls and wives are only partially comparable; the ways of acquisition of a slave are not subordinated to those for a wife. to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.