Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

יבמות ז׳:ב׳ - ז׳:ג׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Saturday, February 1, 2020 is יבמות ז׳:ב׳ - ז׳:ג׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Yevamos Perek 7 Mishnah 2

יבמות פרק ז׳ משנה ב׳

2
In the case of an Israelite woman who married a priest in a halakhic marriage and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they partake of teruma. And in the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they do not partake of teruma, although, as she is the daughter of a priest, it is permitted for her and her slaves to partake of teruma beforehand.
בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּסֵּת לְכֹהֵן וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עֲבָדִים, בֵּין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג, בֵּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּסֵּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ, בֵּין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג, בֵּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה:
ב׳
ברטנורא

בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן – even מגול slaves (i.e., that the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration) , they may consume [Terumah/priest’s due] because they are the acquisition of a Kohen who purchased merchandise, meaning to say, the wife that is his purchase of a Kohen who purchased these particular slaves, as it is written (Leviticus 22:11): “But a person who is a priest’s property by purchase [may eat of them (i.e., the sacred donations) and those born into his household may eat of his food],” for the inference of "קנין כספו"/”the priest’s property” does not come other than for this exegesis: that a Kohen who has as purchased property with his money, that soul, which is the slave of the Kohen who bought a soul may eat of it (i.e., his food as a member of his household).

בת ישראל שנישאת לכהן. אפילו עבדי מלוג יאכלו, משום דהוי קנין כהן שקנה קנין, כלומר האשה שהיא קנינו של כהן קנתה אלו העבדים, וכתיב (ויקרא כ״ב:י״א) וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו, שאין ת״ל קנין כספו אלא למדרש הכי, וכהן כי יקנה קנין כספו נפש, שעבדו של כהן קנה נפש, הוא יאכל בו:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Yevamos Perek 7 Mishnah 3

יבמות פרק ז׳ משנה ג׳

3
With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves of guaranteed investment may not partake of teruma during her pregnancy, due to the share of the fetus, as an inheritor of his father, in the ownership of the slaves. In the opposite case, where the Israelite husband of a priest’s daughter died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. However, in the current case, the fetus does not enable its mother or the slaves to partake of teruma, despite the fact that it is the child of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. The Rabbis said to him: Since you testified before us about the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest, in the case of the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest and he died and left her pregnant, her slaves should not partake of teruma either, due to the fetus’s share. The same halakha should apply whether the woman is an Israelite or the daughter of a priest.
בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּסֵּת לְכֹהֵן, וּמֵת, וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַּתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עֻבָּר, שֶׁהָעֻבָּר פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵעַדְתָּ לָנוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, אַף בַּת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, וּמֵת, וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בַתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עֻבָּר:
ג׳
ברטנורא

והניחה מעוברת – even though she has children from him and she consumes Terumah, the slaves of her mort-main do not eat Terumah because they belong to the heirs, and the fetus has a portion in them and the fetus does not have the ability to provide them with Terumah either because he holds that a fetus in a foreign womb (of a non-Kohen), he is a foreigner or because he holds that someone born can feed; someone who is not born cannot feed, as it is written (Leviticus 22:11): “and those that are born into his household may eat [of his food],” and we call him they who will feed.

שהעובר פוסל – if the daughter of a Kohen is married to an Israelite [male], and she was left pregnant (because her husband died), and she has no other son, it disqualifies her from returning to her father’s home.

ואינו מאכיל – if she was the daughter of an Israelite married to a Kohen and she was left pregnant (because her husband died), the fetus does not have the strength to sustain her and the same law applies to his slaves.

אף בת כהן לכהן כו' – since you said that he is not born, he does not sustain, even the daughter of a Kohen who is married to a Kohen, the slaves don’t consume Terumah because of the fetus’ portion because they are his slaves and they don’t consume, other than for him, and he lacks the strength to sustain them, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

והניחה מעוברת. אע״פ שיש לה בנים ממנו והיא אוכלת בתרומה, לא יאכלו עבדי צאן ברזל בתרומה, לפי שהן של יורשין ויש לעובר חלק בהן ואין לעובר כח להאכילם בתרומה, אי משום דקסבר עובר במעי זרה זר הוא, אי משום דקסבר ילוד מאכיל, שאינו ילוד אינו מאכיל, דכתיב (ויקרא כ״ב:י״א) ויליד ביתו הם יאכלו וקרי ביה הם יאכילו:

שהעובר פוסל. אם בת כהן לישראל היא והניחה מעוברת ואין לה בן אחר פוסלה מלשוב לבית אביה:

ואינו מאכיל. שאם היתה בת ישראל לכהן והניחה מעוברת אין בעובר כח להאכילה, והוא הדין לעבדיו:

אף בת כהן לכהן כו׳ כיון דאמרת שאינו ילוד אינו מאכיל, אף בת כהן לכהן אין העבדים אוכלים בתרומה מפני חלקו של עובר, שהרי עבדיו הן ואינן אוכלין אלא בשבילו והוא אין בו כח להאכיל. ואין הלכה כר׳ יוסי:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר