YEVAMOS 66 - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Hershel Avraham ben Simcha Yosef z'l by his daughter and son in law.

1)

ARE WOMEN COMMANDED TO HAVE CHILDREN? (cont.)

(a)

Question: A woman is commanded to have children!

1.

(Rav Acha bar Rav Ketina): A case occurred in which Rabanan forced the owner of a half-freed Shifchah to free the rest of her (so she could marry and have children)!

(b)

Answer: She is not commanded. The half-slave was freed because people were freely having Bi'ah with her.

PEREK ALMANAH
2)

A FORBIDDEN MARRIAGE TO A KOHEN

(a)

(Mishnah): If a widow was married to a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or Chalutzah to a regular Kohen, and she brought into the marriage Melug slaves and Tzon Barzel slaves, the Melug slaves do not eat Terumah, but the Tzon Barzel slaves eat Terumah;

1.

Melug slaves are those brought into the marriage on condition that if they die, it is her loss; if they increase, it is her gain. Even though her husband must feed them, they do not eat Terumah;

2.

Tzon Barzel slaves are brought in on condition that if they die, he loses; if they increase, it is his gain. Since he has Acharayos (he bears or receives any loss or gain from them), they eat Terumah.

(b)

If a Bas Yisrael (Kosher to Kehunah) married a Kohen and brought in slaves, both types eat Terumah;

(c)

If a Bas Kohen married a Yisrael and brought in slaves, neither type eats Terumah.

(d)

(Gemara) Question: Why don't Melug slaves eat Terumah? They should be considered the acquisition of his acquisition!

1.

(Beraisa): "V'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo Hu Yochal Bo" teaches that if a Kohen marries a woman or buys slaves, they eat Terumah.

2.

Question: What is the source that if his wife or slaves bought slaves, that the (latter) slaves eat?

3.

Answer: "V'Chohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh (a Kohen's property, i.e. wife or slave) Kinyan Kaspo (one acquired by the Kohen's wife or slave) Hu Yochal Bo".

(e)

Answer #1: Only one who may eat causes others to eat (a Kohen's Pasul wife may not eat).

(f)

Objection #1: This is not true! An Arel or Tamei Kohen may not eat, but he causes others to eat!

(g)

Answer: (An Arel or Tamei Kohen may eat,) just his mouth hurts him (he may not eat until he fixes himself.)

(h)

Objection #2: A Mamzer cannot eat, yet he causes others to eat (e.g. if his grandmother is a Bas Yisrael widowed from a Kohen and he is her only living descendant from the Kohen)!

(i)

Answer #2 (Ravina): Only an acquisition who can eat causes others to eat.

(j)

Answer #3 (Rava): Mid'Oraisa, they may eat. Chachamim decreed that they may not eat, in order that she should think 'I cannot eat and my slaves cannot eat. (I am not really married, rather,) I am like a harlot with him!', and he will come to divorce her.

(k)

Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): This is a decree lest they eat after her husband dies.

(l)

Objection: If so, we should decree even when a Bas Yisrael is permitted to a Kohen, lest they eat after her husband dies!

(m)

Correction (Rav Ashi): Rather, we are concerned lest a Kohenes widow married to a Kohen Gadol come to err;

1.

Originally, her slaves ate Terumah of her father's house. When she married, they ate Terumah of her husband. Now that she was widowed and they return to her, she will think that they eat like they did before;

2.

She does not realize that she became a Chalalah and she is no longer a Kohenes.

(n)

Question: This explains why slaves of a Kohenes widow may not eat. Why may slaves of a Bas Yisrael widow (married to a Kohen Gadol) not eat?

(o)

Answer: Chachamim did not distinguish among widows (i.e. women forbidden to their husbands. In every case her slaves may not eat.)

3)

CAN A WOMAN DEMAND THE SAME SLAVES THAT SHE BROUGHT IN?

(a)

Question: A woman brought Tzon Barzel slaves into the marriage. At the time of divorce, she wants to take them back, and her husband wants to keep them and pay her their value. Who wins?

(b)

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): She wins.

66b----------------------------------------66b

(c)

Answer #2 (R. Ami): He wins.

(d)

(Rav Yehudah): She wins, due to the glory of her father's house (they should return with her).

(e)

(R. Ami): He wins. We learned that if they die he loses, and if they increase, it is his gain. Since he has Acharayos for them, they eat Terumah (it is as if they are his).

(f)

Objection (Rav Safra): The Mishnah does not say that they are his! It says only that since he has Acharayos for them, they eat. Really, they are hers!

(g)

Question: We do not say that they may eat whenever he has Acharayos!

1.

(Mishnah): A Yisrael who rented a cow from a Kohen may feed it Terumah of Karshinim (horsebean. It is primarily fed to animals, but people can eat it.) A Kohen who rented a cow from a Yisrael may not feed it Karshinei Terumah, even though he must feed it.

(h)

Answer: This is not a good comparison!

1.

Granted, a renter is responsible for theft and loss, but he has no Acharayos for accidents, weakening, or a decrease in their value! (A husband has Acharayos for everything.)

(i)

Rather, our case resembles the Seifa of that Mishnah:

1.

(Seifa): If a Yisrael appraised a cow (and accepted to return it with compensation if the value will go down) from a Kohen, he may not feed it Karshinei Terumah. A Kohen who appraised a cow from a Yisrael may feed it Karshinei Terumah.

(j)

Rabah and Rav Yosef: A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah, and another Beraisa supports R. Ami.

(k)

Support (for R. Ami - Beraisa #1): Tzon Barzel slaves go free if the husband knocks out a tooth or eye, but not if she does.

(l)

Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa #2): If a wife brought Tzon Barzel to her husband, he may not sell it. Even if he brought in property and appraised it (to guarantee that she will collect its value with her Kesuvah, like Tzon Barzel), he may not sell it;

1.

Question: What is the law if one of them sold it to buy food?

2.

Answer: A case arose (in which she sold), and R. Shimon ben Gamliel ruled that the husband may retrieve the property from the buyer. (Likewise, if he sold, she takes it from the buyer when collecting her Kesuvah.)

(m)

(Rava, citing Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Rav Yehudah.

(n)

Question (Rava): A Beraisa supports R. Ami!

(o)

Answer (Rav Nachman): Even so, the reason of Rav Yehudah (glory of her father's house) is better.

(p)

A woman brought a silk cloak into the marriage; it was written in the Kesuvah. When he died, the orphans spread it on the corpse.

(q)

Rava: It gets the status of shrouds (and may not be taken from the deceased).

(r)

Question (Nanai): Rava said that the Halachah follows Rav Yehudah (she has the right to reclaim it)!

(s)

Answer (Rav Kahana): Rav Yehudah agrees that it is not hers until she collects it. Until then, it belongs to her husband;

1.

Rava ruled like he taught elsewhere, that the following uproot Shi'abud - freeing a slave, the Isur of Chametz on Pesach, and making something Hekdesh (which includes forbidding benefit from something, e.g. shrouds).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF