## Yevamot Daf 67a

###### Yevamot 67a:1
[Yevamot 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:1)

וְשִׁחְרוּר — מַפְקִיעִין מִידֵי שִׁעְבּוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the **manumission** of a slave **release** the property **from a lien.** If someone placed an asset under a lien for his debt and subsequently consecrated it; or if the asset under lien is leavened bread and the festival of Passover arrived; or if the asset is a slave and he freed him, the lien is released, and the creditor must claim his debt from the debtor’s other property. In the case of the robe as well, because it was placed over the corpse, it was consecrated for the dead. Consequently, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Therefore, it is released to the woman from under the lien.


###### Yevamot 67a:2
[Yevamot 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים בְּאֶלֶף זוּז, וְשָׁבְחוּ וְעָמְדוּ עַל שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים. אֶחָד נוֹטַלְתּוֹ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְאֶחָד נוֹתֶנֶת דָּמִים וְנוֹטַלְתּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said:** If the wife **brought** with her **into** the marriage **two belongings** of guaranteed investment worth **one thousand dinars, and they appreciated** until **they stood at two thousand, one** of them **she collects as** payment of **her marriage contract,** as it is now worth her dowry of one thousand dinars. **And** as for the other **one, she pays its monetary** value **and takes it** from her husband **because** it is **an asset of her paternal family.**


###### Yevamot 67a:3
[Yevamot 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:3)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — שֶׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ דִּידַהּ הָוֵי? הָא אַמְרַהּ רַב יְהוּדָה חֲדָא זִימְנָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמָטְיָא לְמִשְׁקַל בִּכְתוּבְּתַהּ, אֲבָל מִיתָּן דְּמֵי וּמִישְׁקָל — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is he teaching us?** Is it that **assets of her paternal family are hers? Rav Yehuda** already **said this once,** in his previous statement. The Gemara answers: The latter statement was necessary as well, **lest you say** that **this applies** only **where she comes to collect her marriage contract,** which is rightfully hers, **but to give money and take** assets that are worth beyond what her husband owes her, you might say that she may **not** do so, although the property in question is an asset of her paternal family. Rav Yehuda therefore **teaches us** that she may take all of the assets of her paternal family and pay for what they are worth beyond her husband’s debt to her.


###### Yevamot 67a:4
[Yevamot 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת, וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בִּתְרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר, שֶׁהָעוּבָּר פּוֹסֵל. וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** 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.**


###### Yevamot 67a:5
[Yevamot 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:5)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵעַדְתָּ לָנוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — אַף בַּת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת, וְהִנִּיחָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בִּתְרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yevamot 67a:6
[Yevamot 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי זָרָה — זָר הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא: יָלוּד — מַאֲכִיל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָלוּד — אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the scholars: Is **the reason for** the ruling of **Rabbi Yosei because he holds that a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest,** as it is considered part of its mother’s body and it becomes a priest only upon birth, and therefore the slaves in which it owns a share will be allowed to eat *teruma* only at that stage? **Or,** is Rabbi Yosei **perhaps** of the opinion that only **one who was born enables** others **to partake** of *teruma*, whereas **one who is not** yet **born does not enable** others **to partake,** although it is considered a priest?


###### Yevamot 67a:7
[Yevamot 67a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:7)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — לְעוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי כֹהֶנֶת, מַאי? אָמַר רַבָּה, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: דְּקָסָבַר עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי זָרָה זָר הוּא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: יָלוּד — מַאֲכִיל, שֶׁאֵין יָלוּד — אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is the **practical difference** between the two possible reasons? It is the case of **a fetus in the womb of the priestess,** the daughter of a priest. If Rabbi Yosei’s rationale is that the fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, that is not the case here, and therefore the slaves should partake of *teruma*. **What** is the *halakha* in this case? **Rabba said** that **this is Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning: He holds** that **a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest. Rav Yosef said:** His rationale is that only **one who was born enables** others **to partake** of *teruma*, whereas **one who is not** yet **born does not enable** others **to partake.**


###### Yevamot 67a:8
[Yevamot 67a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:8)

מֵיתִיבִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵעַדְתָּ לָנוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם: זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְזוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav Yosef’s opinion from a *baraita* that continues the last clause of the mishna: The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Yosei: Since you testified before us about** the case of **an Israelite woman** married **to a priest,** in the case of **the daughter of a priest** married **to a priest, what is** the *halakha*? **He said to them:** With regard to the former case, **I heard** from my teachers that the slaves do not partake of *teruma*, **but** with regard to **this** one, **I did not hear** such a thing.


###### Yevamot 67a:9
[Yevamot 67a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:9)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא: עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי זָרָה זָר הוּא — הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ: זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְזוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: יָלוּד — מַאֲכִיל, שֶׁאֵין יָלוּד — אֵין מַאֲכִיל, מַאי זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְזוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי? אִיהִי הִיא קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning is that **a fetus in the womb of a non-priest is a non-priest, this is** the reason **that he said to them: This** case **I heard but this** case **I did not hear.** There is a logical distinction between the two cases, as in the latter case the fetus is not in the womb of a non-priest. **However, if you say** that his rationale is that only **one who was born enables** others **to partake** of *teruma*, whereas **one who is not** yet **born does not enable** others **to partake, what** does he mean by saying: **This** case **I heard but this** case **I did not hear? It is the same** case with regard to this principle. The Gemara concludes: This is **a difficult** objection.


###### Yevamot 67a:10
[Yevamot 67a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:10)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — אוֹכְלִים מִשּׁוּם בָּנִים. אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — אוֹכְלִים מִשּׁוּם אַחִים. אֵין לוֹ אַחִים — אוֹכְלִים מִשּׁוּם מִשְׁפָּחָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. However, the Rabbis say** that if the dead husband **has children,** the slaves **partake** of *teruma* **due to** the **children,** as they inherit the slaves. If **he does not have children, they partake** of *teruma* **due to** his **brothers,** who inherit his property. If **he does not have brothers** either, **they partake due to** the **entire family,** which inherits his property. The fetus does not disqualify them, as it does not yet own its share of the inheritance.


###### Yevamot 67a:11
[Yevamot 67a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:11)

״זוֹ״ וְלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. הָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חָנָא בַּגְדָּתָאָה: פּוֹק אַיְיתִי לִי בֵּי עַשְׂרָה, דְּאֵימָא לָךְ בְּאַנְפַּיְיהוּ: הַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר — קָנָה. אֶלָּא: ״זוֹ״ וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דִּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: By saying that **this** is only Rabbi Yosei’s stance, Shmuel seemingly indicates that **he** himself **does not maintain** that opinion. However, **Shmuel said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: Go and bring me an assembly of ten** men **and I will say to you before them** a *halakha* that I seek to disseminate: **One who transfers ownership** of an object **to a fetus,** the fetus **acquires** it. Consequently, according to Shmuel, a fetus can own property, which is the premise of Rabbi Yosei’s stance that a fetus shares the inheritance even before he is born. The Gemara answers: **Rather,** although Shmuel said that **this** is only Rabbi Yosei’s stance, **he holds** likewise. **What is** Shmuel **teaching us** by saying so? He is teaching us **that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Yevamot 67a:12
[Yevamot 67a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:12)

וּמִי פְּלִיגִי? מֵתִיב רַבִּי זַכַּאי: זוֹ עֵדוּת הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִפִּי שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִי קָתָנֵי ״וְקִבְּלוּ״? ״וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי, דְּמִסְתַּבַּר טַעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But do they** really **disagree? Rabbi Zakkai raised an objection** to this statement from a *baraita*: **This** was **a testimony** that **Rabbi Yosei testified** that he heard **from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, and** the Rabbis **acknowledged** his testimony. Apparently, they accepted his opinion. **Rav Ashi said: Does** that *baraita* **state: And** the Rabbis **accepted** his testimony? **It states: And they acknowledged** his testimony, which indicates **that his opinion is reasonable.** However, they did not accept his ruling.


###### Yevamot 67a:13
[Yevamot 67a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים — אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִים. הִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת — אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֵין אוֹכְלִים. הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים, וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת — עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג אוֹכְלִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת, עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ, מִפְּנֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר. שֶׁהָעוּבָּר פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If the priest who was married to an Israelite woman and died **left children,** both the slaves of usufruct property **and** the slaves of guaranteed investment **may partake** of *teruma*. The slaves of guaranteed investment are owned by the children, who are priests, and the slaves of usufruct property are owned by the woman, who partakes of *teruma* due to her children. If **he left** his wife **pregnant** and did not leave children, both **these** slaves **and those** slaves **may not partake** of *teruma*. If **he left children and left her pregnant,** the **slaves of usufruct** property who belong to her **partake** of *teruma* **just as she partakes** due to her children. However, the **slaves of guaranteed investment,** who are inherited by the children, **may not partake, due to the fetus’s share,** as it too inherits them, **as a fetus can disqualify** one from partaking of *teruma* **but it cannot not enable** one **to partake.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Yevamot 67a:14
[Yevamot 67a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:14)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: הַבַּת — מַאֲכֶלֶת, הַבֵּן — אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים יֹאכְלוּ כּוּלָּן, נְקֵבוֹת לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ, שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא עוּבָּר זָכָר, וְאֵין לַבָּנוֹת בִּמְקוֹם הַבֵּן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father:** If the priest left behind **a daughter,** she **enables** the slaves **to partake** of *teruma*; however, **a son does not enable** them **to partake. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says:** If among the priest’s children there are **males,** the slaves **partake** of *teruma*. But if they are **all females, they do not partake, lest the fetus be found** to be **a male, and daughters do not** receive **any** of the inheritance **where** there is **a son.** The male fetus would be the sole inheritor, and it does not enable slaves to partake of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 67a:15
[Yevamot 67a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:15)

מַאי אִירְיָא שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא עוּבָּר זָכָר? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דִּנְקֵבָה נָמֵי פָּסְלָה! חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא, דִּנְקֵבָה נָמֵי פָּסְלָה. וְעוֹד, שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא עוּבָּר זָכָר, וְאֵין לַבָּנוֹת בִּמְקוֹם הַבֵּן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** does Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai **specifically** explain that if the children are females, the slaves may not partake of *teruma*, **lest the fetus be found** to be **a male? Derive** the ruling that the slaves do not partake of *teruma* from the *halakha* **that a female** fetus **also disqualifies** its slaves from partaking of *teruma*. Since the priest has only daughters, they inherit from him, and the female fetus receives a share in the inheritance too. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai **stated one** reason **and another. One** reason is **that a female also disqualifies** its slaves from partaking of *teruma*, **and another** reason is **lest the fetus be found** to be **a male, and daughters have no** share in the inheritance **at all in a place** where there is **a son.**


###### Yevamot 67a:16
[Yevamot 67a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/67a:16)

זְכָרִים יֹאכֵלוּ: וְהָאִיכָּא עוּבָּר! קָסָבַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the first clause of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, that if among the priest’s children there are **males,** the slaves **may partake** of *teruma*: **But** even though sons inherit from their father, **isn’t there a fetus** to be accounted for, as perhaps he too is a male, and therefore has a share in the inheritance? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon **holds**