## Yevamot Daf 87a

###### Yevamot 87a:1
[Yevamot 87a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:1)

בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מֵת וְלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. נִיסֵּת לְלֵוִי — תֹּאכַל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. מֵת וְלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — תֹּאכַל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. נִיסֵּת לְכֹהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מֵת וְלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The **daughter of a priest married to an Israelite may not partake of *teruma*.** If the Israelite **died and she** has **a son from him, she may not partake of *teruma*** as long as that son is alive. If she subsequently **married a Levite she may partake of tithe.** If he **died, and she** had **a son from him, she may** still **partake of tithe.** If she subsequently **married a priest, she may partake of *teruma*.** If the priest **died and she** had **a son from him, she may partake of *teruma*.**


###### Yevamot 87a:2
[Yevamot 87a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:2)

מֵת בְּנָהּ מִכֹּהֵן — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מֵת בְּנָהּ מִלֵּוִי — לֹא תֹּאכַל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. מֵת בְּנָהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל — חוֹזֶרֶת לְבֵית אָבִיהָ, וְעַל זוֹ נֶאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **her son from the priest** also **died, she may not partake of *teruma*,** but she may partake of tithe, as she has a son from a Levite. If **her son from the Levite died, she may no** longer **partake of tithe.** If **her son from the Israelite died, she returns to her father’s house** and may once again partake of *teruma*. **And with regard to this** woman, it **is stated: “And she is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth; she may eat of her father’s bread”** (Leviticus 22:13).


###### Yevamot 87a:3
[Yevamot 87a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מֵת בְּנָהּ מִלֵּוִי — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. דְּהָדְרָא אָכְלָה מִשּׁוּם בְּנָהּ, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** We learned in the mishna: If **her son from the Levite died she may partake of *teruma*.** The Gemara asks: This *halakha* with regard to a woman previously married to a priest, who had a child from the priest and was then married to a Levite and separated from him, **that she once again may partake due to her son** from the priest, **from where do we** derive it? **Rabbi Abba said** that **Rav said:** It states: “But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13). The verse could have stated: If a priest’s **daughter.** Instead, it states: **“But** if a priest’s **daughter,”** with an extra word, represented by the single Hebrew letter *vav*, to include this case.


###### Yevamot 87a:4
[Yevamot 87a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:4)

כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּדָרֵישׁ וָוֵי? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כּוּלֵּהּ ״וּבַת״ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with** the opinion of **which** Sage is this exposition? Is it only **in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who expounds** the additional letter *vav*, representing the word “and,” as an inclusive term? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: It can be understood **even** if **you say** it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** who do not usually derive *halakhot* from an additional *vav*, as in this case the **entire** phrase: **“But** if a priest’s **daughter,” is superfluous,** as the previous verse had already specified that we are dealing with “the daughter of a priest.” Therefore, everyone agrees that in this context the additional letter in the text comes to include the additional case.


###### Yevamot 87a:5
[Yevamot 87a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת — חוֹזֶרֶת לִתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: מַאי קְרָא — ״הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״, בַּמּוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: ״מִלֶּחֶם״, וְלֹא כׇּל לֶחֶם, פְּרָט לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to the daughter of a priest, **when she returns** to her father’s house after having been married to a non-priest and then separated from her husband, **she returns to** partaking of ***teruma* but she does not return to** partake of **the breast and** right **hind leg** of peace-offerings. **Rav Ḥisda said** that **Ravina bar Sheila said: What is the verse** that teaches us this *halakha*? **“She may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred things”** (Leviticus 22:12). This verse indicates: **From that which is separated from the sacred things,** i.e., offerings, and given to a priest, **she may not eat. Rav Naḥman** said that **Rabba bar Avuh said** that this *halakha* comes from a different source: We infer from the words “she may eat **of** her father’s **bread”** (Leviticus 22:13), that she may **not** eat **all bread;** this comes to **exclude the breast and** right **hind leg.**


###### Yevamot 87a:6
[Yevamot 87a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:6)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: אֵימָא: פְּרָט לַהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים! אָמַר רָבָא: כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְנֵדֶר אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה יָקוּם עָלֶיהָ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא מוּצָאָה מִכְּלַל אָב, וּמוּצָאָה מִכְּלַל בַּעַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama objects to this:** But we can **say** that the verse comes to **exclude nullification of vows.** The Torah would consequently be teaching us that even after she “is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13), she does not return to her youth in all ways, as her father may not nullify her vows. **Rava said:** The connection between her and her father’s house with regard to vows has **already been severed,** as taught by **the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “But the vow of a widow, or of a divorcée…shall stand against her”** (Numbers 30:10). **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** this? **She was removed from the category** of one who is under the authority of her **father** when she married, **and she has** likewise **been removed from the category** of one who is under the authority of her **husband,** as she is no longer married to him.


###### Yevamot 87a:7
[Yevamot 87a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:7)

אֶלָּא, הֲרֵי שֶׁמָּסַר הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁמָּסְרוּ שְׁלוּחֵי הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל, וְנִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, הֵיאַךְ אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ בֵּית אָבִיהָ שֶׁל זוֹ, אוֹ בֵּית בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאָה שָׁעָה אַחַת מֵרְשׁוּת הָאָב — שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the verse is referring to a case **where the father transferred** his daughter **to the husband’s agents** for the purpose of marriage, and she consequently left her father’s house. **Or,** it is referring to a case **where the father’s agents transferred** her **to the husband’s agents and she was widowed or divorced on the way,** before she arrived at her husband’s house. **How shall I consider her?** Is she in the **house of this one, her father, or** is she in the **house of that one, her husband? Rather,** this comes **to tell you: Since she has** entirely **left her father’s jurisdiction** when she was transferred to the husband’s agents, even if for just **one moment,** her father **is no longer able to nullify** her vows. We learn from here that a father cannot annul his daughter’s vows after she has been married, and there is no need for an additional verse to teach this *halakha*.


###### Yevamot 87a:8
[Yevamot 87a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:8)

רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר: ״מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל״, לֶחֶם וְלֹא בָּשָׂר. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: ״מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל״, לֶחֶם הַקָּנוּי לְאָבִיהָ, פְּרָט לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק — דְּמִשֻּׁלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Safra said:** The *halakha* that she does not return to her father’s house with regard to the breast and the right hind leg is derived from the verse: **“From her father’s bread she may eat,”** which indicates that she partakes of the **“bread”** of *teruma* **but not** of the **meat** of the breast and hind leg. **Rav Pappa said** a different interpretation: **“From her father’s bread she may eat”** is referring to **bread owned by her father,** such as *teruma*, which is the property of the priest, which **excludes the breast and** right **hind leg, as** the priests **receive** their portion **from the table of** the **Most High.** Unlike *teruma*, the breast and right hind leg do not belong to the priests. Rather, after the offering is sacrificed to God, they eat these portions but are not considered to own them.


###### Yevamot 87a:9
[Yevamot 87a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:9)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״וְאֵת חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְאֵת שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה תֹּאכְלוּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנוֹתֶיךָ אִתָּךְ״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאִתְּךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said:** It states: **“And the breast of waving and the hind leg of heaving you shall eat…you, and your sons and your daughters with you”** (Leviticus 10:14). This indicates that daughters of priests may eat **at a time when** they are **“with you,”** but once they have left the priest’s domain, e.g., by marrying an ordinary Israelite, they may no longer partake of these gifts even if they subsequently return to his household.


###### Yevamot 87a:10
[Yevamot 87a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:10)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת לְבֵית אָבִיהָ — חוֹזֶרֶת לִתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ — חוֹזֶרֶת אַף לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** It was **taught:** With regard to the daughter of a priest, **when she returns to her father’s house,** after marrying and separating from her husband without a child, **she returns for** the purposes of eating ***teruma*, but she does not return for** the purposes of eating **the breast and** right **hind leg.** By contrast, if an Israelite woman ate **on account of her son** from a priest, if she later married an Israelite and he died, **she returns** to partake **even of the breast and** right **hind leg.**


###### Yevamot 87a:11
[Yevamot 87a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:11)

אֲזַל רַב מָרְדֳּכַי, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר: מֵהֵיכָא קָא מִתְרַבְּיָא — מִ״וּבַת״, מִי עֲדִיפָא לַהּ מִינַּהּ? הָתָם כְּתִיבִי מִיעוּטֵי, הָכָא לָא כְּתִיבִי מִיעוּטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mordekhai went** and **stated** this ***halakha* before Rav Ashi,** who **said** to him: **From where does** he **include** the case of a woman who partakes of *teruma* on account of her son? **From** the verse **“but** if a priest’s **daughter”** (Leviticus 22:13). **Is** the Israelite woman **preferable to her,** the daughter of a priest herself, who does not return to eating the breast and hind leg? The Gemara answers: **There,** the Torah **writes exclusions,** as we learned above, which teach us that she does not return in all regards, whereas **here it does not write exclusions.** Consequently, although the *halakha* of a woman who has a son from a priest is itself derived from the case of the daughter of a priest returning to her father’s house, she has more abilities than the latter.


###### Yevamot 87a:12
[Yevamot 87a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:12)

בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ״ — פְּרָט לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. ״כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ״ — פְּרָט לִמְעוּבֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the mishna. The mishna taught: The **daughter of a priest married to an Israelite** may not partake of *teruma*. **The Sages taught: “And she is returned unto her father’s house”** (Leviticus 22:13); this **excludes a widow awaiting her *yavam*,** for she cannot go back to her father’s house as long as she is still waiting for the *yavam* to perform levirate marriage. **“As in her youth”;** this **excludes a pregnant woman,** as her pregnancy has changed her, and she is no longer as she was in her youth.


###### Yevamot 87a:13
[Yevamot 87a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:13)

וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה וָלָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּוָלָד מִן הַשֵּׁנִי לְפוֹטְרָהּ מִן הַיִּיבּוּם — עָשָׂה עוּבָּר כְּיָלוּד,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** could this **not** be derived through an *a fortiori* **inference,** without the need for a special exposition of a verse? **If in a place,** i.e., a case, **where** the Torah **did not make** the *halakha* pertaining to **a child from the first** husband **like** the *halakha* pertaining to **a child from the second** husband **to exempt her from levirate marriage;** this is the case of a woman who married a man, had a son with him, was widowed, remarried, and her second husband died childless. She requires levirate marriage despite the fact that she has a child, as the first husband’s child is irrelevant with regard to her need for levirate marriage for the second husband. Despite this limitation, the Torah **made** the status of **a fetus like** that of a child who was **born,** as a pregnant woman does not perform levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 87a:14
[Yevamot 87a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:14)

מָקוֹם שֶׁעָשָׂה וָלָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּוָלָד מִן הַשֵּׁנִי לְפוֹסְלָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּר כְּיָלוּד?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If this is so, then in **a place where** the Torah **did make** the *halakha* pertaining to **a child from the first** husband **like** the *halakha* pertaining to **a child from the second** husband **to disqualify her from *teruma*;** this is the case of a daughter of a priest who married an Israelite, had a son with him, was widowed, and afterward married another Israelite, who died childless. She may not partake of *teruma* on account of her son from the first husband. **Is it not,** therefore, **right that we should make a fetus like** a child who was **born** with regard to *teruma*, that would prevent her from returning to partake of *teruma* if she is pregnant? If this reasoning is correct, there is no need for the biblical exposition.


###### Yevamot 87a:15
[Yevamot 87a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:15)

לָא, מָה לִי עָשָׂה עוּבָּר כְּיָלוּד לְעִנְיַן יִיבּוּם, שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה מֵתִים כְּחַיִּים — נַעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּר כְּיָלוּד לְעִנְיַן תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מֵתִים כְּחַיִּים?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ״ — פְּרָט לִמְעוּבֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, this proof can be refuted: **No, what I** should say is that the Torah **made a fetus like** a child who was **born with regard to levirate marriage, because** with regard to levirate marriage the Torah **made the dead like the living:** If the woman had a child at the time of her husband’s death she is entirely exempt from levirate marriage, even if her son subsequently died. The deceased child is like a living one in the sense that he continues to exempt his mother from the requirement of levirate marriage. **Shall we** then **make a fetus like** a child who was **born with regard to *teruma*, where** the Torah **did not make the dead like the living?** In the case of *teruma*, as long as the daughter of a priest has a living son from her Israelite husband, she is disqualified from *teruma*, but if he dies she may partake of *teruma* again, as we do not consider him like a living son. Consequently, we cannot learn the *halakha* of *teruma* from levirate marriage with regard to the status of a fetus. Therefore, **the verse states “as in her youth”** to **exclude a pregnant woman.**


###### Yevamot 87a:16
[Yevamot 87a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/87a:16)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״, מֵעִיקָּרָא חַד גּוּפָא וְהַשְׁתָּא תְּרֵי גוּפֵי, אֲבָל מְעוּבֶּרֶת, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא חַד גּוּפָא וְהַשְׁתָּא חַד גּוּפָא — אֵימָא תֵּיכוֹל, צְרִיכָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מְעוּבֶּרֶת, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא גּוּפָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it was necessary to write** this verse that teaches the *halakha* of **a pregnant woman, and it was necessary** also **to write “and she have no child”** (Leviticus 22:13) **because had the Merciful One written** only: **“And she have no child,”** I would have said that **at the outset** she was only **one body** when she ate *teruma*, **and now,** upon her return, there are **two bodies,** and that is why she is no longer “as in her youth.” **But a pregnant woman, who at the outset** was **one body and now** is still **one body,** one might **say** that **she may partake of** *teruma* until the birth of her son. Consequently, it is **necessary** for a verse to teach the *halakha*. **And** vice-versa, **had the Merciful One written** the *halakha* with regard to **a pregnant woman,** I might have said that this is true only of a pregnant woman **because at the outset** her **body**