Terumot - Chapter 8

This statement is explained in the halachot that follow.

Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.

I.e., as soon as the baby is born, the mother is entitled to eat by virtue of her child. Until it is born, however, the restrictions apply.

Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.

Rashi (Yevamot 67b) explains that a pregnant woman is excluded, because she does not resemble a maiden.

Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.

To purify herself from the impurity she contracted because of the relations in which she engaged (see Leviticus 15:18). Note, however, Chapter 7, Halachah 7, and notes, from which it is apparent that there are times when a woman will have to wait longer.

For even if she became pregnant, the pregnancy is not significant as the Rambam continues to explain. Hence, after 40 days passed, she should refrain from partaking of terumah until it is clear that she is not pregnant.

She is required to make restoration of the terumah and add a fifth of its value as atonement.

Without any other children.

She herself may also not partake of terumah, as stated in Halachah 2. This halachah is speaking about her servants that are nichsei tzon barzel and thus belong to the heirs of her husband's estate. Until the fetus is born, it is not a significant entity and the servants that belong to it do not have the right to partake of terumah because of it.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that the right of the fetus to the servants is significant even before the fetus is born. Hence, he disqualifies them from partaking of terumah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the relevant Talmudic portions that substantiate the Rambam's ruling.

Until the estate is divided and each brother receives his share.

Regardless of the age of the prospective yavam.

Although she was married to the brother of the yavam, the yavam does not acquire her until he performs yibbum. The Radbaz emphasizes that this ruling applies even if the yavam gave her a ma'amar, designating her as his wife.

Which, were she not obligated to her yavam, she could partake of by virtue of her membership in the priestly family.

Rashi (loc. cit. 67b) explains that such a woman is excluded, because she may not return to her father's home.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:10, the term "uncover" is of Biblical origin (Leviticus 20:18) and refers to the insertion of the corona alone in the woman's vaginal channel. "Completing relations" refers to the insertion of the entire male organ.

Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 2:3.

And thus was not yet entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of her initial marriage.

I.e., during her first marriage.

Chapter 6, Halachah 3, explains that the Sages forbade such a woman from partaking of terumah for this reason. According to Scriptural Law, she is entitled to partake of it.

By virtue of her ancestral right.

When a woman's husband words his statement in that manner, the consecration does not take effect until the 30 days pass (Hilchot Ishut 7:10).

In which instance, the wording he uses is confusing and there is a doubt whether the consecration takes effect immediately or only after 30 days (ibid.:12).

Because of the doubt regarding her status.

I.e., if the man consecrated the woman conditionally, but stated that when the condition is fulfilled, the consecration would take effect from the present time (see ibid.: 6:16).

According to Scriptural Law, a deaf-mute does not have the capacity to consecrate a woman as his wife. Our Sages, however, desired that these individuals be given a chance to enjoy the basics of family life (see Hilchot Ishut 4:9, 11:4).

And the acquisition ordained by our Sages does not have the power to supercede Scriptural Law.

For her consecration did not entitle her to partake of terumah and her marriage to a deaf-mute (through yibbum) does not give her this right either.

In this instance, the yibbum performed by the deaf-mute creates a marriage-bond that is effective according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the relations with which he engages with her resemble the inadvertent relations mentioned in Halachah 6 and hence do not entitle the woman to partake of terumah.

For she is married according to Scriptural Law.

And the relations with the yavam restore her to her previous status.

The Rambam speaks about a boy "nine years and one day old." Nevertheless, the intent is that he has completed nine years of life and entered his tenth year. Even a portion of a day is considered as an entire day. Thus as soon as a child reaches his ninth birthday, he is nine years and one day old. Hence, for the purpose of brevity, we have translated as above.

Although such a child is a minor and not entirely sexually potent, at this age, he is somewhat physically mature. Hence, relations in which he engage are significant to a certain extent. See Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum 1:16; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:13.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 7.

I.e., and he inserted his organ in hers without an erection. The Radbaz explains that this is the fundamental new concept taught by this halachah. Otherwise, it would be obvious that since relations with this child are significant and they are forbidden to this woman, they disqualify her from partaking of terumah.

For a male cannot acquire a wife until he reaches majority. Such a marriage is not significant even according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut 11:6-7).

In which instance, she would be forbidden to partake of terumah.

In which instance, she would be permitted.

Because of the doubt.

For a child does not reach maturity - and hence, a marriage that he enters is not significant - until he manifests bodily signs, two pubic hairs for a male, that he has reached maturity. Attaining the age of maturity is itself not sufficient (Hilchot Ishut 2:10-11).

Seemingly, this clause is also speaking about an instance where the daughter of a priest is marrying a youth who disqualifies her and the question is whether he is of sufficient physical maturity for the marriage to be significant. In that instance, however, it would be proper to speak of consecration, not marriage. For this reason, Rav Yosef Korcus defines this clause as referring to a daughter of an Israelite who is marrying a priest and the question is whether the marriage entitles her to partake of terumah or not.

If the individual involved is an Israelite fit to marry this woman.

If the individual involved is a priest.

I.e., one who seduced a girl under majority. In that instance, even though the relations were with consent, since the girl is a minor, they are considered to have been carried out against her will.

In the first two instances, since the relations were carried out outside the context of marriage, they are not significant with regard to terumah. In the latter instance, since the marriage of an intellectual or emotionally unstable person is of no significance whatsoever (Hilchot Ishut 11:6), the relations are considered as taking place outside the context of marriage.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. In such an instance, the woman is disqualified even if the relations were carried out under duress.

Since he is a priest, he entitles his mother to partake of terumah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.

I.e., she resumes her previous status.

A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery who is subjected to a test of her fidelity by drinking special water, the "bitter water" mentioned by the Rambam, prepared in the Temple. For a woman to be required to take this test, two witnesses must testify that she was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with a particular man and two witnesses must testify that she in fact entered into privacy with the said person (Hilchot Sotah 1:1).

See Hilchot Sotah 2:2 which mentions fifteen women that are placed in this category.

For the sotah test is necessary to very whether or not she was faithful to her husband and that test is not administered unless the husband is alive (ibid. 2:7).

This is not speaking about a sotah, but rather an ordinary woman married to a priest.

Hilchot Ishut 24:23 states that, in this situation, we do not accept the woman's word and we require her to remain married to her husband, for we suspect that she was not unfaithful and made this statement only so that she would be divorced and free to marry someone else. Nevertheless, her word is accepted with regard to terumah and her husband must provide her with other food.

Until a girl attains majority, she cannot marry without her father's consent. Thus it is as if the marriage is conditional until he consents and if he does not consent, it is nullified (Hilchot Ishut 3:13, 22:5). Hence, we do no allow her to partake of terumah, for if the marriage is nullified, she would have no right to partake of terumah.

And does not desire to speak his mind until he calms down.