Sifra 11.0.9

Emor, Section 5

1) (Vayikra 22:11) ("And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it, and one that is born in his house — they may eat of his bread.") Whence is it derived that if a Cohein marries a woman and acquires (gentile) servants (as opposed to Hebrew servants, whose body he does not acquire) — whence is it derived that they eat terumah? From "And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition. His acquisition" — Even the acquisition of his acquisition eats.

2) I might think that even if he bought a Hebrew servant he eats terumah; it is, therefore, written ("his) money" — to exclude a Hebrew servant, who is not (the acquisition of his) money (see above).

3) I would exclude a Hebrew servant (from eating terumah), but I would not exclude the servant of partners (i.e., a gentile servant, who is half his master's - half his own); it is, therefore, written "he (may eat of it") — to exclude a (gentile servant), who is part-servant, part-free.

4) "one that is born in his house": What is the intent of this? If "the acquisition of his money" eats (terumah) shall one born in his house not eat it? If so, I would say: Just as "the acquisition of his money" had monetary value, so, one that is born in his house must have monetary value (in order to eat terumah). Whence is it derived that (he eats) even if he is worth nothing monetarily? From "one born in his house" — in any event.

5) But I still would say: One born in his house eats whether or not he has monetary value. But the acquisition of his money eats only if he has monetary value. It is, therefore, written "the acquisition of his money and one that is born in his house. Just as the second eats even if he has no monetary value, so, the first.

6) Whence is it derived that a son (born of an Israelitess married to a Cohein, who later died) "feeds" his mother terumah (i.e., qualifies her to eat terumah)? — It follows, viz.: If the seed becomes like the father to disqualify (her from eating terumah, in the instance of the daughter of a Cohein married to an Israelite, who left her with a son), then he becomes like the father to qualify her to do so. — (No,) If the seed become like the father to disqualify, shall the seed become like the father to qualify, the "thrust" for disqualifying being greater (than that for qualifying)? It is, therefore, written "and one that is born in his house "feeds" ("feeds" is a possible construction in the Hebrew). "they may eat": They may eat (terumah), but animals may not eat it. I might think that they are not even permitted to eat carshinah (horse-bean, rarely used as a human food); it is, therefore, written "soul," (and animals are also subsumed under that term). "of his bread": to exclude (authorization to eat the terumah of) the dead, who do not have bread (i.e., who are not considered to possess it). (That is, if the Cohein died and his heirs are not Cohanim, his servants do not eat the terumah even if the heirs have not yet acquired them.)

7) (Vayikra 22:12) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar, she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat.") "And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar": This tells me only of a mamzer (a bastard). Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even (if she were wed) to (a Levite or an Israelite)? From "to a man who is a zar" (a non-priest). Whence is (the same derived) for a widow (wed) to a high-priest or a divorcée or one who had performed chalitzah (levirate refusal), who was (wed) to an ordinary Cohein? From "to a man" (including) the man who feeds her, (who in the above instances, is a zar [ineligible] to her.)

8) (Why is the verse needed to tell me this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If an Israelite, whose cohabitation (with the daughter of a Cohein) does not disqualify her from the priesthood (i.e., an Israelite widow may marry a Cohein), still, it disqualifies her from terumah), then, a high-priest, whose cohabitation disqualified her from the priesthood (i.e., he renders her a challalah) — how much more so must his habitation disqualify her from terumah? — No, this may be so with an Israelite, who does not feed feed (terumah to) others (i.e., to his other wives, who are not daughters of a Cohein). Would you say the same for a high-priest, who does feed his other wives? (i.e., Even after she becomes a challalah, he is not disqualified from his priesthood.) Since he feeds others, his cohabitation should not disqualify her from terumah! It must, therefore, be written "to a man" (including) the man who feed her.

9) "she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat": She does not eat, but she feeds her mother.

10) How so? The daughter of an Israelite, who married a Cohein (who later died), and she had a daughter by him, who went and married an Israelite (and he died, and the daughter returned to her father's house) — I would say that just as she does not eat the terumah ["the lifting"] of the holy things [i.e., the breast and the thigh), so, her mother should not eat. It is, therefore, written "she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat" — She does not eat, but she "feeds" her mother.