As we move into Perek VII, we shift from the concept of acquisition in yibum toward the halachot of teruma. Daf 66 seemed out of place; the legal discussion sounds like something taken from Ketubot. We learn a new Mishna: When a woman is prohibited from marrying a priest and yet they marry, are her slaves entitled to partake of teruma? That woman might be a widow who marries a High Priest, or a chalutza who marries a common priest.
The Mishna describes two types of property (and we have to remember that slaves are property): melog, usufruct property, and tzon barzel, guaranteed investment. Slaves who are melog property continue to belong to the wife in marriage. Her husband is responsible for their sustenance but not through the use of teruma. Slaves who are tzon barzel property belong to the husband once the couple marries. He is responsible for their sustenance and they may partake of teruma, but he also bears the loss and reaps the gain that might come from these people.
Finally, the Mishna teaches that an Israelite woman who is permitted to marry a priest (and then marries him) will have access to teruma for her slaves whether they are melog or tzon barzel property. However, a kohenet, daughter of a priest, who marries an Israelite cannot partake of teruma for her new family nor for her slaves.
The Gemara considers a number of theoretical cases including a not-yet-circumsized priest. His condition is thought to be temporary, unlike the woman who is 'unfit' to marry a priest, and so this analogy does not work. What can we learn from the example of a mamzer born of a forbidden relationship involving a priest? We learn that there are people who cannot partake of teruma themselves but they enable other to partake.
Rav Ashi describes a situation that uses a widowed kohenet's voice as narrator. She says, "Initially, we partook of the teruma of my father's house. I married [the High Priest] and [my slaves] partook of ther teruma of my husband. And now [that my husband has died], I have returned to the original circumstance." Rav Ashi points out that this widow was in fact forbidden to the High Priest. Because they married, she is now classified as a chalala. Thus she and her slaves are not entitled to partake of teruma when she returns to her father's house.
Amud (b) focuses on the division and valuing of a woman's property when she leaves her marriage to a priest because he has died. They compare this process to the valuing of a cow that has been given to another person; the exchange is akin to rental, or lending. Interest therefore does not apply. That cow's access to teruma is discussed as well.
It is noted that slaves who are property through tzon barzel are freed if they lose or severely damage a finger, an eye or a tooth. However, the injury had to be at the hand of the husband, who owns these slaves under tzon barzel, and not the wife. Similarly, other property that the wife brought into their marriage must be valued as well. What if the husband does not own that property, as it was melog, but he sold it over the course of the marriage? What if he wished to give her its value instead of the actual property? It is noted that women's rights to ownership of property are defended by many of our rabbis. The details are debated, but a line of thought runs through our past two dapim suggesting that the Gemara concerns itself with the financial viability of women who are divorced and widowed.
Having said this, the women who were slaves and maidservants and minor wives were not offered similar protection. The creation and maintenance of a highly structured, hierarchical society was paramount in the mind of our rabbis. Each law lines up with the next. We witness a complex integration of past texts, social visioning and belief in the guiding power of G-d. Our rabbis used this web to justify continued oppressions: slavery, forced marriage through rape, etc. Further, the kindnesses of our rabbis toward women in some situations become more acutely highlighted. Sometimes I wish that I could simply read this text and marvel at how progressive our rabbis were, protecting the lives of some women. But it was only some women who were offered any protection - and it wasn't that much protection after all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment