were twin sisters, and became the matriarchs of families of distinguished Torah scholars.

The Gemara asks: Are women not commanded to be fruitful and multiply? Didn’t Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ketina say that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident with a certain woman who was half-slave and half-free woman and therefore could marry neither a Canaanite slave nor a Jew, and they forced her master and he made her a free woman. Presumably, the reason the court forced her master to free her was so that she could fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The reason they forced her master to free her was because others treated her in a loose manner. Since she knew that she could not marry she engaged in promiscuous activity, and the court forced her master to free her in order to save her and others from sin.

MISHNA: A widow married to a High Priest, and a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest are all unions prohibited by Torah law. If one of these women brought with her into the marriage slaves of usufruct [melog] property or slaves of guaranteed investment, then the slaves of usufruct property do not partake of teruma but the slaves of guaranteed investment do partake of teruma.

And these are slaves of usufruct property: They are those with regard to whom the couple stipulated that if the slaves die, their death is her loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is her gain. Although the husband is obligated in their sustenance, they do not partake of teruma, as they belong to her, not to him. He owns only the right of their use while he is married to her. And these are slaves of guaranteed investment: They are those with regard to whom the couple stipulated that if they die, their death is his loss, and if they increase in value, their increase is his gain. Since he bears financial responsibility for compensating her in the event of their loss, they partake of teruma, as they are considered his property.

In the case of an Israelite woman who married a priest in a halakhic marriage and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they partake of teruma. And in the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and who brought slaves with her into the marriage, whether they are slaves of usufruct property or slaves of guaranteed investment, they do not partake of teruma, although, as she is the daughter of a priest, it is permitted for her and her slaves to partake of teruma beforehand.

GEMARA: The mishna states that if a priest married a woman forbidden to him, his wife’s slaves of usufruct property do not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Why is this so? Let this case be like that of his acquisition who acquired an acquisition, as it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who married a woman and acquired slaves that they partake of teruma? As it is stated: ''But if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it'' (Leviticus 22:11).

And from where is it derived with regard to both the wife of a priest who acquired slaves and a priest’s slaves who acquired slaves, that the acquired slaves may also partake of teruma? As it is stated: ''But if a priest buys any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it,'' which is interpreted to mean: If his acquisition acquired an acquisition, the latter partakes of teruma. Here too, since the slaves of usufruct property belong to his wife, it should be permitted for them to partake of teruma.

The Gemara answers: The principle is that anyone who is fit to partake of teruma can enable others to partake of teruma, and anyone who does not partake of teruma cannot enable others to partake. Since the priest’s wife in this case does not partake of teruma, as her marriage is forbidden, her slaves do not partake of teruma either.

The Gemara asks: And is it so that one who does not partake of teruma cannot enable others to partake? But aren’t there the cases of a priest who is uncircumcised because it was considered too dangerous for him and all impure priests, who do not partake of teruma, and yet they enable their wives and slaves to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: The difference is that there, in those cases, there is no inherent disqualification rendering them unfit to partake of teruma. The hindrance to their partaking of teruma is tantamount to a situation where their mouths hurt, and that is why they refrain from eating teruma. They retain, however, the fundamental right to partake of teruma, and therefore they can enable others to partake as well.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], who does not partake of teruma yet enables others to partake? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest and was subsequently widowed or divorced, and a child from that union married a mamzer and then had a child, in that case, even if the woman’s child is dead, she partakes of teruma due to her grandchild, as she has a living descendant from a priest, although that descendant is a mamzer. Although this child does not partake of teruma, he enables his grandmother to partake of it.

Ravina said that the above principle is referring to the case of an acquisition who partakes of teruma. If the acquisition of a priest partakes of teruma, he enables others to partake, whereas an acquisition who does not partake, e.g., his forbidden wife, cannot enable others to partake.

And Rava said a different solution. By Torah law, the forbidden wife’s slaves indeed partake of teruma, as they are included in the category of: His acquisition who acquired an acquisition. And it was the Sages who issued a decree prohibiting them from partaking of teruma, so that the woman unlawfully married to a priest would say: I do not partake of his teruma and my slaves do not partake of it either, so that she will realize that she is not a valid wife, but rather she is like a prostitute to him. Her husband will therefore come to divorce her, which is the desired outcome.

Rav Ashi said a different reason for the prohibition: It is a rabbinic decree lest she have those slaves partake of teruma even after the death of her husband the priest. As long as he is alive, they are permitted to partake of teruma, as she is considered his acquisition and they belong to her. Once he dies, she is no longer his acquisition.

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the decree is lest she have those slaves partake of teruma after her husband’s death, any Israelite woman who marries a priest should not enable her slaves of usufruct property to partake of teruma either, due to the same rabbinic decree, lest she have them partake of teruma after her husband’s death.

Rather, Rav Ashi said that the decree is dealing with a widowed priestess, the daughter of a priest, who then married the High Priest, as she is likely to rationalize enabling her slaves to partake of teruma after the death of the High Priest as follows: Initially, my slaves partook of the teruma of my father’s house. I then married this man, and they partook of the teruma of my husband. And now that my husband died, I have returned to the original circumstance, and therefore they may once again partake of my father’s teruma. And she does not realize that this is not so, as initially she did not render herself a woman disqualified from marrying a priest [ḥalala], but now, by marrying a High Priest unlawfully, she rendered herself a ḥalala, and both she and her slaves do not partake of teruma even upon returning to her father’s house.

The Gemara asks: This works out well as an explanation of the mishna, with regard to a widowed priestess. However, if that widow who married a High Priest was an Israelite woman, what can be said? There is no reason for the decree in that case. The Gemara answers: With regard to widowhood, the Sages did not distinguish between one type of widow and another. Once they issued a decree due to one widow, they applied it to all widows.

It was stated: With regard to a woman who brings appraised, guaranteed property into her marital contract with her husband, he is obligated to return it at the conclusion of the marriage. Upon collection of her marriage contract, e.g., following divorce, if she says: I am taking my belongings, and he says: I am willing to give you only their monetary value, the halakha favors whom? Rav Yehuda said: