קוּבְיוּסְטוּס הִגִּיעוֹ מַאי אִיכָּא לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין אוֹ מוּכְתָּב לַמַּלְכוּת הָנְהוּ קָלָא אִית לְהוּ a gambler [kuvyustus], it has come to him, meaning that the seller has caught the buyer in a binding transaction, and he cannot annul the sale due to this kind of defect, as these characteristics are common in slaves. What is the halakha if it was discovered that the slave was an armed bandit or that the king had signed his death warrant, and there is a danger that the government will catch him and execute him? These are serious and uncommon defects that in principle could invalidate a sale. However, these defects generate publicity. In such unusual and severe circumstances, everyone is aware of them. Therefore, it is assumed that the buyer knew about them as well and nevertheless acquiesced to buy the slave. Consequently, there is no reason to revoke the sale of a slave.
מִכְּדִי בֵּין לְמָר וּבֵין לְמָר לָא אָכְלָה מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ קִבֵּל מָסַר וְהָלַךְ The Gemara asks: After all, according to this Sage, Ulla, and according to that Sage, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda, she may not partake of teruma, so what is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in cases where he accepted, or he transferred or went. If the husband explicitly accepted her blemishes, there is no concern with regard to abrogation, but there is still a concern that she will give her family members teruma wine. Conversely, if the father transferred his daughter to the agents of the husband and entrusted her to their care, or if the father’s own agents went with the girl and the agents of the husband, there is no longer concern that she might give her family members teruma, as she is not with them, but there is still a concern about abrogation.
רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נוֹתְנִין לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה וְכוּ׳ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּבַת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן אֲבָל בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה § The mishna states that there is a dispute with regard to how a priest must provide for the sustenance of his betrothed once the appointed time for the marriage arrives. Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her everything from teruma. Rabbi Akiva says: He must give her half non-sacred food and half may be teruma. Abaye said: This dispute is referring to a daughter of a priest betrothed to a priest. But with regard to an Israelite woman who was betrothed to a priest, all agree that he must give her half non-sacred food and half may be teruma. A priest’s daughter is familiar with the halakhot of teruma and knows how to handle it when she is ritually impure, but when an Israelite woman is not yet familiar with these procedures, there is concern that she might defile the teruma. Consequently, she is given some non-sacred food to use as well.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת בַּאֲרוּסָה אֲבָל בִּנְשׂוּאָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה And Abaye also said that this dispute is referring only to a betrothed woman whose wedding date has arrived, but with regard to a married woman, all agree that her husband must give her half of her needs from non-sacred food and half may be teruma, as it is not appropriate for his wife to have to go to the trouble of selling teruma in order to obtain non-sacred food.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נוֹתְנִין לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבַת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן אֲבָל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּאֲרוּסָה אֲבָל בִּנְשׂוּאָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her everything from teruma, and Rabbi Akiva says: Half must be non-sacred food and half may be teruma. In what case is this statement said? With regard to a daughter of a priest betrothed to a priest. But with regard to an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, all agree that she gets half non-sacred food and half may be teruma. In what case is this statement said? With regard to a betrothed woman, but with regard to a married woman, all agree that he must give half non-sacred food and half may be teruma.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נוֹתֵן לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה וְהִיא מוֹכֶרֶת וְלוֹקַחַת בַּדָּמִים חוּלִּין רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּזְכְּרָה תְּרוּמָה נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כִּפְלַיִם בְּחוּלִּין Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He need not give half and half, but rather he may give her two parts teruma and one part non-sacred food. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may give her all of it in teruma, but as the value of teruma is lower than that of non-sacred food, the amount must suffice so that when she sells teruma during the days when she is ritually impure, she can buy a sufficient quantity of non-sacred food with the money. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Wherever teruma is mentioned, he must give her double the amount that she would receive of non-sacred food, so that she will not have difficulty locating buyers for her teruma. Teruma is less popular and its price is significantly lower, since its use is restricted. But if she receives a large amount of teruma, she will be able to sell it at an even lower price and locate a buyer more easily.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ טִירְחָא The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to effort. According to Rabbi Yehuda, she must make an effort to find buyers who will provide her with enough non-sacred food for her needs, and consequently, according to him the husband must provide an amount of teruma that is equal in value to the amount of non-sacred food to which she is entitled. In contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel adds additional teruma to her allotment beyond this amount, so that she will not be forced to go to as much trouble to sell it.
הַיָּבָם אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה מַאי טַעְמָא קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְהַאי קִנְיָן דְּאָחִיו הוּא § The mishna states that a yavam does not enable the yevama to partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah: “The acquisition of his money” (Leviticus 22:11) may partake of teruma, but this woman is his brother’s acquisition and not his, since a yavam does not complete his marriage to the yevama until he consummates the marriage.
עָשְׂתָה שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל הַשְׁתָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל אָמְרַתְּ לָא בִּפְנֵי הַיָּבָם מִיבַּעְיָא זוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זוֹ קָתָנֵי § The mishna said that if she completed six months from the time of the request for marriage under the aegis of the husband and another six months under the aegis of the yavam, she may not partake of teruma. It then says that this is also true if she completed most of the year under the aegis of the husband, and then it says that this is also true if she completed most of the time under the aegis of the yavam. The Gemara asks: Now that you say that if she completed most of the time under the aegis of the husband this does not enable her to partake of teruma, is it necessary to say that the same is true if she spent most of the time under the aegis of the yavam? The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches the mishna employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that, meaning that the cases are organized from the less obvious to the more obvious.
זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כּוּ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר עוּלָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם סִימְפּוֹן § The mishna states that this ruling, that a woman betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma while she is still in her father’s house if the time for her wedding has arrived, is according to the initial version of the mishna. But that according to the final version, she may not partake of teruma until she has actually entered the wedding canopy. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this later ruling? Ulla said, and some say that Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said, that it is due to concern about abrogation, as the woman may have some blemish that will cause the annulment of the marriage, and it will then be clear that she consumed teruma unlawfully.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא קַמַּיְיתָא שֶׁמָּא יִמְזְגוּ לָהּ כּוֹס בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ וּבָתְרָיְיתָא מִשּׁוּם סִימְפּוֹן The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, the first ruling that the Sages taught in the initial version of the mishna, namely that she may not partake of teruma in her father’s house immediately after betrothal, is because Ulla was concerned lest someone pour her a cup of teruma wine while she would be in her father’s house. And the latter ruling, that she may not partake of teruma until she actually enters the wedding canopy, even after the time for marriage arrives, is due to concern about abrogation. Consequently, there are two different reasons for the two different rulings.