[ p. 215 ]
§ 1. When a widow who [unlawfully] married a high-priest, or a divorced woman, or one who had given Chalitzah, had been [also unlawfully] married to an ordinary priest, and brought their husbands [as a marriage portion] the usufructum of slaves עבדי מלוג, [^704] or of slaves which are as an iron flock, [^705] עבדי צאן ברזל: the first-mentioned slaves may not eat of the heave, but the last-mentioned slaves may eat thereof. The term “usufructum slaves,” denotes, that the loss of these slaves by death, or the profit that may accrue from them by their increase, are entirely at the risk, or for the advantage of the wife; and, therefore, although the husband is bound to maintain them, yet they may not eat of his heave-offering. Slaves which are as an “iron flock,” are such, whose death is the husband’s loss, or their increase his profit; and as he has thus the entire risk of them, they may eat of the heave-offering [as if they had been bought by him].
§ 2. When an Israelite woman marries a priest, to whom she brought slaves as her marriage portion, the said slaves may eat of the heave, whether they are usufructum slaves, or [as the so called] iron flock; but if a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite, and brought him slaves, whether in usufruct or as an iron flock, they may not eat heave.
§ 3. When a priest, who had married an Israelite woman, dies, leaving her pregnant, her [iron flock] slaves may not eat of the heave, on account of the share [or interest] the yet unborn child of [ p. 216 ] the priest has [in the inheritance of his father], and the heave belongs to the heirs [^706]]; because an unborn priest’s child may indeed disqualify a person to eat of heave, [^707] but cannot confer the right to give slaves to eat thereof. Such is the dictum of R. Josh; but the sages argued against this, and said unto him, “[If so] even as you affirm this in respect to an Israelite woman married to a priest, thus also, even if she were a priest’s daughter married to a priest, and had been left pregnant by him at his decease, ought also not to be allowed to eat of the heave, on account of the share of the unborn infant?” [Because the slaves are the property of the unborn infant as being the heir; and, according to R. José, an unborn child cannot confer a right to give slaves to eat of consecrated heave].
§§ 4 &5. * * * *
* * * *
§ 6. A high-priest may occasionally disqualify [his grandmother to eat of the heave], as in the following instance:—when a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite, and bore him a daughter, which daughter married a priest, and had a son by him,—that son will be qualified to be a high-priest, and to minister as such at the altar; he qualifies his mother [at the death of his father] to eat of the heave, but disqualifies his maternal grandmother, who may well pray that “there be not many in Israel like my grandson the high-priest, who disqualifies me from eating of the heave-offering.”
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *