Yevamot

twin sisters. But does not the commandment apply to women? Surely, R. Aha b. R. Kattina related in the name of R. Isaac: It once happened in the case of a woman who was half slave and half free, that her master was compelled to emancipate her!  R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: People were taking liberties with her. MISHNAH. IF A WIDOW [WHO MARRIED] A HIGH PRIEST,  OR IF A DIVORCED WOMAN OR A HALUZAH [WHO MARRIED] A COMMON PRIEST BROUGHT IN TO HER HUSBAND MELOG  SLAVES AND ZON BARZEL  SLAVES. THE MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH BUT THE ZON BARZEL SLAVES MAY EAT OF IT. THE FOLLOWING ARE MELOG SLAVES: THOSE WHO, IF THEY DIE, ARE THE WIFE'S  LOSS AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE HER PROFIT. THOUGH IT IS THE HUSBAND'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN THEM, THEY MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE ZON BARZEL SLAVES: IF THEY DIE, THEY ARE THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND AND, IF THEIR VALUE INCREASES, ARE A PROFIT TO HIM. SINCE HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM,  THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH. IF THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH WHETHER THEY ARE MELOG SLAVES, OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES.  IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST, HOWEVER, WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE AND SHE BROUGHT HIM IN SLAVES, THEY MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH WHETHER THEY ARE MELOG SLAVES OR ZON BARZEL SLAVES. GEMARA. And MELOG SLAVES MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH! What is the reason? Let them rather be regarded as a possession that was acquired by one in his possession [who is permitted to eat terumah]. for it was taught: Whence is it deduced that the wife whom a priest married or the slaves which he purchased may eat terumah.? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul the purchase of his money, he may eat of it.  And whence is it deduced that if a woman  purchased slaves  or if a priest's slaves purchased  other slaves, these may eat terumah? It is said, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it;  a possession which his possession has acquired may eat!  — Whosoever may himself eat may confer the right of eating upon others but whosoever may not himself eat may not confer the right of eating upon others.  May he not, indeed?  There is, surely, the case of  an uncircumcised man and that of all levitically unclean persons who may not themselves eat terumah and yet confer the right of eating it upon others!  — In those cases  they are merely suffering pain in their mouths.  But there is, surely, the case of  the bastard  Who may not eat terumah himself  and yet may confer the right of eating it upon others!  — Rabina replied. He speaks of an acquisition  that is permitted to eat: Any acquisition that may eat may confer the right of eating upon others, and any acquisition that may not eat may not confer the right upon others. Raba, however, stated  that pentateuchally they  may in fact eat terumah; but it is the Rabbis who instituted the prohibition in order that the woman might complain, 'I am not allowed to eat; my slaves are not allowed to eat; I am only his mistress!', in consequence of which he would be likely to divorce her. R. Ashi stated:  The prohibition is a preventive measure against the possibility of her feeding them  with terumah after the death [of her husband].  Now, then,  a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest should also be forbidden to feed [her melog slaves with terumah] as a preventive measure against her feeding them after [her husband's] death!  — But, said R. Ashi, [our Mishnah refers to] a priestly widow  who  might draw the following conclusion:  'At first  they  ate terumah at my paternal home;  and when I married this man  they  ate  of the terumah of my husband; they  should now,  therefore, revert to their former condition',  and she would not know that at first  she had not made of herself a profaned woman  while now  she has made herself a profaned woman.  This explanation is quite satisfactory in the case of a priestly widow;  what explanations however, is there in the case of a widow who is the daughter of an Israelite?— The Rabbis made no distinction between one widow and another. It was stated: If a wife: who brought to her husband  appraised goods,  demands,  'I will accept only my own goods',  and he replies 'I am only paying their value'  — in whose favour is judgment to be given? Rab Judah said: