Yevamot

, but where she is suspected of illicit relations with him, the child is regarded as his, although she is also suspected of such relations with others. Said Raba: Whence do I derive this? From the Statement, IF, HOWEVER, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD, SHE MAY EAT. For how is this to be understood? If it be suggested to refer to a woman who is suspected of illicit relations with him but not with strangers, was it at all necessary to state that she may eat terumah?  Consequently it must refer to a woman  who was suspected of illicit relations with strangers also. Now, if there,  where she is forbidden to the one as well as to the other,  the child is regarded as his,  how much more so  here  where she is forbidden to any other man and is permitted to him.  Said Abaye to him: It may still be maintained that Rab is of the opinion that wherever she is suspected of illicit relations with strangers the child is deemed to be a bastard even if she is also suspected of such relations with him; and our Mishnah deals with one who had not been suspected at all. A SLAVE, BY HIS COHABITATION, DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH etc. What is the reason?  — Scripture stated, The wife and her  children shall be etc. A BASTARD DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EATING TERUMAH AND ALSO BESTOWS THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER. Our Rabbis taught: And have no child.  So far I only know  of her own child; whence her child's child? It was consequently stated, And have no child,  implying 'any child whatsoever'.  So far I only know of a legitimate child; whence the illegitimate child? It was stated, And have no [en lah]  child,  which implies, 'hold an enquiry  concerning her.'  But from this text,  surely, the deduction concerning a child's child was made! — No Scriptural text is really required for the inclusion of one's child's child, since children's children are like children;  if a text is at all required it is for the inclusion of an illegitimate child. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: In accordance with whose view?  Is it only in accordance with that of R. Akiba who maintains that the offspring of a union between such whose intercourse involves them in the penalty of a negative precept is regarded as a bastard!  — It may even be said to represent the view of the Rabbis, since in respect of an idolater and a slave they agree.  For when R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Isaac b. Abdimi in the name of our Master:  If an idolater or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite, the child born from such a union is deemed a bastard. A HIGH PRIEST SOMETIMES DEPRIVES A WOMAN OF HER RIGHT. Our Rabbis taught: [The grandmother might justly say], 'I would [willingly] be an atonement  for my grandson, the little cruse  who bestows upon me the privilege of eating terumah,  but would not be an atonement for my grandson, the big jar  who deprives me of the privilege of eating terumah. MISHNAH. AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]  AND ALL LEVITICALLY UNCLEAN PERSONS MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH. THEIR WIVES AND SLAVES, HOWEVER, MAY EAT TERUMAH.  [A PRIEST WHO IS] WOUNDED IN HIS STONES  AND ONE WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF,  AS WELL AS THEIR SLAVES, MAY EAT TERUMAH, BUT THEIR WIVES MAY NOT.  IF, HOWEVER, NO COHABITATION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE MAN WAS WOUNDED OR HAD HIS MEMBRUM CUT OFF, THE WIVES  ARE PERMITTED TO EAT. WHO IS TERMED A PEZU' A DAKKAH?  A MAN WHO IS WOUNDED EITHER IN BOTH HIS STONES, OR EVEN ONLY IN ONE OF THEM. AND A KERUTH SHOFEKAH? A MAN WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF. IF, HOWEVER, [ANY PART] OF THE CORONA REMAINED, EVEN SO MUCH AS A HAIR'S BREADTH, THE MAN IS REGARDED AS FIT. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer  stated, Whence is it deduced that an uncircumcised [priest] may not eat terumah? A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb,  and A sojourner and a hired servant were also mentioned in respect of terumah,  as the paschal lamb, in connection with which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised,  so is terumah, in respect of which 'A sojourner and a hired servant' were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised. R. Akiba stated: This deduction is unnecessary. Since it was stated, What man soever,  the uncircumcised also is included. The Master said, 'R. Eliezer stated, "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned in connection with the paschal lamb, and "A sojourner and a hired servant" were also mentioned in respect of terumah,'  as the paschal lamb, in connection with which "A sojourner and a hired servant" were mentioned, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so is terumah, in respect of which "A sojourner and a hired servant were mentioned, forbidden to the uncircumcised'. Is it  free for deduction?  For if it is not free, the objection might be raised  that the paschal lamb may be different  since in connection with it one may also incur penalties  for pigul,  nothar  and uncleanness!  — It is certainly free for the deduction. Which expression  is free? Is it that of terumah? Surely it is required for its own purpose. For it was taught: A sojourner  means one who is acquired for life  and a hired servant  means one who is acquired for a number of years.  But let 'sojourner' only be mentioned and a 'hired servant' be omitted and one would infer: If one who is acquired for life  is not permitted to eat terumah how much less one who is acquired only for a number of years! If so,  it might have been assumed that 'a sojourner' means one who is acquired for a number of years [and that only he may not eat terumah],  but that one who is acquired for life may eat,  hence the insertion of the expression, 'a hired servant', which explains the meaning of sojourner,  [viz.,] that it signifies one who, though acquired for life, may not eat!  — But [in fact] the one  mentioned in respect of the paschal lamb is free for deduction. For what could be the meaning of 'A sojourner and a hired servant' which the All Merciful wrote in connection with the paschal lamb?  If it be suggested that it means the actual sojourner and hired servant,  [could it have been imagined] that [an Israelite]  is exempt from the Paschal lamb because he is a sojourner or a hired servant? Surely, we have it as an established law in regard to terumah that such a person is not permitted to eat it,