this one may also partake of teruma until that time. The Gemara refutes this argument: From where do we know that this is correct? Perhaps Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon stated their opinion there only with regard to a priest whose status can entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, but here, in the case of a priest with crushed testicles, whose status cannot entitle her to partake of teruma in another case, as it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who was born Jewish, no, they did not state their opinion.

And if you say that here too, his status can at least entitle his wife to partake of teruma if he marries the daughter of converts, wasn’t it already raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yoḥanan before Rabbi Oshaya whether the daughter of converts who married a priest with crushed testicles may partake of teruma, and he was unable to resolve it for him? Therefore, there is a difference between a priest with crushed testicles and other priests who betroth women who are disqualified by their intercourse.

It was stated that Abaye said: Women betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles may eat teruma since his status entitles his wife to partake of teruma in a case where he has not known her. If a priest was properly married and then his testicles became crushed, as long as he has not known his wife, i.e., engaged in intercourse with her, after that point in time, she may continue partaking of teruma as his wife.

Rava said she may continue to partake of teruma for a different reason: She may eat teruma since the status of this priest entitles his Canaanite slaves and maidservants to partake of teruma. Because he has the power to enable others to partake of teruma, the case of a woman betrothed to a priest with crushed testicles is comparable to the cases in the mishna, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon would permit the woman to partake of teruma.

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Abaye did not say in accordance with the opinion of Rava because he claims that we derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of marriage, and we do not derive the halakhot related to the acquisition of marriage from the acquisition of slaves.

And Rava did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, as he maintains that it is different there, as she had already partaken of teruma before her husband’s testicles were crushed and therefore she may continue to partake of it. And Abaye would respond that we do not say that the case is different because she had already partaken of teruma, as, if you do not say so, the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest who died childless should be allowed to partake of teruma, as she had already partaken of teruma while her husband was alive. And Rava replies that there is no comparison between the two cases: There, his acquisition lapses upon his death; here, his acquisition does not lapse, as she is still his wife.

§ The Gemara earlier mentioned a question that Rabbi Yoḥanan posed to Rabbi Oshaya, and it now turns its attention to that matter itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts, what is the halakha concerning whether his status entitles her to partake of teruma? Rabbi Oshaya was silent and said nothing to him. Eventually another great man came and raised a different dilemma before Rabbi Oshaya, and he resolved his question. And who was this great man? Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Oshaya: Is Rabbi Yoḥanan not a great man? Why didn’t you address his dilemma? Rabbi Oshaya said to him: I did not respond because he raised a dilemma before me that has no resolution.

The Gemara explains: According to whom did he raise his dilemma? If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then, whether the priest with crushed testicles retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity and may marry women forbidden to priests, she may not partake of teruma. The reasoning is as follows: If he retains his priestly sanctity she may not partake of teruma, as the Master said: The status of the daughter of a male convert is like that of the daughter of a male ḥalal. They are both prohibited from marrying a priest, and therefore even if they marry a priest, it is prohibited for them to eat teruma.

Even if he does not retain his priestly sanctity she may not eat, as we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the congregation of converts is called the congregation of the Lord. Therefore, when the Torah renders it prohibited for a man with crushed testicles to marry into the congregation of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 23:2), it renders it prohibited for him to marry converts.

And if he raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then, whether he retains his priestly sanctity or whether he does not retain his priestly sanctity, she may partake of teruma. If he retains his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: Even if a convert married a convert, his daughter is fit for marrying into the priesthood. If he does not retain his sanctity she may partake, as Rabbi Yosei said: The congregation of converts is not called the congregation of the Lord, and therefore even those forbidden from entering the congregation may marry converts. Consequently, it is certainly permitted for the priest with crushed testicles to marry the daughter of converts.

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan raised his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 1:5) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A woman who is the daughter of converts may not marry into the priesthood unless her mother was Jewish from birth.

And his dilemma was as follows: Is the reason she may marry a priest if her mother was Jewish from birth that fitness to marry a priest has been added to her, but she is not considered a member of the congregation of the Lord and may therefore marry a man with crushed testicles? If so, since she may marry a priest, she may partake of teruma once she does so. Or perhaps sanctity has been added to her and she is considered a member of the congregation of the Lord. Consequently, she may not marry a man with crushed testicles, and if she does, she may not partake of teruma even if he is a priest.

The Gemara suggests an answer to this dilemma. Come and hear: When Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥinnana came from the south, he came and brought this baraita in hand: From where is it derived that a priest with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals who married the daughter of converts entitles her to 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). In this context, a wife is also considered his monetary acquisition, and therefore she may partake of teruma.

The Gemara analyzes this source: According to whom is this baraita stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that whether this priest retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may not partake of teruma? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, why do I need a special verse to teach this halakha? Didn’t he say that whether he retains his sanctity or whether he does not retain his sanctity, she may partake of teruma? Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? And you can learn from this baraita that fitness was added to her, and therefore she may partake of teruma. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to an issue related to the previous discussion. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following question. Rav said: