Parallel
יבמות 86
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Terumah to the priest and the first tithe to the Levite; so R. Meir. R. Eleazar b. Azariah permits it to the priest, 'Permits it'! Does this then imply that some authority forbids it? Read, therefore, 'He may give it to the priest also'. What is R. Meir's reason? R. Aha son of Rabbah replied on the authority of a traditional statement: For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as terumah unto the Lord, as terumah is forbidden to common people so is the first tithe forbidden to common people. May it be assumed that as in the case of terumah the penalties of death and of a fifth are incurred, so are the penalties of death and of a fifth incurred in the case of tithe? — Scripture stated, And die therein if they profane it … then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it; 'therein', but not in the tithe; 'Into it' but not unto tithe. And the Rabbis? — As terumah is a cause of tebel so is the first tithe a cause of tebel; and this is in agreement with what was taught: R. Jose said, It might have been presumed that guilt is incurred only for tebel from which nothing whatsoever had been set apart; whence is it deduced [that guilt is also incurred when] terumah gedolah had been set apart but not the first tithe, first tithe but not the second tithe or even if the poor man's tithe [only had not been set apart]? Scripture stated, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates and further on it was stated, That they may eat within thy gates, and be satisfied; as 'Thy gates' which was stated below refers to the poor man's tithe, so 'Thy gates' which was stated here refers to the poor man's tithe, and [concerning it] the All Merciful has said, Thou mayest not. And if the deduction had been made from that text only it might have been assumed [to imply the penalty] of a negative precept but not [the penalty of] death; hence we were taught [the earlier text also]. Another reading: That the first tithe is a cause of tebel may surely be deduced from the text cited by R. Jose! — If [deduction had been made] from that text only it might have been assumed [to imply the penalty] of a negative precept but not the penalty of death; hence we were taught [the earlier text also]. How did you explain it? In accordance with the view of R. Meir! Explain, then, the final clause: THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE WHO WAS BETROTHED TO A PRIEST and THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST … TO A LEVITE MAY EAT NEITHER TERUMAH NOR TITHE; what [bearing has the question of] non-priestly stock in this case? — R. Shesheth replied: The meaning of the expression, SHE MAY NOT EAT is that she may not give permission to one to set apart the tithe. Does this then imply that a married woman may give such permission? — Yes; and so it was taught: And ye may eat it in every place, ye and your household teaches that a married daughter of an Israelite may give permission for terumah to be set apart. You say: Permission for terumah to be set apart; perhaps it is not so, but to eat it? It can be replied: If she may eat terumah which is subject to greater restrictions, how much more may she eat tithe which is subject to lesser restrictions. The text must consequently have taught that a married daughter of an Israelite may give permission for terumah to be set apart. Mar the son of Rabana stated: This teaches that she is not given a share in the tithe in the threshing- floors. This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds that this is due to considerations of privacy governing the sexes; according to him, however, who holds that this is due to [possible abuse by] a divorced woman, may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a Levite eat tithe? — And according to your argument, may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a priest eat terumah! But [the fact is that the ordinance is] a preventive measure against [abuse by] a divorced woman who was the daughter of an Israelite. If so, what was the point in mentioning BETROTHED? [The same rule should be applied] even to one who was married! — As in the first clause BETROTHED was taught, BETROTHED was also taught in the final clause. Our Rabbis taught: Terumah gedolah belongs to the priest, and the first tithe belongs to the Levite; so R. Akiba. R. Eleazar b. Azariah said:
—
To the priest. 'To the priest', but not to the Levite! — Read: To the priest also. What is R. Akiba's reason? — Because it is written, Moreover thou shalt speak unto the Levites, and say unto them; Scripture thus refers specifically to the Levites. And the other? — His view follows that of R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi stated: In twenty-four passages were the priests described as Levites, and the following is one of them: But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok. And R. Akiba? You cannot say so here; for it is written, And ye may eat it in every place, [it is to be given to him only] who 'may eat it in every place'; a priest, however, is excluded since he may not eat it in a graveyard. And the other? — [The meaning is] wherever he wishes: Neither is it required [to eat it within the] wall nor is a man subject to flogging for eating it while his body is levitically unclean. There was a certain garden from which R. Eleazar b. Azariah used to receive the first tithe. R. Akiba went and transferred its gate so that it faced a graveyard. 'Akiba with his bag', the other remarked, 'and I have to live'! It was stated: Why were the Levites penalized [by being deprived of the] tithe? — R. Jonathan and Sabia [are in dispute on the matter]. One holds: Because they did not go up in the days of Ezra; and the other holds: In order that the priests might depend upon it during the days of their uncleanness. According to him who holds [that the Levites were deprived of the tithe] because 'they did not go up', one can well understand why they were penalized. According to him, however, who gave as the reason, 'In order that the priests may depend upon it during the days of their uncleanness', were the Levites penalized for the sake of the priests! Rather, all agree that the penalization was due to their not going up in the days of Ezra; they differ, however, on the following point: One is of the opinion that their forfeit belonged to the poor, while the other is of the opinion that priests, during the days of their uncleanness, are also regarded as poor. Why, then, did R. Akiba transfer the gate so that it faced a graveyard? — It was this that he said to him: If you come [to claim it] as a forfeit, you are entitled to it; but if you come [to demand it] as your share, you have no [claim upon it]. Whence is it deduced that they did not go up in the days of Ezra? — It is written, And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there we encamped three days,' and I viewed the people and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi. R. Hisda stated: At first, officers were appointed from the Levites only, for it is said, And the officers of the Levites before you; but now, officers are appointed from the Israelites only, for it is said, 'And officers over you shall come from the majority'. MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST MAY EAT TERUMAH. IF HE DIED AND SHE HAS A SON BY HIM SHE MAY CONTINUE TO EAT TERUMAH. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO A LEVITE, SHE MAY EAT OF THE TITHE. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM, SHE MAY CONTINUE TO EAT OF THE TITHE. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT NEITHER TERUMAH NOR TITHE. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAS A SON BY HIM, SHE MAY EAT NEITHER TERUMAH NOR TITHE. IF HER SON BY THE ISRAELITE DIED, SHE MAY AGAIN EAT OF THE TITHE. IF HER SON BY THE LEVITE DIED SHE MAY AGAIN EAT TERUMAH. IF HER SON BY THE PRIEST DIED, SHE MAY EAT NEITHER TERUMAH NOR TITHE.
—