Yevamot 171

Chapter 171

א תרומה לכהן ומעשר ראשון ללוי דברי רבי מאיר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מתירו לכהן מתירו מכלל דאיכא מאן דאסר אלא אימא נותנו אף לכהן

1 Terumah to the priest and the first tithe to the Levite;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the terumah must be given to the priest and may be eaten by priests only and not by common peopled so must the first tithe also be given to Levites and be eaten by Levites only and not by common people (v. Rashi). ');">1 so R. Meir. R. Eleazar b. Azariah permits it to the priest,2 'Permits it'!3 Does this then imply that some authority forbids it?4 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:5

ב מ"ט דר' מאיר אמר רב אחא בריה דרבה משמיה דגמרא (במדבר יח, כד) כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו לה' תרומה מה תרומה אסורה לזרים אף מעשר ראשון אסור לזרים אי מה תרומה חייבין עליו מיתה וחומש אף מעשר חייבין עליו מיתה וחומש

2 For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as terumah unto the Lord,6 as terumah is forbidden to common people so is the first tithe forbidden to common people. May it be assumed that7 as in the case of terumah the penalties of death and of a fifth8 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 it9 … then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it;10

ג אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, ט) ומתו בו כי יחללוהו ויסף חמישיתו עליו בו ולא במעשר עליו ולא על מעשר ורבנן מה תרומה טובלת אף מעשר ראשון נמי טובל

3 'therein',11 but not in the tithe; 'Into it'12 but not unto tithe. And the Rabbis?13 — As terumah is a cause of tebel14 so is the first tithe a cause of tebel;15

ד וכדתניא רבי יוסי אומר יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על טבל שלא הורם ממנו כל עיקר הורם ממנו תרומה גדולה ולא הורם ממנו מעשר ראשון מעשר ראשון ולא מעשר שני ואפי' מעשר עני מנין

4 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 whatsoever16 had been set apart; whence is it deduced [that guilt is also incurred when] terumah gedolah17 had been set apart but not the first tithe,18 first tithe but not the second tithe19 or even if the poor man's tithe20

ה ת"ל (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים כו, יב) ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו מה שעריך האמור להלן מעשר עני אף שעריך האמור כאן מעשר עני ואמר רחמנא לא תוכל

5 [only had not been set apart]? Scripture stated, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates21 and further on it was stated, That they may eat within thy gates, and be satisfied;22 as 'Thy gates' which was stated below22 refers to the poor man's tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text speaking of the third year, (ibid.). The third and the sixth year of the Septennial cycle are the years in which the poor man's, instead of the second tithe is given to all who are in need of it. ');">23 so 'Thy gates' which was stated here21

ו ואי מהתם הוה אמינא ללאו אבל מיתה לא קמ"ל

6 refers to the poor man's tithe, and [concerning it] the All Merciful has said, Thou mayest not.24 And if the deduction had been made from that text25 only26 it might have been assumed [to imply the penalty] of a negative precept27 but not [the penalty of] death; hence we were taught [the earlier text28

ז לישנא אחרינא מעשר ראשון דטביל מדרבי יוסי נפקא אי מההיא ה"א ללאו אבל מיתה לא קמ"ל

7 also].29 Another reading: That the first tithe is a cause of tebel30 may surely be deduced from the text cited by R. Jose!31 — If [deduction had been made] from that text25 only32

ח במאי אוקימתא כר' מאיר אימא סיפא בת לוי מאורסת לכהן ובת כהן ללוי לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר הכא מאי זרות איכא אמר רב ששת מאי אינה אוכלת דקתני אינה נותנת רשות לתרום

8 it might have been assumed [to imply the penalty] of a negative precept27 but not the penalty of death; hence we were taught [the earlier text28 also].29 How did you explain it?33 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what strangeness is there here'; neither the daughter of a priest nor the daughters of a Levite are 'strangers' or 'common' women to whom tithe is forbidden. ');">34

ט מכלל דנשואה נותנת רשות אין והתניא (במדבר יח, לא) ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום אתם וביתכם לימד על נשואה בת ישראל שנותנת רשות לתרום

9 — R. Shesheth replied: The meaning of35 the expression,36 SHE MAY NOT EAT is that she may not give permission to one to set apart37 the tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the terumah of this tithe (cf. Num. XVIII, 26) so that she might be enabled to eat of the tithe. The reason for the prohibition is not because the tithe is forbidden to her, but because she is not entitled to appoint an agent for the setting apart of terumah without the owner's knowledge. ');">38 Does this39

י אתה אומר רשות לתרום או אינו אלא לאכול אמרת תרומה חמורה אוכלת מעשר הקל לא כל שכן אלא לימד על נשואה בת ישראל שנותנת רשות לתרום

10 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 household40 teaches that a married daughter of an Israelite41 may give permission for terumah42 to be set apart.43 You say: Permission for terumah43

יא מר בריה דרבנא אמר לומר שאין חולקין לה מעשר בבית הגרנות הניחא למאן דאמר משום ייחוד אלא למאן דאמר משום גרושה גרושה בת לוי מי לא אכלה במעשר

11 to be set apart; perhaps it is not so, but to eat it?44 It can be replied: If she45 may eat terumah which is subject to greater restrictions, how much more may she46 eat tithe which is subject to lesser restrictions.47 The text48

יב וליטעמיך גרושה בת כהן מי לא אכלה בתרומה אלא גזירה משום גרושה בת ישראל

12 must consequently49 have taught that a married daughter of an Israelite may give permission for terumah42 to be set apart.43 Mar the son of Rabana50 stated: This51

יג אי הכי מאי איריא מאורסת אפי' נשואה נמי איידי דתנא רישא מאורסת תנא נמי סיפא מאורסת

13 teaches that she is not given a share in the tithe in the threshing- floors.52 This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds that this53 is due to considerations of privacy governing the sexes;54 according to him, however, who holds that this53 is due to [possible abuse by] a divorced woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might continue to collect tithe at the threshing- floors even after her divorce from her husband when she returns to her former status of an ordinary woman and forbidden to share in the priestly dues and, according to R. Meir, also in the levitical tithe. ');">55

יד תנו רבנן תרומה לכהן ומעשר ראשון ללוי דברי רבי עקיבא רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר

14 may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a Levite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another reading, 'May not the daughter of a priest eat terumah? — And according to your argument may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a Levite eat tithe?' Cur. edd. enclose the reading of our text in parenthesis. ');">56 eat tithe?57 — And according to your argument, may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a priest eat terumah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She undoubtedly may. Why then is the wife of a priest refused a share in terumah in the absence of her husband (cf. infra 100a) irrespective of whether she is the daughter of a priest or of an Israelite? ');">58 But [the fact is that the ordinance59 is] a preventive measure against [abuse by] a divorced woman who was the daughter of an Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a preventive measure is, of course, applicable to the daughter of a Levite in respect of tithe in the same way as to the daughter of a priest in respect of terumah. ');">60 If so,61 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clauses the expression BETROTHED was essential, since the object of the Mishnah was to state that betrothal alone does not confer upon the daughter of an Israelite the right of eating terumah and tithe, and upon the daughter of a Levite the right to terumah, if the former was betrothed to a priest or a Levite and the latter to a priest; and that even betrothal, and not only marriage, deprives the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite of the right of eating terumah and tithe respectively if the man was in the former case an Israelite or a Levite and in the latter case an Israelite. ');">62 BETROTHED was also taught in the final clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the reference is to the woman's eligibility to call for a share in the tithe; though in this case the woman, whether betrothed or married, is subject to the same restriction. ');">63 Our Rabbis taught: Terumah gedolah64 belongs to the priest, and the first tithe belongs to the Levite; so R. Akiba. R. Eleazar b. Azariah said:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter