Yevamot 199

בריה בפני עצמה נינהו עבד נמי דלמא אתי לאסוקי מתרומה ליוחסין ערל וטמא משום דמאיסי נושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו משום קנסא אלא אשה מאי טעמא לא

since either of them is a peculiar creature; the slave, too, because owing to the <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he receives. ');">¹</span> he might be raised to the priesthood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was explained supra. ');">²</span> the uncircumcised and the unclean also, owing to their repulsiveness; and the priest who married a woman unsuitable for him, as a penalty. But why should not a woman [be given a share of <i>terumah</i>]? — On this question R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua differ. One explains: Owing [to possible abuse by] a divorced woman;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might, after her divorce when she is no more permitted to eat terumah. continue to collect it. ');">³</span>

פליגי בה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חד אמר משום גרושה וחד אמר משום יחוד

and the other explains: Owing to [the necessity of avoiding] privacy between the sexes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yihud, v. Glos. Cf. supra 86a. ');">⁴</span> What is the practical difference between them? — The practical difference between them is the case of a threshing-floor that is near a town but is unfrequented by people,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No preventive measure against (a) abuse by a divorced woman is here necessary, since the proximity of the threshing-floor to the town enables its owner to keep in touch with social events in the town. The precautions, however, against (b) privacy, owing to the loneliness of the floor, cannot be neglected. ');">⁵</span> or one that is distant [from a town] but frequented by people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 1 mutatis mutandis; (b) has to, but (a) need not be disregarded. ');">⁶</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו בי דרי דמקרב למתא ולא שכיחי בהו אינשי אי נמי דמרחק ושכיחי בה אינשי

'In the case of all these, however, [<i>terumah</i>] may be sent to their houses, with the exception of the one who is levitically unclean and one who married a woman who is unsuitable for him'. [May <i>terumah</i>], then, be sent to the uncircumcised?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is not included in the exceptions. Cf. supra p. 683, n. 8. ');">⁷</span> What is the reason! [Is it] because he is a victim of circumstances? The man who is levitically unclean is also a victim of circumstances!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the latter was not excluded why then was the former? ');">⁸</span> — The force of circumstances in the former case is great;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncircumcised cannot help the infirmity of the constitution of the members of his family. It is not through any fault of his that he must remain uncircumcised (v. supra p. 683, n. 6). ');">⁹</span>

וכולן משגרין להם לבתיהן חוץ מטמא ונושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו אבל ערל משגרינן ליה מאי טעמא

in the latter, the force is not so great.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the exercise of due care uncleanness might be avoided. ');">¹⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: Neither to a slave nor to a woman may a share in <i>terumah</i> be given at the threshing-floors. In places, however, where a share is given. It is to be given to the woman first, and she is immediately dismissed. What can this mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first sentence it was stated that a woman receives no share; and in the following it is tacitly assumed that in certain places she does receive a share! ');">¹¹</span> — It is this that was meant: The<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. read, 'Where the poor man's tithe is distributed'. ');">¹²</span>

משום דאניס טמא נמי הא אניס האי נפיש אונסיה והאי לא נפיש אונסיה

poor mans tithe which is distributed at home<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In town. ');">¹³</span> is to be given to the woman first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though privacy between the sexes need not be apprehended there. ');">¹⁴</span> What is the reason? — That the degradation [of the woman may be avoided].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is degrading for a woman to have to wait her turn in a crowd of men. ');">¹⁵</span>

תנו רבנן העבד והאשה אין חולקין להם תרומה בבית הגרנות ובמקום שחולקין נותנין לאשה תחלה ופוטרין אותה מיד מאי קאמר

Raba said: Formerly, when a man and a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With different law suits. ');">¹⁶</span> came before me for a legal decision, I used to dispose of the man's lawsuit first, because I thought a man is subject to the fulfilment of all the commandments;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While a woman is exempt from certain commandments. Hence it is the man that should receive precedence. ');">¹⁷</span> since, however, I heard this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why a woman should be given her share of the poor man's tithe first. ');">¹⁸</span>

הכי קאמר במקום שחולקין מעשר עני נותנין לאשה תחלה מ"ט משום זילותא

I dispose of a woman's lawsuit first. Why? In order [to save her from] degradation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 684. n. 11. ');">¹⁹</span> IF WHEN THEY GREW UP, THE INTERCHANGED CHILDREN etc. [It states] THEY EMANCIPATED. [Implying] only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">²⁰</span> if they wished, but if they did not wish they need not [emancipate one another]! But why? Neither of them could marry either a bondwoman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the priest. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רבא מרישא כי הוו אתו גברא ואתתא לדינא קמאי הוה שרינא תיגרא דגברא ברישא אמינא דמיחייב במצות כיון דשמענא להא שרינא תיגרא דאתתא ברישא מ"ט משום זילותא:

or a free woman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one of them is a slave. How, then, could they ever fulfil the religious duty of propagation which is incumbent upon all? ');">²²</span> Raba replied: Read: Pressure is brought to bear upon them so that they emancipate one another. THE RESTRICTIONS&nbsp;… ARE IMPOSED UPON THEM. In what respect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., for what law'. ');">²³</span>

הגדילו התערובות וכו': שיחררו אי בעי אין אי לא בעי לא ואמאי לישא שפחה אינו יכול בת חורין אינו יכול אמר רבא אימא כופין אותן ומשחררין זה את זה:

— R. Papa replied: In respect of their meal-offering. A handful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. II, 2. ');">²⁴</span> must be taken from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he might be the Israelite. ');">²⁵</span> as of a meal-offering of an Israelite, but it may not be eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he might also be the priest. ');">²⁶</span>

נותנין עליהם חומרי וכו': למאי הלכתא אמר רב פפא למנחתם נקמצת כמנחת ישראל ואינה נאכלת כמנחת כהנים הא כיצד הקומץ קרב בעצמו והשירים קריבין בעצמן

as is the case with a meal-offering of the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VI, 16. ');">²⁷</span> But how [is one to proceed]? The handful is offered up separately and the remnants are also offered up separately. But [surely] there is to be applied here the Scriptural deduction that any offering a portion of which had been put on the fire of the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was the case here where the handful was offered up. ');">²⁸</span> is subject to the prohibition you shall not burn!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II. Once the prescribed portion of an offering had been duly offered up on the altar the remnants of that offering may no longer be burned in the altar. Cf. Zeb 77a. How then could the remnants of the meal-offering be offered up when a portion of the offering (the handful) is also offered up. ');">²⁹</span>

איקרי כאן כל שממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו

— R. Judah son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi replied: They are burned as wood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not as an offering. ');">³⁰</span> in accordance with a ruling of R. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Eleazar said, For it sweet savour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev II, 12. ');">³¹</span> you may not offer them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 13. ');">³²</span>

א"ר יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי דמסיק להו לשום עצים כר' אלעזר דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר לריח ניחוח אי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלה לשום עצים

you may offer them, however, as mere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not as an offering. ');">³⁰</span> wood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 47b, Sot. 23a, Zeb. 76b, Men. 106b. ');">³³</span> This is satisfactory according to R. Eleazar, what, however, can be said according to the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not permit the offering of the remnants on the altar even as wood. ');">³⁴</span>

הניחא לר' אלעזר אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר דעביד לה כר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון דתניא ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר הקומץ קרב לעצמו והשירים מתפזרין על בית הדשן ואפילו רבנן לא פליגי עליה דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אלא במנחת חוטא של כהנים דבת הקרבה היא אבל הכא אפי' רבנן מודו:

— One proceeds in accordance with a ruling of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For it was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: The handful is offered up separately and the remnants are scattered over the enclosure of the sacrificial ashes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Sot. 23a, Men. 74a. A place near the altar, where a certain portion of the ashes of the altar was deposited. ');">³⁵</span> And even the Rabbis differ from R. Eleazar only in respect of a priestly sinner's meal-offering which is suitable for offering up;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In its entirety, as is the case with a priest's voluntary meal-offering. ');">³⁶</span> but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is the possibility that it is not the offering of a priest at all. ');">³⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שלא שהתה אחר בעלה שלשה חדשים ונשאת וילדה ואין ידוע אם בן תשעה לראשון אם בן שבעה לאחרון היו לה בנים מן הראשון ובנים מן השני חולצין ולא מייבמין וכן הוא להם חולץ ולא מייבם

even the Rabbis agree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the remnants are to be scattered in the enclosure of the ashes. V. Sot., Sonc ed., p. 116, notes. ');">³⁸</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A WOMAN DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER [SEPARATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By her hushand's death or by divorce. ');">³⁹</span> FROM] HER HUSBAND, AND MARRIED AGAIN AND GAVE BIRTH [TO A SON], AND IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT IS A NINE-MONTHS CHILD BY THE FIRST HUSBAND OR A SEVEN-MONTHS CHILD BY THE SECOND, IF SHE HAD OTHER SONS BY THE FIRST HUSBAND AND OTHER SONS BY THE SECOND, THESE MUST SUBMIT TO <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the widow of the son whose father is unknown, if he died childless. ');">⁴⁰</span> BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT WITH HER LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that they are only the maternal brothers of the deceased, whose widow is forbidden to them under the penalty of kareth. ');">⁴¹</span> AND HE, IN RESPECT OF THEIR WIDOWS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to them'. ');">⁴²</span> LIKEWISE, SUBMITS TO <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From their widows, if they died without issue. ');">⁴³</span> BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 8 mutatis mutandis. ');">⁴⁴</span>