Yevamot 100a — the Talmud in English

Granted, this is understandable:

the tumtum and the androgynos as well

—it is reasonable that the reason they are not given a portion is

that they are distinct beings

, meaning that they are unusual beings, and publicly giving them a portion of teruma would diminish the honor of the teruma .

Granted, this too is understandable:

a slave as well

—it is reasonable that the reason he is not given a portion is

lest people come to establish his genealogical status from teruma

, meaning that they might come to regard him as having an acceptable genealogical status because they saw him receiving a portion at the threshing floor.

Granted, this too is understandable:

an uncircumcised man and one who is ritually impure

—it is reasonable that the reason they are not given teruma is

because they are repulsive

[they are repulsive], and this would diminish the honor of the teruma.

Granted, this too is understandable:

one who marries a woman who is unfit for him

—the reason he is not given a portion is

as a penalty

for having transgressed and married women who are unfit to marry a kohen.

But what is the reason that a woman is not

given a portion of teruma at the threshing floor?

They disagree about it

—about the reason that a woman is not given a portion—

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

One says: because of a divorced woman

, lest she come to receive a portion even after her husband divorced her, when she is prohibited from eating teruma, since sometimes the men do not know that she was divorced. But they send the portion to her home, since in her own place everyone knows that she is divorced.

And one says: because of seclusion

, since the threshing floor is a place where people are not commonly found, and the person distributing the produce may be secluded with the woman.

What is the practical difference between them

, between the reason of one and the reason of the other?

And the Gemara explains:

There is a difference between them

: whether it is permitted to give a woman a portion at

a threshing floor that is close to the city

[the threshing floor close to the city], where one may assume that if she were divorced, people there would know about it,

and

yet

people are not commonly found there

[people are not usually present there]. Thus, there is concern about seclusion but no concern that she is divorced.

Alternatively

, there is a difference between them regarding giving a woman teruma at a threshing floor

that is distant

and therefore there is concern that she may be divorced,

but

nevertheless

people are commonly found there

, and there is no concern about seclusion.

We learned in a beraita:

And all of them send the portions to their homes, except for one who is ritually impure and one who marries a woman who is unfit for him

: The Gemara infers:

But

for

an uncircumcised man

they do send it to him.

And

what is the reason

that they send it to him?

Because he was prevented

and should not be penalized.

And if so, this is difficult:

one who is ritually impure as well

—the reason they do not send it to his home is as a penalty because he failed to guard himself in a state of ritual purity—

was he not also prevented

, and why do they not send it to him?!

And the Gemara explains:

This one

—the uncircumcised man—

experienced a greater degree of compulsion

[his compulsion was greater], since his brothers died as a result of circumcision, and what could he have done?!

And this one

—the ritually impure man—

did not experience a greater degree of compulsion

, since he could have been more careful.

The Sages taught:

A slave and a woman are not given a portion of teruma at the threshing floor.

And in a place where portions are distributed, they give the woman first and dismiss her immediately.

The Gemara is astonished by the beraita:

What is it saying?!

At first it says, “They do not distribute portions,” and then it says, “And in a place where portions are distributed”!?

And the Gemara explains: When the beraita says, “And in a place where portions are distributed,” it is not referring to teruma distributed at the threshing floor, since teruma is not distributed there to a slave or a woman.

Rather,

this is what it is saying

: The poor tithe is not distributed at the threshing floor, but inside the house, as it is written concerning the poor tithe: “And they shall eat within your gates.”

Furthermore, this is done so that the poor who require the poor tithe will not be embarrassed.

And a matter that is distributed even to a slave and a woman, such as

the poor tithe distributed inside the house

, where there is no concern about seclusion that would prohibit distributing it to women, and a slave and a woman come to receive a portion—

they give the woman first.

And

what is the reason

that they give the woman first?

Because of the indignity

of making a woman stand and wait.

Rava said: At first,

when a man and a woman would come before me for judgment

[at first, I would act this way when legal cases involving a man and a woman came before me],

I would deal with the man’s case first

[I would first deal with the man’s case, meaning that I would judge it].

Because

I would say that he is obligated in the commandments

[I would say that the man comes first because he is obligated in the commandments], and so, in order not to delay him from performing a commandment, I had to deal with him first.

But now,

once I heard this

[after I heard the aforementioned beraita and its explanation],

I deal with the woman’s case first

[I deal first with her case].

What is the reason?—

Because of the indignity

to the woman, just as the woman is given the poor tithe first.

We learned in the Mishna:

When the mixed individuals grew up

and each freed the other:

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

“They freed”

[if they decided on their own to free each other]—

yes

, they are subject to the law stated in the Mishna.

But if they

did not free

themselves,

no

, and we do not compel them to free each other.

But why

should they not be obligated to free each other!? We learned: “One who is half slave and half free works for his master one day, according to the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to them: [Yes,] you have remedied the situation of his master, but you have not remedied his own situation [so that he can have children]. He cannot marry a slave woman [since he is half free and therefore prohibited from marrying a slave woman. And he also cannot marry] a free woman.

[You might say,] let him refrain [from having children]; but was the world created for anything other than having children, as it is stated: “He did not create it for emptiness; He formed it to be inhabited.”

Rather, for the sake of the betterment of the world [so that it will be settled], we compel his master and make him a free man. And Beit Hillel returned to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai.”

And here too, each one of them:

To marry a slave woman

in order to have children

he cannot

, since perhaps he is an Israelite.

And also to marry

a free woman

in order to have children

he cannot

, since perhaps he is a slave.

If so, we should compel them to free each other so that each one can have children. Why, then, does the Mishna say “they freed,” making the matter dependent on their own will and decision?!

Rava said: Say instead

: Indeed,

we compel them and they free each other

, so that they can have children.

We learned in the Mishna: And

they impose upon him the stringencies of

the kohanim and the stringencies of Israelites:

The Gemara explains:

For what legal purpose

are these words stated?

a. An Israelite’s meal-offering is divided by removing a handful, and the handful is burned on the altar, while the remainder of the meal-offering is eaten by kohanim.

A kohen’s meal-offering, however, is not divided by removing a handful. Rather, it is all burned completely for God, as it is stated: “And every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

b. It is written: “[For every leaven and every honey] you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to God.”

The Sages derive from the extra word “every” and the word “of it”: Any matter from which you are commanded to bring part “to the fires,” to burn it on the altar—whatever remains “of it,” which the Torah did not command to bring, you are forbidden to burn on the altar; rather, it is included in the prohibition “You shall not burn.”

Rav Pappa said

: He explains:

Rav Pappa

—the practical consequence is

with regard to their meal-offerings

of those whose status is uncertain

!

This teaches that, on the one hand, their meal-offering

is divided by removing a handful like an Israelite’s meal-offering

, and it is not burned all at once, since perhaps he is an Israelite.

And

on the other hand,

it is not eaten

[its remainder is not eaten]

according to the law of

law of

a kohen’s meal-offering

, whose remainder is not eaten.

How is this carried out

with regard to burning it?

The handful is brought by itself, and the remainder is brought by itself.

The Gemara asks: This meal-offering is possibly an Israelite’s meal-offering, and if it is indeed an Israelite’s meal-offering,

the following applies here

[I apply to this meal-offering]

“Any matter from which part is burned”

[any matter from which part is burned on the altar]—

it is

, namely, what remains from what was burned,

subject to

the prohibition

“You shall not burn

any of it [on the altar]”!

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said

—he explained:

He brings them up

, meaning that he brings the remainder of the meal-offering up to the altar and burns it

“for the purpose of wood”

, so that it will serve as fuel for the altar rather than being burned as an offering. The kohen who burns it makes the following condition:

If these pieces are fit to be burned, and this meal-offering was not fit to have a handful removed from it, but its law was that of a kohen’s meal-offering, then this burning is for its proper purpose, and the removal of the handful has no effect, either for better or for worse.

And if this meal-offering was fit to have a handful removed from it, and these are its remainder, then they are like the other wood of the arrangement on the altar.

А если эта минха была пригодна для разделения и это ее остатки, то они подобны прочим дровам костра.

And this follows

the opinion of Rabbi Elazar

, who said that this should be done with sacrificial limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with sacrificial limbs of a burnt-offering. He must burn them because they may be limbs of a burnt-offering, but on the other hand he may not burn the limbs of a sin-offering, since the fats of the sin-offering have already been burned on the altar, and the limbs of the sin-offering would therefore be subject to the prohibition “You shall not burn.”

Therefore, he burns all of them conditionally: if they are limbs of a burnt-offering, their burning is for the purpose of burning the offering; and if not, they will be like the other wood of the arrangement!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says

: It is written: “[For every leaven and every honey] you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to God. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them to God [the leaven and the honey], but they shall not be brought up on the altar”

“for a pleasing fragrance.”

Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse “but they shall not be brought up on the altar for a pleasing fragrance” as referring to “you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to God,” from which they learned the prohibition against burning the remainder of something from which a portion has already been burned on the altar. It teaches:

You may not bring up for a pleasing fragrance

the remainder of the substance from which you gave a portion to the fires.

But you may bring up

the remainder

for the purpose of wood.

And the same should be done with limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with limbs of a burnt-offering, for the sake of enabling the limbs of the burnt-offering to be burned as required.

The Gemara is still puzzled:

This works according to Rabbi Elazar.

But according to the Rabbis

—who disagree with him regarding limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with limbs of a burnt-offering, and maintain that “their form must pass,” meaning that they must remain overnight and then be taken out to the place of burning, and that they may not be burned for the purpose of wood—

what can be said?!

And the Gemara explains:

He acts in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

As it was taught in a beraita:

With regard to the sin-offering brought for a false oath concerning testimony, or for ritual impurity involving the Sanctuary or sacred offerings, or for an utterance of the lips, it is written:

“And if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young doves, then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he committed a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering. He shall bring it to the kohen, and the kohen shall take from it his full handful as its memorial portion and burn it on the altar. The kohen shall atone for him for his sin that he committed in one of these matters, and he shall be forgiven, and it shall be the kohen’s, like the meal-offering.”

The tannaim disagree about the meaning of what the Torah says: “And it shall be the kohen’s, like the meal-offering”:

According to the Rabbis, this is the meaning of the verse: A kohen’s obligatory meal-offering is entirely burned, like his freewill meal-offering, and a handful is not removed from it.

According to Rabbi Shimon, this is its meaning: If this sinner is a kohen, his meal-offering is like an Israelite’s meal-offering. Just as an Israelite’s meal-offering is divided by removing a handful, so too a kohen’s sin-offering meal-offering is divided by removing a handful. Could it be that just as the remainder of an Israelite’s meal-offering is eaten, so too this remainder is eaten? The verse states: “And every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.” How is this carried out? The handful is brought by itself, and the remainder is brought by itself.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is brought by itself, and the remainder is scattered

to be lost

at the ash heap

[the place where the ashes removed daily from the altar are placed, as it is stated: “And he shall place it beside the altar”].

And

here too, with a meal-offering that is uncertainly that of a kohen or an Israelite, the same should be done, because

even the Rabbis

—namely, Rabbi Shimon—

do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon

, and say, regarding a kohen’s sin-offering meal-offering, that he should bring the remainder and not scatter it at the ash heap—

but only with regard to a kohen’s sin-offering meal-offering

. Since

according to

their opinion, the entire meal-offering

is fit to be brought

, he can therefore bring all of it on the altar, even though a handful was removed from it.

But here

, with a meal-offering that is uncertainly that of a kohen or an Israelite, if it is indeed an Israelite’s meal-offering, bringing its remainder— which is not fit to be brought—would violate the prohibition “You shall not burn”; therefore,

even the Rabbis agree

that he should scatter the remainder at the ash heap.

Mishna:

One who did not wait after her husband

—after she left him—

three months

, the period required to distinguish between a child of the first husband and a child of the second,

and she married

afterward,

and gave birth, and it is not known whether

the child is

nine months

old

from

her

first husband, or whether he is seven months

old

from

her

last husband—

If

the woman had

—the woman who married a second time—

sons

whose identity was certain

from

the

first husband, and sons

whose identity was certain

from

the

second husband, and the son whose identity is uncertain married a woman and died without children, then the sons whose identities are certain—one from this family and one from that family—

—

with the uncertain man’s wife, since she is bound to one of the families, although it is not known which one.

And

nevertheless

they do not perform levirate marriage

, since with regard to them this uncertain man may be a brother both from the father and the mother, or a brother only from the mother, in which case his wife is prohibited to them by a prohibition punishable by karet.

And so too, the uncertain man is subject to this law with regard to them

—if the sons whose identities were certain died without children—

he performs ḥalitza

as a matter of uncertainty.

And

nevertheless

he does not perform levirate marriage

, since she may be only the wife of his maternal brother, and she is prohibited to him by a prohibition punishable by karet.

however, he

does not perform yibbum,

since she may be only the wife of his maternal brother, and she is forbidden to him by a prohibition punishable by karet.