Yevamot 100a (ק.) — the Talmud in English

Granted,

the tumtum and androgynos as well

the reason it is understandable that they are not given a portion is because

they are distinct creatures—that is, they are strange beings, and distributing teruma to them publicly would constitute a degradation of the teruma.

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

Granted,

the slave as well

the reason it is understandable that he is not given a portion is because

perhaps they will elevate him from teruma to genealogical status—perhaps people will come to assign him genealogical status on the basis of having seen him receive a portion at the threshing floor.

, 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,

an uncircumcised man and one who is impure

the reason it is understandable that they are not given teruma

is because they are repulsive

[they are repulsive], and this constitutes a degradation of the teruma.

Granted,

one who marries a woman unsuitable for him

is not given a portion

because of a penalty

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

But as for a woman, for what reason is she 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 said: Because of a divorcée, lest she come to receive a portion even after she has been divorced and is forbidden to eat teruma, since sometimes the people there do not know of her divorce. But to her home, they send it to her, because once it is sent to her home, everyone in her place knows that she is divorced.

, 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 said: Because of seclusion, since the threshing floors are places where people are not commonly found, and the owner of the threshing floor might be secluded with the woman.

, 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 this reason and that reason?

And we explain:

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

[a threshing floor close to the city], where it may be assumed that if she were divorced, people in that place would know about it,

and

however,

people are not commonly found there

[people are not commonly found in that place]. Consequently, there is concern about seclusion but no concern that she is a divorcée.

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

that

is far away

and there is concern that she is a divorcée,

and

however,

people are commonly found there,

so there is no concern about seclusion.

We learned in a beraita:

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

And the Gemara infers:

But

to

an uncircumcised man—

we send it to him.

And

for what reason

do we send it to him?

Because he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control

and he should not be penalized—

And if so, this is difficult:

one who is impure as well—

the reason that we do not send his portion to his home is as a penalty for failing to guard himself in a state of purity—

he too was prevented by circumstances beyond his control;

why, then, do we not send it to him!?

And we explain:

This one—

the uncircumcised man—

his circumstances beyond his control are more compelling

[his circumstances beyond his control are more compelling], since his brothers died as a result of circumcision, and what could he have done!?

And this one—

the one who is impure—

his circumstances beyond his control are not as compelling,

since he could have taken greater care.

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, the woman is given hers first, and she is dismissed immediately.

The Gemara wonders about the beraita:

What is it saying?!

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

And the Gemara explains: When the beraita said, “And in a place where they distribute,” it was 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 tithe for the poor is not distributed at the threshing floor, but inside the house, as it is written concerning the tithe for the poor: “And they shall eat within your gates.”

Moreover, this is so in order that the poor who require the tithe for the poor should not be humiliated.

And with regard to something that is distributed even to a slave and a woman, such as

the tithe for the poor 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—

the woman is given hers first.

All the more so is it distributed to slaves, since there is no reason at all to prohibit distributing the tithe for the poor; the concern applies only to teruma, because of the possibility of elevating them to genealogical status.

And

for what reason

is the woman given hers first?

Because of the degradation

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 in this manner when the legal cases of a man and a woman came before me],

I would deal with the man’s case first

[I would first resolve the man’s case, that is, adjudicate it].

Because

I said: He is obligated in the mitzvot

[I would say that the man takes precedence, since he is obligated in the mitzvot], and in order not to delay him from performing a mitzva, I had to give him precedence.

But now,

since I heard this

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

I deal with the woman’s case first

[I deal first with the woman’s case].

For what reason?—

Because of the degradation

of the woman, just as the woman is given her portion first in the tithe for the poor.

We learned in the Mishna:

When the mixtures have grown

and they free one another:

And the Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

“They freed

[if they themselves decided to free one another]

—yes”,

indeed, the law of the Mishna applies to them.

But if

they did not free one another

of their own accord,

—no;

we do not compel them to free one another.

But why

should they not be obligated to free one another!?

But we learned: “One who is half slave and half free works for his master one day, according to Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to them: ‘You have remedied the situation of his master, but you have not remedied his own situation [so that he can engage in procreation]. He cannot marry a maidservant [since he is half free and therefore forbidden to a maidservant. Nor can he marry] a free Jewish woman.

“Should you say that he should refrain [from procreation], but was the world created for anything other than procreation? As it is stated: ‘He did not create it for emptiness; He formed it to be inhabited.’

“Rather, for the sake of the world’s betterment [so that it should be populated], his master is compelled to make him free. And Beit Hillel subsequently returned to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai.”

And here as well, each one of them:

To marry a maidservant

in order to engage in procreation

he cannot,

since perhaps he is a Jew.

And likewise, to marry

a free Jewish woman

in order to engage in procreation

he cannot,

since perhaps he is a slave.

And if so, we should compel them to free one another so that each one can engage in procreation. Why, then, does the Mishna teach “they freed one another,” making the matter dependent on their will and decision!?

Rava said: Say:

Indeed,

we compel them, and they free one another,

so that they can engage in procreation.

We learned in the Mishna: And

they impose upon him the stringencies of

kohanim and the stringencies of Israelites:

And the Gemara explains:

For what halakhic purpose

are these matters stated?

a. An Israelite’s meal-offering is subject to removal of a handful, and the handful is burned upon the altar, while the remainder of the meal-offering is eaten by the kohanim.

By contrast, a kohen’s meal-offering is not subject to removal of a handful; rather, it is burned in its entirety 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 the Lord.”

And the Sages expounded from the inclusive word “every” and the word “of it”: With regard to anything, part of which you are commanded to have “brought to the fire,” to burn upon the altar, the remainder “of it,” which Scripture did not command to offer, is forbidden for you to burn upon the altar; rather, it is subject to the prohibition, “You shall not burn.”

He said—

explaining—

Rav Pappa:

The practical difference is

with regard to their meal-offering

of those whose status is uncertain!

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

is subject to removal of a handful like an Israelite’s meal-offering,

and it is not burned in its entirety 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

a kohen’s meal-offering,

which is not eaten.

How, then,

is it burned?

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

The Gemara wonders: 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 state concerning this meal-offering]

“anything from which a part is offered to the fire

[anything part of which is to be burned upon the altar]—

it is

the remainder of what was burned,

subject to the

prohibition

“You shall not burn

any of it [upon the altar]”!

He said—

explaining—

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi:

They bring them up

the remainder of the meal-offering upon the altar, and burn it

as “wood”,

so that it serves as wood for kindling the altar, and not for the purpose of burning an offering. And the kohen who burns it stipulates and says:

If these pieces are fit to be burned, and this meal-offering was not fit for removal of a handful but had the status of a kohen’s meal-offering, then this is its proper burning, while the removal of its handful is of no consequence, either for benefit or detriment. And if this meal-offering was fit for removal of a handful, and these are its remnants, then they have the status of the other wood of the arrangement.

If these pieces are fit to be burned, and this meal-offering was not fit for removal of a handful but had the status of a kohen’s meal-offering, then this is its proper burning, while the removal of its handful is of no consequence, either for benefit or detriment. And if this meal-offering was fit for removal of a handful, and these are its remnants, then they have the status of the other wood of the arrangement.

And this is

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

who said that this should be done with the limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering: He must burn them because they may be the 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 upon the altar, and the limbs of the sin-offering are therefore subject to the prohibition, “You shall not burn.”

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

As it was taught: Rabbi Elazar says:

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

for a pleasing fragrance.”

And Rabbi Elazar expounds the verse, “But upon the altar they shall not be brought up for a pleasing fragrance,” as referring to “You shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord,” from which the prohibition against burning the remainder of something from which part has already been burned upon the altar was derived. It teaches:

For a pleasing fragrance you may not bring up

the remainder of something from which you gave a part to the fire.

But you may bring up

the remainder

as wood.

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

The Gemara still raises a difficulty:

This works well according to Rabbi Elazar.

But according to the Rabbis—

who disagree with him concerning the limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, and maintain that “their form should be allowed to pass” [the night should pass over them] and they should be taken out to the place of burning, and should not be burned as wood—

what can be said!?

And the Gemara explains:

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

As it was taught:

It is written concerning the sin-offering brought for an oath concerning testimony, or for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, or for an utterance of the lips:

“​​And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, 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 his handful from it, its memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar. And the kohen shall effect atonement for him for his sin that he committed in one of these matters, and it shall be forgiven him; and it shall belong to the kohen like a meal-offering.”

The tannaim disagree concerning the meaning of what the Torah said: “And it shall belong to the kohen like a meal-offering”:

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

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 subject to removal of a handful, so too, a kohen’s sin-offering is subject to removal of a handful. Could it be that, just as an Israelite’s meal-offering has a remainder that is eaten, so too, this meal-offering has a remainder that is eaten? The verse states: “And every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.” How, then, is it done? The handful is offered by itself, and the remainder is offered by itself.

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

to be destroyed

at the ash heap

[this is the place where the ashes removed from the altar each day are placed, and concerning it it is stated: “And he shall place it beside the altar”].

And

here too, with a meal-offering whose status is uncertain—whether it belongs to a kohen or to an Israelite—this is what should be done, because

even the Rabbis,

that is, Rabbi Shimon,

do not disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

and say, concerning a kohen’s sin-offering, that its remainder should be offered and not scattered at the ash heap—

Rather, this applies only to a kohen’s sin-offering.

Since

according to their view the entire meal-offering

their opinion, the entire meal-offering

is fit to be offered,

it may therefore be offered in its entirety upon the altar, even though a handful was removed from it.

But here, with a meal-offering whose status is uncertain, whether it belongs to a kohen or to an Israelite, if it is indeed an Israelite’s meal-offering—so that its remainder is unfit to be offered—he violates the prohibition “You shall not burn” with regard to the remainder;

, 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 for distinguishing between the offspring of the first husband and the offspring of the second,

and she married

afterward,

and she gave birth, and it is unknown whether

the child is

the nine-month

offspring

of

the

first husband, or whether he is the seven-month

offspring

of

the

last husband—

The Gemara will explain in what manner she left him: whether he died, divorced her, or whether her betrothal was an erroneous betrothal.

If

she 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 status is uncertain married a woman and died childless, these sons whose identity was certain—one from this family and one from that family—

perform the ritual of ḥalitza

perform halitza

for the wife of the son of uncertain status, since she is bound to one of the families, although it is unknown which one.

But

however, they

do not perform yibbum,

since, with regard to them, this son of uncertain status may be their brother both from the father and from the mother, or he may be their brother only from the mother, in which case his wife is forbidden to them by a prohibition punishable by karet.

And likewise, the son of uncertain status is

the same with regard to

them—

if the sons whose identity was certain died childless—

he performs halitza

because of the uncertainty.

But

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.