Yevamot 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

Teruma

is given

to a priest, and first tithe

is given

to a Levite, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

permits it to a priest.

In the texts before us it is written: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. But Tosafot, a collection of the commentaries of the Tosafists, wrote that this reading cannot be correct, because the Mishna implies that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya came to disagree with Rabbi Meir. That is impossible, since Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya lived much earlier than Rabbi Meir.

The statement of Rabbi Meir implies that, by adding the law concerning giving teruma to a priest—even though this is stated explicitly in the Torah and no one disputes it—he intended to equate the law of first tithe with the law of teruma, and to say:

Just as with teruma, its consumption is like its being given—as it may be given only to priests, so too it may be eaten only by priests.

So too with first tithe: its consumption is like its being given. Just as it may be given only to a Levite, so too it may be eaten only by a Levite, and it is forbidden for non-Levites to eat the tithe. And we raised the following objection: From the wording of the Mishna, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

“permits it”

for a priest to eat first tithe, it appears that only he permits first tithe to be eaten by a priest.

And

from this

you infer

that there is one who forbids

a priest to eat first tithe.

But this is difficult: Is there anyone who forbids a priest to eat it!?

Surely it is impossible for first tithe to be forbidden to priests, since priests are not non-Levites, as they too are called “Levites,” as will be explained below!?

And we answer:

Rather, say

the following in the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:

He gives it

first tithe

also to a priest.

He was not discussing its permissibility for consumption at all. Rather, he came to dispute Rabbi Meir concerning the law governing to whom it may be given: Rabbi Meir said that one gives it only to a Levite, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, one gives it also to a priest.

The Gemara now discusses the statement of Rabbi Meir:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir,

who forbade non-Levites to eat first tithe?

Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said in the name of the Gemara

[he did not say this on his own, but received it from his teacher, who received it from his teacher, back to Rabbi Meir]:

Because it is stated:

“For the tithe of the Children of Israel, which they raise up to the Lord,

as a teruma

I have given to the Levites as an inheritance.”

The verse juxtaposed first tithe with teruma, in order to teach you:

Just as teruma is forbidden

to be eaten

by non-Levites,

so too first tithe is forbidden

to be eaten

by non-Levites.

And perhaps you will say: Since the verse forbade non-Levites to eat first tithe, just as it forbade them to eat teruma, we should equate their consumption also with regard to the punishment for one who eats intentionally and the payment required of one who eats unintentionally. And we should say:

If, just as with teruma, those who eat it are liable

non-Levites who eat it

to death

at the hand of Heaven when they eat it intentionally,

and

they add to the payment of its value

a fifth

when they eat it unintentionally,

so too with first tithe,

it should be said that

those who eat it are liable

non-Levites who eat it intentionally

to death,

and they add to the payment of its value

a fifth

when they eat it unintentionally.

This cannot be said, because we have an exclusion from the verse indicating that they are not to be equated in this regard, for—

The verse says

with regard to the punishment of a non-Levite who ate teruma intentionally:

“And they shall die through it, for they have profaned it;

I am the Lord who sanctifies them. And no non-Levite shall eat sacred food.”

Similarly, the verse says with regard to the payment required of a non-Levite who ate teruma unintentionally: “

And if a person eats sacred food unintentionally—

he shall add its fifth to it.”

And an exclusion is stated in each of the verses:

With regard to liability for death for eating teruma, the exclusion “And they shall die

through it” is stated. “

Through it” means that only for eating teruma as a non-Levite is the punishment of death stated.

And not

is the punishment of death stated

for

eating

first tithe

as a non-Levite.

Similarly, with regard to payment for eating unintentionally, the exclusion “He shall add its fifth

to it” is stated. “

To it” means that only for eating teruma does the non-Levite add a fifth when he eats it unintentionally.

And not

does the non-Levite add a fifth

for

eating

first tithe

unintentionally.

The Gemara now explains the view of the Rabbis, who dispute Rabbi Meir and permit non-Levites to eat first tithe: How do they interpret the juxtaposition of first tithe to teruma?

And the Rabbis,

who permit non-Levites to eat the tithe, will explain that the juxtaposition of first tithe to teruma comes to teach a different lesson, namely, that before the tithe is separated, there is liability for death for eating the produce, just as there is liability for death for eating produce before teruma is separated:

Just as teruma—

renders the produce untithed

when it has not yet been separated from it,

for as long as teruma has not been separated from the produce, it remains forbidden as tevel, and one who eats it is liable to death at the hand of Heaven —

So too, first tithe also—

renders it untithed!

The produce is subject to a prohibition carrying liability for death as long as first tithe has not been separated from it.

As it was taught

in a beraita, we likewise find that produce “rendered untithed” for the tithe [from the term tevel] is subject to a prohibition, just as produce rendered untithed for teruma is.

Rabbi Yosei says:

One might have thought that one is liable for punishment only for

the eating

of

produce

from which no

terumot and tithes

at all have been separated.

From where do we know that produce rendered untithed from which

teruma gedola was separated, but first tithe was not separated?

Apparently one could object: “There is no partial comparison.” If so, we should compare all the laws of the tithe to teruma and forbid the first tithe to non-Levites just as teruma is forbidden. Tosafot answered that if the comparison of the tithe to teruma had taught the basic prohibition of produce that is ready for the tithe, then we would indeed have had to learn from this comparison also the prohibition against non-Levites eating the first tithe, because of the principle that there is no partial comparison. But now that we have learned the basic prohibition against eating produce that is ready for the tithe from another source, we can limit the comparison and say that it comes only to teach liability to death for eating produce that is ready for the tithe, just as there is liability to death for eating produce that is ready for teruma. This is because the basic prohibition is already known, and the comparison of the tithe to teruma is needed only for the punishment. The comparison does not come to teach the innovation of the basic prohibition against non-Levites eating the first tithe. For the prohibition against non-Levites eating the first tithe is not stated explicitly in the Torah, and we now need to derive the basic prohibition itself from the comparison of the tithe to teruma. Therefore, one cannot object that all the laws of the tithe should be learned from the principle that there is no partial comparison. See also what the Ritva wrote in his comment beginning “And he says.”

And even if first tithe was separated from the produce,

but not

second tithe was separated from it,

even

and even

if only

poor tithe

had not yet been separated from it.

From where—

that one is liable for punishment if he ate it?

The verse states: “You may not eat within your gates

the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil—but only before the Lord your God shall you eat it” [Deuteronomy 12:17–18].

The plain meaning of the verse is that it is speaking of second tithe, which you may not eat in all your gates; rather, you must bring it up to Jerusalem and eat it there.

However,

below it says:

There is another verse below [Deuteronomy 26:12] that teaches that the verse “You may not eat within your gates” also concerns the prohibition against eating tevel.

As it is stated: “When you have finished tithing all the tithe of your produce in the third year [in which one must separate first tithe and poor tithe

—and you shall give [the first tithe] to the Levite.

[And you shall give the poor tithe] to the convert, the orphan, and the widow—

and they shall eat within your gates, and be satisfied!”

And we learned through the gezera shava of “your gates, your gates”:

Just as

“your gates” mentioned below

speaks there

of the subject of

poor tithe,

so too “your gates” mentioned here,

in the verse “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil,” speaks there of the subject of

poor tithe.

And the Merciful One says: “You may not

eat within your gates” the poor tithe!

And since it is impossible that the verse means to say that it is forbidden to eat the produce of poor tithe in all your gates, the verse must be coming to prohibit eating produce that is rendered untithed by poor tithe.

Thus the verse says: You may not eat from the produce before you remove all its tithes. Even poor tithe, which is entirely non-sacred, renders the produce untithed if you have not separated it; you may not eat the produce until you separate from it that which you were commanded to give within your gates.

That is, until you separate all its terumot and all its tithes.

We have therefore learned from the words of Rabbi Yosei that one who eats produce rendered untithed by first tithe violates the prohibition, “You may not eat within your gates

and

however,

if

it is learned

from there,

from “You may not eat,” alone,

it might have been thought: The verse came only

to

give

a

prohibition

to one who eats produce rendered untithed from which its tithes have not been separated.

But

the punishment of

death

at the hand of Heaven—

not

have we learned from this verse that he would be liable.

Therefore,

it teaches us

the earlier verse [“For the tithe of the Children of Israel, which they dedicate to the Lord as a teruma”], in which first tithe was juxtaposed to teruma—

that one is liable to the punishment of death for eating produce rendered untithed by first tithe, just as one is liable to death for eating produce rendered untithed by teruma.

Alternatively:

The beraita containing Rabbi Yosei’s statement was not cited as support; rather, it was cited as an objection.

And this is what we are saying: Why do we need to derive from the juxtaposition of first tithe to teruma that one is liable for produce rendered untithed by first tithe?

But surely

first tithe that renders produce untithed—

from Rabbi Yosei

who learned this from “You may not eat within your gates”

—is derived!

And we answer:

If it were from that

—from “You may not eat within your gates”

—it might have been thought that it comes only as an ordinary prohibition.

in general.

But death

at the hand of Heaven—

not

would one be liable for produce rendered untithed by the tithe.

It teaches us

the juxtaposition of first tithe to teruma, that one is also liable to death at the hand of Heaven for it.

The Gemara now returns to the explanation it gave earlier of our Mishna, that it follows Rabbi Meir, who holds that first tithe is forbidden for non-Levites to eat, and raises a difficulty:

According to whom did you establish it,

according to whom did you establish our Mishna—

according to Rabbi Meir?

But

come and hear the latter clause—that is, the latter clause of our Mishna still presents a difficulty, as we learned:

A Levite's daughter betrothed to a kohen, and

A Levite’s daughter betrothed to a priest, and

likewise

a priest’s daughter

betrothed

to a Levite—

may not eat teruma,

because the betrothal of an Israelite woman to a priest does not enable her to eat teruma. Conversely, the betrothal disqualifies a priest’s daughter who became betrothed to a Levite.

And

likewise she

may not

eat

first tithe.

This implies that the reason a Levite’s daughter does not eat first tithe when she becomes betrothed to a priest is that the priest disqualifies her through the betrothal from eating first tithe.

And a priest’s daughter does not eat first tithe when she becomes betrothed to a Levite because the Levite has no power to enable her to eat first tithe through betrothal.

But this is difficult:

Here,

in the latter clause—

what “non-Levite status” is there

with regard to a priest and first tithe? Is a priest forbidden to eat first tithe, such that he disqualifies the Levite’s daughter who became betrothed to him from eating it!?

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts the assumption that our Mishna follows Rabbi Meir, who forbids non-Levites to eat first tithe.

The Gemara offers another explanation of the Mishna:

Rav Sheshet said,

this is the explanation of the Mishna, both with regard to what we learned in the first clause—that a Levite’s daughter betrothed to an Israelite, and an Israelite’s daughter betrothed to a Levite, may not eat first tithe—and with regard to what we learned in the latter clause—that a Levite’s daughter betrothed to a priest, and a priest’s daughter betrothed to a Levite, may not eat first tithe—

What does “she does not eat,” which it teaches

throughout our Mishna with regard to first tithe, mean?

She does not grant permission

to her agent

to separate

terumat maaser from the first tithe that her betrothed received.

Since she is betrothed, she is not yet entitled to her husband’s first tithe. Therefore, if an agent separated it on her behalf, it is like one who separates teruma without the knowledge of the owners, in which case his separation is not valid teruma.

And what we learned, “she may not eat first tithe,” means as follows: She has no permission to eat it if terumat maaser has not yet been separated from it, since she has no ability to rectify it.

And we object: According to this explanation, from now on, what do you learn by implication from what we learned in the Mishna, that a betrothed woman does not give permission to separate teruma—

that

you learn

that a married woman

does

give

to an agent

permission

to separate terumat maaser from her husband's maaser?

And this is difficult: How can she give her agent permission to separate terumat maaser from the maaser? The produce of the maaser is not hers!

And we answer:

No,

she indeed can give her agent permission to separate it!

[in a conciliatory manner], for indeed this is what we learned in a beraita:

It is written:

“

And you shall eat it

[the First Tithe]

in every place.

You

[the Levites]

and your households

[your wives].”

It is evident that Scripture equated the wives of Levites with Levites—

this teaches concerning a married Israelite woman that she may give permission to separate

terumat maaser from her husband's maaser.

You say

that the verse came to teach that a married woman gives

permission to separate—

Or perhaps not,

for it is possible that the verse came

only

to teach us that a woman married to a Levite has permission

to eat

maaser.

You have said:

The verse need not teach us this.

For it follows by means of a kal va-chomer: If

teruma, which is

in its legal status

more stringent

than maaser,

may be eaten

by the wife of a kohen—

maaser, which is less stringent—

all the more so

may the wife of a Levite eat it!

Rather,

necessarily,

the verse teaches

that

a married Israelite woman gives permission

to her agent

to separate

from her husband's produce.

Mar, son of Ravana, said:

Actually, the first clause, in which we learned that the wife of a Levite married to an Israelite, and an Israelite woman married to a Levite, may not eat maaser, is according to Rabbi Meir, who maintains that the First Tithe is forbidden to non-kohanim.

And as for what is difficult for you from the latter clause, in which we learned that the wife of a Levite married to a kohen, and the daughter of a kohen married to a Levite, may not eat maaser—

the meaning of the latter clause is

to say that they do not apportion to her

the woman

maaser at the threshing floor

on behalf of her husband without her husband being with her. The same law applies to a married woman [and below the Gemara explains why the Mishna mentioned a betrothed woman].

We learned in a beraita below, on 99b: Ten categories of people are not apportioned teruma at the threshing floor, including the wife of a kohen [Rashi below].

There, Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, disagreed in the Gemara concerning the reason:

One said: It is because of a divorcee. Perhaps her husband will divorce her, making her a non-kohen woman, and the people will not know that he divorced her, and they will continue to apportion teruma to her even after her divorce.

And one said: It is because of seclusion, so that the people will not be secluded with her in the threshing floor at the time when the teruma is being distributed.

And the Gemara asks:

That works according to the one who says,

the one who explains that what they said in the beraita below—that they do not apportion teruma to a woman at the threshing floor—is

because of seclusion,

and therefore it is understandable that they do not apportion even maaser to her.

But according to the one who says

that they do not apportion teruma to the wife of a kohen at the threshing floor

because of a divorcee—

how can the latter clause state: A daughter of a Levite betrothed to a kohen may not eat maaser, meaning that they do not apportion maaser to her at the threshing floor?!

This decree does not apply to her, for

does a divorced daughter of a Levite not eat maaser?!

The Gemara responds to the question with a counterquestion:

But according to your reasoning,

that is, rather than raising an objection to this explanation of our Mishna, you should raise an objection to the one who explains that the reason for the beraita—that they do not apportion teruma to a woman at the threshing floor—is that of a divorcee:

The beraita states this without qualification, teaching that they do not apportion teruma at the threshing floor to any woman, including a daughter of a kohen who married a kohen. You should therefore ask:

A divorced daughter of a kohen—

does she not eat teruma?!

Once she is divorced, she returns to her father's household, provided she has no offspring.

Rather,

necessarily, even to a daughter of a kohen who is the wife of a kohen they do not apportion teruma at the threshing floor,

as a decree due to a divorced Israelite woman.

And therefore, they do not apportion maaser even to a daughter of a Levite betrothed to a kohen, lest they apportion maaser to a daughter of a Levite betrothed to an Israelite even after her divorce, although she is forbidden to eat maaser, since maaser is forbidden to non-kohanim according to Rabbi Meir, in accordance with whom our Mishna is stated.

The Gemara still asks:

If so, why particularly

did the tanna state in our Mishna

“betrothed”

as not receiving a portion at the threshing floor?

But

even

if she were

married—

also

they would not apportion teruma to her at the threshing floor, since even in her case there is reason to prohibit it, either because of a divorcee or because of seclusion?!

And we answer:

Since the tanna taught in the first clause “betrothed

, since in all the cases in the Mishna [both in the first clause and in the latter clause] that discuss the prohibition against eating, whether teruma or maaser, the matter depends on betrothal—

therefore

the tanna also

taught in the

latter clause,

concerning a daughter of a Levite married to a kohen and a daughter of a kohen married to a Levite with regard to the distribution of maaser, and not with regard to eating—

“betrothed

”, even though in this matter it does not depend on betrothal.

The Sages taught: teruma—

one gives it

to a kohen.

And the First Tithe—

one gives it

to a Levite,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.