Yevamot 86a — the Talmud in English

Teruma

may be given

to a kohen, and the first tithe

may be given

to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

permits it to be given to a kohen.

It follows from Rabbi Meir's words that, by adding the law that teruma is given to a kohen, even though this is stated explicitly in the Torah and no one disagrees about it, he intended to compare the law of the first tithe with the law of teruma, and to say:

Just as with teruma, the rules governing its eating are the same as those governing its transfer: just as it may be given only to kohanim, so too it may be eaten only by kohanim.

So too with the first tithe: the rules governing its eating are the same as those governing its transfer. Just as it may be given only to a Levite, so too it may be eaten only by a Levite, and non-Levites are forbidden to eat the first tithe. And the Gemara discusses this: From the wording of the Mishna, “Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya”

“permits it”

to a kohen to eat the first tithe, it follows that only he permits a kohen to eat the first tithe.

And

from this

you hear

that there is one who forbids

a kohen to eat the first tithe.

But this is difficult: Is there really anyone who forbids a kohen to eat it?

Surely it is impossible for the first tithe to be forbidden to kohanim, since kohanim are not non-Levites; they too are called “Levites,” as will be explained later.

And we answer:

Rather, say

the following in the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:

He gives it

the first tithe

also to a kohen.

He was not discussing permission to eat it at all. Rather, he came to disagree with Rabbi Meir concerning to whom it may be given. Rabbi Meir said that it may be given only to a Levite, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, it may be given also to a kohen.

The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Meir's words:

What is the reason for Rabbi Meir,

who forbade non-Levites to eat the first tithe?

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

[he did not say this on his own; rather, he 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 that they raise up to the Lord

as a gift

I have given to the Levites as an inheritance.”

The verse compared the tithe to teruma in order to teach you:

Just as teruma is forbidden

to eat

to non-Levites,

so too the first tithe is forbidden

to eat

to non-Levites.

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

If, just as with teruma, those who eat it

the non-Levites who eat it

are liable 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 accidentally,

so too the tithe

should be subject to the rule that

they are liable

when non-Levites eat it intentionally

to death,

and they add to the payment of its value

a fifth

when they eat it accidentally.

This cannot be said, because there are exclusions in the verses showing that the two are not to be compared in these matters. For—

The verse says,

concerning the punishment of a non-Levite who intentionally ate teruma:

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

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

Similarly, the verse says concerning the payment required of a non-Levite who accidentally ate teruma: “

And if a person eats anything sacred accidentally,

he shall add its fifth to it.”

And an exclusion is stated in each of these verses:

Regarding liability to death for eating teruma, the exclusion is stated: “And they shall die

through it.” “

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

But not

is the punishment of death stated

for

eating

the first

tithe as a non-Levite.

Similarly, concerning payment for accidental eating, the exclusion is stated: “He shall add its fifth

to it.” “

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

But he shall not

add a fifth

for

eating

the first

tithe accidentally.

The Gemara now explains the view of the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Meir and permit non-Levites to eat the first tithe: How do they explain the comparison of the tithe to teruma?

And the Sages,

who permit non-Levites to eat the tithe, will explain that the comparison of the tithe to teruma teaches a different matter: Before the tithe is separated, there is liability to death for eating the produce, just as there is liability to death for eating the produce before teruma is separated:

Just as teruma

renders

the produce unfit to eat,

for as long as teruma has not been separated from it, the produce has the prohibition of tevel, produce from which the required gifts have not yet been separated, and one who eats it is liable to death at the hand of Heaven, —

So too, the first tithe also

renders the produce unfit to eat!

The produce is subject to liability to death as long as the first tithe has not been separated from it.

And as it was taught

in a beraita, we find that produce that is “ready”—from the word tevel—for the tithe is also subject to a prohibition, just like produce that is ready for teruma.

Rabbi Yosei says:

One might have thought that one is liable

to punishment

only for

eating

produce from which

terumot and tithes

have not been separated at all.

From where do we know that produce from which

the great teruma was separated, but the first tithe was not separated —

And even if

the first tithe, but not

the

second tithe was separated from the produce.

And even

if only

the tithe for the poor has not yet been separated from it.

had not yet been separated from it.

From where

do we know that one is liable to punishment if he eats 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 speaks of the second tithe, which you may not eat in all your gates; rather, you must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.

However,

later it says:

There is another verse later [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 [when the first tithe and the tithe for the poor must be given]—

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

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

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

And we learn this through the method of deriving laws from identical expressions, “your gates, your gates.”

Just as

the

“your gates” stated later

refers in the verse to

the tithe for the poor,

so too the “your gates” stated here,

in the verse “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil,” refers in the verse to

the tithe for the poor.

And the Merciful One said: “You may not

eat the tithe for the poor within your gates”!

Since it is impossible that the verse means to say that it is forbidden to eat the produce of the tithe for the poor in all your gates, the verse must be prohibiting the eating of produce that is ready for the tithe for the poor.

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

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

We have learned from Rabbi Yosei's words that one who eats produce that is ready for the first tithe violates the prohibition: “You may not eat within your gates.”

But

however,

if

we learn

from there,

from “You may not eat,” alone,

we might have thought that

the verse came only

to

give

a prohibition

to one who eats produce 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 is liable.

Therefore,

the verse teaches us

the earlier verse—“For the tithe of the Children of Israel that they dedicate to the Lord as a gift”—in which the tithe was compared to teruma:

One is liable to death for eating produce that is ready for the first tithe, just as one is liable to death for eating produce that is ready for teruma.

An alternative version:

The beraita containing Rabbi Yosei's words was not brought as support; it was brought as an objection.

This is what we are saying: Why do we need to derive from the comparison of the tithe to teruma that one is liable for produce that is ready for the first tithe?

But

the first tithe that renders produce unfit

is derived from Rabbi Yosei,

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

!

And we answer:

If it were derived from that verse—

from “You may not eat within your gates”

we might have thought that it comes only for a prohibition

in general.

But death

at the hand of Heaven—

not

would one be liable for produce that is ready for the tithe.

The verse teaches us

that the comparison of the tithe to teruma establishes that one is also liable to death at the hand of Heaven for eating such produce.

The Gemara now returns to the explanation it gave earlier of our Mishna, according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that the first tithe is forbidden to non-Levites, and raises an objection:

According to whom did you establish

our Mishna?

According to Rabbi Meir.

But

come to the latter clause—that is, the latter clause of our Mishna is still difficult. We learned there:

A Levite's daughter betrothed to a kohen, and

a kohen's daughter

who is

betrothed to a Levite—

may not eat teruma,

because the betrothal of an Israelite woman to a kohen does not enable her to eat teruma. On the other hand, the betrothal disqualifies a kohen's daughter who became betrothed to a Levite from eating it.

And

she may likewise

not eat

the

tithe.

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

And a kohen's daughter does not eat the tithe when she becomes betrothed to a Levite because the Levite's betrothal does not have the power to enable her to eat the tithe.

But this is difficult:

Here,

in the latter clause,

what “non-Levite status” is there

for a kohen with regard to the tithe?

Is a kohen forbidden to eat the tithe, so that he disqualifies through betrothal the Levite's daughter who became betrothed to him!?

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

The Gemara offers another explanation of the Mishna:

Rav Sheshet said,

this is the explanation of the Mishna, both of 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 the tithe—and of what we learned in the latter clause—that a Levite's daughter betrothed to a kohen, and a kohen's daughter betrothed to a Levite, may not eat the tithe:

What does “she does not eat,” as it is stated

throughout our Mishna with regard to the tithe, mean?

She does not authorize

her agent

to separate

the tithe-offering

from the first tithe received by her betrothed.

Since she is betrothed, she does not yet have rights to her husband's first tithe. Therefore, if an agent separates the tithe-offering on her behalf, it is like someone who separates it without the owners' knowledge, in which case his separation is not valid.

And what we learned, “She may not eat the tithe,” means this: She has no permission to eat it if the tithe-offering has not yet been separated from it, because she has no ability to rectify it herself.

And we raise an objection: According to this explanation, from now on, what we learned in the Mishna—that the betrothed woman does not give permission to contribute tithes—

by implication

do you learn from this

that a married woman

does

give

to the agent

permission

to contribute the tithe-offering from her husband’s tithe.

And this is difficult: how can she give her agent permission to contribute the tithe-offering from the tithe? But the produce of the tithe does not belong to her!

And we answer:

No,

she indeed can give her agent permission to contribute!

And it was taught

[with assent], that indeed we learned so in a beraita:

It is written:

“And you shall eat it

[the first tithe]

in every place.

You

[the Levites]

and your household

[your wives].”

It follows that Scripture equated the wives of the Levites with the Levites—

it taught concerning a married Israelite woman that she gives permission to contribute

the tithe-offering from her husband’s tithe.

You say

that the verse came to say that the married woman gives

permission to contribute—

Or perhaps

the verse did not come

but

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

to eat

tithe.

You have said:

The verse does not need to teach us this matter.

For it follows by a kal va-chomer: If

teruma, which is

in its legal status

more stringent

in its law,

the wife of a kohen eats—

then

the lenient tithe—

all the more so

that the wife of a Levite should eat it!

Rather,

necessarily,

it taught

the verse

concerning a married Israelite woman, that she gives permission

to her agent

to contribute

from her husband’s produce.

Mar, the son of Ravina, said:

Actually, the first clause, in which we learned: “A Levite’s wife who is married to an Israelite, and an Israelite woman who is married to a Levite, may not eat tithe,” is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that the first tithe is forbidden to non-Levites.

And as for what is difficult for you from the latter clause, in which we learned: “A Levite’s wife who is married to a kohen, and a kohen’s daughter who is married to a Levite, may not eat tithe”—

the intention of the latter clause is

to say that they do not distribute to her

the woman

tithe at the threshing floor

on behalf of her husband when her husband is not with her. And the same law applies to a married woman [and below it explains why it mentioned a betrothed woman].

We learned in a beraita below, 99b: “Ten people are not given teruma at the threshing floor,” among them a kohen’s wife [Rashi below].

And there they disputed in the Gemara, Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, concerning the reason for the matter:

One said: Because of a divorced woman. Perhaps her husband will divorce her, and she will be a non-kohen, while the people will not know that he divorced her, and they will distribute teruma to her even after her divorce.

And one said: Because of seclusion. So that the people should not be secluded with her at the threshing floor at the time of distributing the teruma.

And the Gemara asks:

This works according to the one who says,

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

because of seclusion,

for it is understandable that they likewise do not distribute tithe to her.

But according to the one who says

that they do not distribute teruma to a kohen’s wife at the threshing floor

because of a divorced woman—

how can it teach in the latter clause: “A Levite’s daughter betrothed to a kohen may not eat tithe,” meaning that they do not distribute tithe to her at the threshing floor!?

But this decree does not apply to her, for

does a divorced Levite’s daughter not eat tithe?!

And the Gemara responds to the objection with a question:

And according to your reasoning,

that is, before you object to this explanation of our Mishna, you should object to the one who explains the reason for the beraita—that they do not distribute teruma to a woman at the threshing floor—as being because of a divorced woman:

But the beraita states anonymously that teruma is not distributed to any woman at the threshing floor, including even a kohen’s daughter who married a kohen; and you should object to him:

A divorced kohen’s daughter—

does she not eat teruma?!

But once she is divorced, she returns to her father’s house when she has no offspring!?

Rather,

necessarily, even to a kohen’s daughter who is a kohen’s wife they do not distribute teruma at the threshing floor,

as a decree because of a divorced Israelite’s daughter.

And therefore, even to a Levite’s daughter betrothed to a kohen they do not distribute tithe, lest they distribute tithe to a Levite’s daughter betrothed to an Israelite even after her divorce, whereas she is forbidden to eat tithe, since according to Rabbi Meir, according to whom our Mishna is stated, tithe is forbidden to non-Levites.

And the Gemara still asks:

If so, why specifically,

why did the tanna mention in our Mishna

“betrothed”

as one to whom they do not distribute at the threshing floor?

But

even if she had been

married

also—

likewise

they would not distribute teruma to her at the threshing floor, since even in her case it should be prohibited because of a divorced woman or because of seclusion, would they not?!

And we answer:

Since the first clause taught “betrothed

because in all the matters of the Mishna [both in the first clause and in the latter clause] that deal with the prohibition of eating, whether teruma or tithe, the matter depends on being betrothed—

therefore

it also taught

the tanna also in the

latter clause,

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

“betrothed”,

even though it does not depend on betrothal.

The Sages taught: Teruma—

he gives it

to a kohen.

And first tithe—

he gives it

to a Levite,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.