Yevamot 99b (צט:) — the Talmud in English

And

both of them

may not contract impurity from the dead, because each one is a safek kohen.

since each one is possibly a kohen—a member of the priestly family.

And

both of them

may not marry women, neither

women

fit

that is, Israelite women,

nor women disqualified

such as maidservants [permitted to a slave], because women fit for a kohen are forbidden to each of them, lest he be a slave, while women disqualified for a kohen are forbidden to each of them, lest he be not a slave but a completely legitimate Israelite, and an Israelite is forbidden to a maidservant.

And if

the intermingled ones matured, such that one was a slave and the other a kohen, and the master of the slave

and

freed one another, and it was found that one was a kohen and one an Israelite:

These are

therefore

permitted to marry women fit for the kehuna

only, because each one is a safek kohen.

And they may not contract impurity from the dead,

because each one is a safek kohen.

And

however,

if they became impure, they do not receive

the

forty lashes,

because each one is no more than a possible kohen.

And they may not eat teruma,

because each one is possibly an Israelite.

An Israelite who eats teruma inadvertently must set aside unconsecrated produce that has been properly tithed, equal to the principal that he ate, plus an additional fifth; these then become teruma.

If he ate teruma belonging to a kohen, the principal is given to that kohen from whom he ate, while the fifth may be given to any kohen he wishes.

If he ate his own teruma [for example, an Israelite who inherited it from his maternal grandfather, a kohen], he pays the principal to himself as atonement and sells it to a kohen, while he gives the fifth to a kohen, [according to Tosafot in Ketubot 30b

].

However,

if they ate

teruma,

they do not pay the principal and the fifth,

as an Israelite who eats teruma must pay. Rather, they set aside unconsecrated produce that has been properly tithed, and it becomes teruma, and they keep it for themselves. They need not give it to a kohen, as does another Israelite who eats teruma, because in monetary matters the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

And they do not receive a portion at the threshing floor,

that is, teruma is not given to them at the threshing floor, since one of them is not a kohen but a freed slave.

And they sell the teruma, and its proceeds belong to them.

The teruma that the possible kohanim set aside from their produce need not be given to a kohen because of the uncertainty, since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since they cannot eat the teruma, they sell it to a kohen, and the proceeds belong to them.

And they do not receive a portion of the consecrated property of the Temple,

such as the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to the kohanim.

And sacrificial portions are not given to them.

Firstborn animals and dedicated property that are given to kohanim are not given to them, since they are possibly Israelites.

And

however,

they do not remove

the firstborn animals and dedicated property

from their possession,

because they can claim that they are kohanim. Dedicated property that kohanim dedicate belongs to them, and later the Mishna explains what they are to do with their firstborn animals.

And they are exempt from the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw—

which every Israelite must give to a kohen from his animals—because the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

And the firstborn animal

of each of them—if he were certainly an Israelite, he would have to give it to a kohen—

shall graze until it becomes blemished

until a defect occurs in it], and then he keeps it on account of the uncertainty and does not give it to the kohanim, since it involves no prohibition of a non-kohen eating teruma but only a prohibition of robbery, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

But if he does not wait until it becomes blemished, and instead offers it upon the altar, he can no longer eat its meat, which belongs to him because of the uncertainty. Since it may be eaten only by kohanim, and a non-kohen is forbidden to eat it, he, being possibly an Israelite, is forbidden to eat it.

And they impose upon it

upon each one individually]

the stringencies of kohanim and the stringencies of Israelites,

the Gemara explains what this clause comes to include.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“The legitimate ones died”:

The Gemara is astonished at the wording of the Mishna, which calls the sons whose identities are known “legitimate”:

Rather, these—

these are the intermingled possible sons—do you think that

because they became intermingled, they became disqualified

are the intermingled ones disqualified]!? Why call those whose identities are known and who are not subject to uncertainty “legitimate”?

Rav Pappa said

he resolved this:

Say: “The sons whose identities are known died.”

We learned in the Mishna: [the intermingled sons]

for the daughters-in-law—

one performs halitza and one performs yibbum:

The Gemara explains:

Specifically, first halitza and then yibbum

the first must perform halitza, and only afterward may the second perform yibbum].

But yibbum first—

no

he may not perform yibbum before the other performs halitza], because

it

is possible that

he will encounter a woman forbidden to the public—

if the man performing yibbum is not the son of the bride.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A kohen’s wife whose child became intermingled

with the child of her maidservant: they may eat teruma and receive one portion together at the threshing floor.” The Gemara understood at first that this means that they receive one portion at the threshing floor together, and it questions this:

One portion!?

But

it is obvious

that they are not given two portions, because the slave receives teruma not for himself but on behalf of his master, and one of them is the slave of the master

. The Gemara answers:

Say: “A portion together,”

meaning that neither of them is given teruma at the threshing floor without the other, since each one is possibly the slave, and a slave is not given a portion of teruma without his master, as the Gemara explains below.

If so,

we learned

in our Mishna

in accordance with the one who says that teruma is not apportioned to a slave unless his master is with him,

because in this way everyone knows that the portion was given to him on behalf of his master.

As it was taught:

A kohen’s wife [the wife of a kohen who died and left her pregnant] whose child became intermingled with the child of her maidservant—both of them [the slave and his master, whose identities are unknown] go out to the threshing floor and take one portion, because

“teruma is not apportioned to a slave unless his master is with him”—these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

The reason is that if a portion were apportioned to one without the other, people might establish him as a kohen on that basis, although he may be a slave.

Rabbi Yosei says: He may—

each one who comes to receive a portion—

say: “If I am a kohen, give it to me

on my own behalf.

And if I am a slave

of a

kohen, give it to me on behalf of my master.”

The reason for their dispute is as follows:

For

in Rabbi Yehuda’s locality, they would elevate a person from

receiving a portion of

teruma

at the threshing floor

to matters of lineage.

Anyone whom they saw receiving a portion of teruma at the threshing floor was presumed by them to be a kohen. Therefore Rabbi Yehuda said not to apportion it to a slave without his master.

But

in Rabbi Yosei’s locality, they would not elevate a person from

receiving a portion of

teruma

at the threshing floor

to matters of lineage,

and therefore there was no concern if portions were apportioned even to slaves.

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said:

In all my days I testified only once,

and this was it: that they had apportioned teruma at the threshing floor to a certain man,

and they elevated a slave

to the kehuna on the basis of

the fact that that certain man was a slave and was receiving a portion at the threshing floor on behalf of his master.

The Gemara is astonished: Is it conceivable that

“they elevated” is what entered your mind—that an error should result through him, causing them to elevate a slave to the kehuna on his account!?

Could a mishap really have occurred through him, so that they elevated a slave to the priesthood on his account!?

But

now, even with regard to

the

animals of the righteous—

such as the donkey of Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair—

the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about a mishap through them—

all the more so the righteous themselves,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, would not bring about a mishap through them!?

Rather, say,

correct the beraita so that it says:

“They sought to elevate a slave to the kehuna on the basis of it!”

But in the end the matter became known, and they did not elevate him.

And this is what happened:

He saw,

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok saw a slave who was being given a portion of teruma at the threshing floor

in Rabbi Yosei’s locality

in Rabbi Yosei’s place], where they gave him a portion of teruma at the threshing floor,

and he went and testified

about it

in Rabbi Yehuda’s locality

he went to testify about this incident in Rabbi Yehuda’s locality], where they did not apportion teruma to the slaves of kohanim.

The Sages taught: Ten

kohanim

are not given a portion of teruma in the houses of the threshing floors; and these are they:

One, two, three:

a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

and the Gemara explains the reason for all of them below.

Four and five:

a tumtum and an androgynos.

Six:

a slave

who comes to receive a portion on behalf of his master.

Seven:

a woman

who comes to receive a portion on behalf of her husband, the kohen.

Eight and nine:

an uncircumcised man,

even if his brothers died because of circumcision and he therefore did not circumcise himself, and

an impure man.

Ten:

and

a kohen

who marries a woman unsuitable for him,

one disqualified for the kehuna.

And all of them are sent portions to their homes

to eat. Even the uncircumcised man, who does not eat it himself, may feed it to his wives and slaves.

Except for an impure man,

and

a kohen

who marries a woman unsuitable for him.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor

the reason that they are not given a portion of teruma is understandable, because

they are not competent

and giving them a portion at the threshing floor in full view of everyone would demean the teruma.