Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 1, 2022 | 讘壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yevamot 86

Presentation in PDF format

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Don Nadel in loving memory of his mother Rhoda Nadel, Zisa Risa bat Aliya haCohen on her 25th yahrzeit.

The Mishna is based on the fact that a non-levite can’t eat maaser. This is according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion as found in a braita. From where does he derive this? What do the rabbis, who disagree with him, derive from that verse? The Gemara, however, questions the understanding that the Mishna is based on Rabbi Meir as that does not fit with the last case in the Mishna where a levite woman is engaged to a kohen or the reverse and the wife cannot eat either truma or maaser– the kohen should be allowed to eat maaser as all kohanim are also levites. Rav Sheshet explains the last line of the Mishna to mean something else – that she cannot give permission to a messenger to take truma from the maaser. Mar son of Rabana explained it differently – that she can’t collect the maaser in the granary. Does this fit with the two explanations for this issue in general – concerns for yichud in the granary or that she will continue to collect even once she is divorced? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria about to whom the truma and maaser are given is brought – is maaser given only to the levi or can be given also to the kohen. They disagree on how to read the verse referring to levites – does that include kohanim or not? A story is brought about Rabbi Akiva who blocked Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria (who was a kohen) from taking maaser in a particular field by moving the entrance to the side where there was a cemetery. There is a debate among amoraim about why the levites were penalized and lost the rights to eat maaser聽in the time of Ezra. What was the reason for this? And to whom was the maaser given instead? How does this work with the story told about Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The Mishna goes through a situation where a woman married men of different statuses and had children with each of them – at every given point in the story, can she eat truma, maaser or not? What happens when each of the children die? What is the situation if she was a daughter of a kohen?

 

转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪转讬专讜 诇讻讛谉 诪转讬专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞讜转谞讜 讗祝 诇讻讛谉

Teruma is for a priest and the first tithe is for a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permits it, i.e., the first tithe, to a priest, as he too is from the tribe of Levi. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: It says: Permits it. Does this prove by inference that there is one tanna that prohibits a priest from partaking of tithes? But a priest is also a Levite and cannot be considered a foreigner. Rather, say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya meant that one may give it even to a priest. The tithe does not have to be handed to a Levite; one may choose to give it to a priest instead.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙诪专讗 讻讬 讗转 诪注砖专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讬专讬诪讜 诇讛壮 转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐 讗祝 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讗祝 诪注砖专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖

The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion? Rav A岣, son of Rabba, said in the name of tradition that the verse states: 鈥淔or the tithe of the children of Israel that they set apart as a teruma to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance鈥 (Numbers 18:24). From the fact that this verse calls the tithe 鈥teruma,鈥 we learn: Just as teruma is forbidden to foreigners, so too is the first tithe forbidden to foreigners, i.e., non-Levites. The Gemara asks: If so, is it true that just as with teruma, a foreigner who eats it is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven and to pay the additional fifth for it, so too, with regard to tithes, a foreigner who eats it should be liable for it to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven and to pay the additional fifth?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讻讬 讬讞诇诇讛讜 讜讬住祝 讞诪讬砖讬转讜 注诇讬讜 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 诪注砖专 讜专讘谞谉 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讟讜讘诇转 讗祝 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 讟讜讘诇

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hey will die through it if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), and a different verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall add the fifth part thereof unto it鈥 (Leviticus 22:14). A close reading of these verses shows that the Torah is emphasizing that the death penalty comes through it, teruma, and not through tithes, and that a fifth must be added to it, but not to tithes. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, how do they account for the comparison in the above verse? The Gemara answers: They would say it teaches that just as the requirement to separate teruma produces the status of forbidden untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first tithe also produces the status of forbidden untithed produce.

讜讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讟讘诇 砖诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 注讬拽专 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诪谞讬谉

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: One might have thought a person should be liable only for untithed produce from which no terumot or tithes have been separated at all, but if the great teruma has been separated from it and the first tithe has not been separated from it; or if the first tithe has been separated from it and the second tithe has not; or even if the poor man鈥檚 tithe, which is merely given to the poor and has no sanctity, has not been separated, from where is it derived that such produce also has the status of untithed produce?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜 诪讛 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讗祝 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讜讻诇

The verse states: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and below, with regard to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, it states: 鈥淭hat they may eat within your gates and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as 鈥測our gates鈥 stated below is referring to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, so too 鈥測our gates鈥 stated here is referring to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, and the Merciful One states in the Torah 鈥測ou may not eat,鈥 implying that it may be eaten only after separation.

讜讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诇讗讜 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And if we had learned it only from there, I would say that it merely teaches a prohibition against partaking of untithed produce of this type, but the death penalty is not warranted. The comparison to teruma consequently teaches us that eating this type of untithed produce is also punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讚讟讘讬诇 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞驻拽讗 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诇讗讜 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

A different version of this discussion presents it in the form of a question: Isn鈥檛 it the case that the halakha that failure to separate the first tithe creates the status of untithed produce is derived from the halakha that Rabbi Yosei taught? If so, there is no need for the exposition of the verse referring to tithes as teruma. The Gemara answers: If the proof was from that source alone, I would say that it is only prohibited by a prohibition but the death penalty is not warranted. He therefore teaches us that all the stringencies of untithed produce are in force.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘转 诇讜讬 诪讗讜专住转 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇诇讜讬 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讝专讜转 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐

搂 The Gemara asks: In what manner did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But if so, say the latter clause: The daughter of a Levite betrothed to a priest and the daughter of a priest betrothed to a Levite may eat neither teruma nor tithe. Here, what foreignness is there that prohibits her from partaking of the tithe? Even according to the opinion that prohibits the first tithe to foreigners, this woman is a Levite on both sides. Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of: She may not eat, that the mishna teaches? It means that she may not give permission to others to separate the teruma from the tithe. As long as she is merely betrothed to a Levite, she may not appoint a messenger to set aside the teruma from the tithe on behalf of the Levite, as she is not yet his wife.

诪讻诇诇 讚谞砖讜讗讛 谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讗讻诇转诐 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗转诐 讜讘讬转讻诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐

The Gemara asks: Is it to be concluded by inference that a married woman may give permission to separate teruma from the tithe? The Gemara answers: Yes, and isn鈥檛 it taught: 鈥淎nd you may eat it in any place, you and your households鈥 (Numbers 18:31)? This teaches that an Israelite woman married to a Levite may give permission to another to separate teruma from the Levite鈥檚 tithe.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诪专转 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐

The baraita continues to discuss this halakha: Do you say she may give permission to separate teruma from the tithe, or perhaps it is only referring to eating? Say in response: If an Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of teruma, which is stringent, is it not all the more so true for tithe, which is lenient? Consequently, there is no need to teach us this halakha. Rather, the verse teaches that an Israelite woman married to a Levite may give permission to another to separate teruma from the tithe.

诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诇讛 诪注砖专 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讬讞讜讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讙专讜砖讛 讙专讜砖讛 讘转 诇讜讬 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘诪注砖专

Mar, son of Rabbana, said: The mishna is not teaching that the daughter of a Levite who was betrothed to a priest may not partake of tithe, but rather it is coming to say that we do not distribute tithe to her in the granary. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the reason for the decree against distributing teruma to a woman in the granary is due to the prohibition (Yevamot 100a) against a woman being alone with a strange man in the granary, which is a secluded place, as this concern applies equally to the case here. But according to the one who says that the Sages prohibited this practice due to concern that the woman might be a divorc茅e, who is no longer entitled to teruma, this concern should not apply to the daughter of a Levite. Does she not partake of tithe on her own account, even after she is divorced?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讙专讜砖讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讙专讜砖讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara refutes this argument: And according to your reasoning that rejects the explanation of Mar, son of Rabbana, with regard to the daughter of a Levite, does a divorc茅e who is the daughter of a priest not partake of teruma? Why should the daughter of a priest married to a priest not receive teruma in a granary? Rather, this is a rabbinic decree that was enacted primarily due to a priest鈥檚 divorc茅e who is the daughter of a non-priest, as she may no longer partake of teruma after her divorce. They also applied this decree to the daughter of a priest divorced from a priest. For this reason, they also decreed against a Levite woman receiving a portion in the granary.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讗讜专住转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讜讗讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪讗讜专住转 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诪讗讜专住转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why specifically one who was betrothed; the same would hold true even for a married woman as well. The Gemara answers: There is no difference between them in this regard, but since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna: Betrothed, he also taught in the latter clause: Betrothed, although the halakha in the latter clause does not apply exclusively to a betrothed woman.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught: Teruma is given to a priest, and the first tithe is given only to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:

诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诇讜讬 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇 讛诇讜讬诐 转讚讘专 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 讘诇讜讬诐 拽讗 诪砖转注讬 拽专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞拽专讗讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讘谞讬 爪讚讜拽

The first tithe is given to a priest. The Gemara is puzzled: To a priest and not to a Levite? But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: Say he means it can be given also to a priest. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason for Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them鈥 (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, the verse speaks of Levites, not priests. And the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, maintains in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: 鈥淎nd the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok鈥 (Ezekiel 44:15).

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转诐 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬爪讗 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讜 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讗讬 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 诇拽讬

And Rabbi Akiva replies: Here you cannot say the verse is referring to priests, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you may eat it in any place鈥 (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to one who can eat it in any place. This excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it anywhere that he wishes, that is, in any city, as it does not require the wall of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. And we further learn from here that if he eats it in a state of bodily impurity he is not flogged. Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.

讛讛讬讗 讙讬谞转讗 讚讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讗讝诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 诇驻转讞讗 诇讘讬 拽讘专讬 讗诪专 注拽讬讘讗 讘转专诪讬诇讜 讜讗谞讗 讞讬讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a priest, would take the first tithe, in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. Rabbi Akiva went, closed up the garden, and changed its entrance so that it would be facing toward the cemetery, to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden. Rabbi Elazar said in the form of a lighthearted exaggeration: Akiva, a former shepherd, comes with his satchel, but I have to live; from where will I receive my livelihood if I cannot claim the first tithe? Rabbi Elazar was actually a very wealthy man and did not need the produce from this garden. However, his point was that Rabbi Akiva acted in order to stop him from receiving something that he felt was rightfully his.

讗讬转诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 拽谞住讜 诇讜讬诐 讘诪注砖专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜住讘讬讗 讞讚 讗诪专 砖诇讗 注诇讜 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬住诪讻讜 讻讛谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转谉

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following question: For what reason did the Sages penalize the Levites with regard to their tithe, by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders who were with him disagree with regard to this matter. One said it was because they did not ascend, i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, in the days of Ezra. And one said that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests so that they could rely on it during their days of impurity. Because it is prohibited for priests to consume teruma while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on teruma. It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 注诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽谞住讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬住诪讻讜 注诇讬讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讛谞讬诐 拽谞住讬谞讛讜 诇诇讜讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽谞住讗 砖诇讗 注诇讜 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽谞住讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 注谞讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says it was because they did not ascend, we can understand that due to that reason they penalized the Levites by forcing them to share their tithe with the priests. But according to the one who says it was done so that the priests could rely on it during their days of impurity, should we penalize the Levites for the benefit of priests? Rather, everyone agrees that it was a penalty for the fact that they did not ascend in the days of Ezra, and here they disagree about this: One Sage holds that the penalty is that the tithe must be given to the poor, and one Sage holds that priests are classified as poor in the days of their impurity.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽谞住讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇驻转讞讗 诇讘讬 拽讘专讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 诇驻转讞讗 诇讘讬 拽讘专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚拽讗 讗转讬转 讘转讜专转 拽谞住讗 讗讬转 诇讱 讜讗讬 拽讗 讗转讬转 讘转讜专转 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讬转 诇讱

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that the penalty imposed on the Levites is that the tithe must be given to the poor, due to that reason Rabbi Akiva changed the garden entrance so that it would be facing toward the cemetery, as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a wealthy man. But according to the one who says the tithe was given to the priests, why did he change the entrance so that it would be toward the cemetery? The Gemara answers: This is what he said to him, i.e., this is what he meant: If you come to receive the tithe by virtue of the penalty imposed on the Levites, you may have it, but if you come by the standard halakha of distribution, demanding your share with the Levites, you may not have the tithe. If the owner of the garden chooses to give it to you, you may accept it, but you may not take it yourself.

讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 住诇讬拽讜 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗拽讘爪诐 讗诇 讛谞讛专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讛讜讗 讜谞讞谞讛 砖诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讘讬谞讛 讘注诐 讜讘讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讘谞讬 诇讜讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 砖诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转讞诇讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪注诪讬讚讬诐 砖讜讟专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讜讟专讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 诇驻谞讬讻诐 注讻砖讬讜 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讜讟专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讜讟专讬诐 讛专讘讬诐 讘专讗砖讬讻诐

The Gemara asks with regard to the penalty imposed on Levites: And from where do we derive that the Levites did not ascend in the days of Ezra? As it is written: 鈥淎nd I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and we encamped there for three days; and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi鈥 (Ezra 8:15). With regard to this, Rav 岣sda said: Initially they would establish officers over the people only from among the Levites, as it states: 鈥淎nd the officers, the Levites, before you鈥 (II聽Chronicles 19:11), but now they establish officers only from among the Israelites, as it is stated: And the officers of the many at your heads. This indicates that officers were appointed from: The many, meaning the largest group, ordinary Israelites.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪转 讜诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞讬住转 诇诇讜讬 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专 诪转 讜诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专 谞讬住转 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 诪转 讜诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专

MISHNA: An Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of teruma. If the priest died and she has a child from him, she may continue to partake of teruma. If she subsequently married a Levite, she may no longer partake of teruma but she may partake of the first tithe on his account. If he, too, died and she had a child from him, she may continue to partake of tithe on account of the child. If she then married an Israelite, she may partake of neither teruma nor tithe. If her Israelite husband died and she had a child from him, she still may partake of neither teruma nor tithe.

诪转 讘谞讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专 诪转 讘谞讛 诪诇讜讬 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪转 讘谞讛 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专

If her child from the Israelite also died, while her son from the Levite remained alive, she may partake of tithe on account of the Levite鈥檚 child. If her child from the Levite died, leaving her with a son from the priest, she may once again partake of teruma. If her child from the priest died as well, she may no longer partake of either teruma or tithe.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 86-92 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn when an Israelite woman can eat Teruma, which is normally only eaten by Priests. And...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 86: When Kohanim Are Called Leviim

Revisiting: Who can eat terumah? Specifically, the women who may have a relationship with a kohen, in various stages (including...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Uprooting a Torah Law – Gefet 35

https://youtu.be/xWRGwofjzs4
levi chagall window

Singers and Shleppers

On our daf (Yevamot 86b) we learn that the Levites, who are supposed to receive the ma鈥檃ser, the ten percent...

Yevamot 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 86

转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪转讬专讜 诇讻讛谉 诪转讬专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞讜转谞讜 讗祝 诇讻讛谉

Teruma is for a priest and the first tithe is for a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permits it, i.e., the first tithe, to a priest, as he too is from the tribe of Levi. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: It says: Permits it. Does this prove by inference that there is one tanna that prohibits a priest from partaking of tithes? But a priest is also a Levite and cannot be considered a foreigner. Rather, say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya meant that one may give it even to a priest. The tithe does not have to be handed to a Levite; one may choose to give it to a priest instead.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙诪专讗 讻讬 讗转 诪注砖专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讬专讬诪讜 诇讛壮 转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐 讗祝 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讗祝 诪注砖专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖

The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion? Rav A岣, son of Rabba, said in the name of tradition that the verse states: 鈥淔or the tithe of the children of Israel that they set apart as a teruma to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance鈥 (Numbers 18:24). From the fact that this verse calls the tithe 鈥teruma,鈥 we learn: Just as teruma is forbidden to foreigners, so too is the first tithe forbidden to foreigners, i.e., non-Levites. The Gemara asks: If so, is it true that just as with teruma, a foreigner who eats it is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven and to pay the additional fifth for it, so too, with regard to tithes, a foreigner who eats it should be liable for it to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven and to pay the additional fifth?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讻讬 讬讞诇诇讛讜 讜讬住祝 讞诪讬砖讬转讜 注诇讬讜 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 诪注砖专 讜专讘谞谉 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讟讜讘诇转 讗祝 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 讟讜讘诇

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hey will die through it if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), and a different verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall add the fifth part thereof unto it鈥 (Leviticus 22:14). A close reading of these verses shows that the Torah is emphasizing that the death penalty comes through it, teruma, and not through tithes, and that a fifth must be added to it, but not to tithes. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, how do they account for the comparison in the above verse? The Gemara answers: They would say it teaches that just as the requirement to separate teruma produces the status of forbidden untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first tithe also produces the status of forbidden untithed produce.

讜讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讟讘诇 砖诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 注讬拽专 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诪谞讬谉

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: One might have thought a person should be liable only for untithed produce from which no terumot or tithes have been separated at all, but if the great teruma has been separated from it and the first tithe has not been separated from it; or if the first tithe has been separated from it and the second tithe has not; or even if the poor man鈥檚 tithe, which is merely given to the poor and has no sanctity, has not been separated, from where is it derived that such produce also has the status of untithed produce?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜 诪讛 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讗祝 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讜讻诇

The verse states: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and below, with regard to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, it states: 鈥淭hat they may eat within your gates and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as 鈥測our gates鈥 stated below is referring to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, so too 鈥測our gates鈥 stated here is referring to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, and the Merciful One states in the Torah 鈥測ou may not eat,鈥 implying that it may be eaten only after separation.

讜讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诇讗讜 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And if we had learned it only from there, I would say that it merely teaches a prohibition against partaking of untithed produce of this type, but the death penalty is not warranted. The comparison to teruma consequently teaches us that eating this type of untithed produce is also punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讚讟讘讬诇 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞驻拽讗 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诇讗讜 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

A different version of this discussion presents it in the form of a question: Isn鈥檛 it the case that the halakha that failure to separate the first tithe creates the status of untithed produce is derived from the halakha that Rabbi Yosei taught? If so, there is no need for the exposition of the verse referring to tithes as teruma. The Gemara answers: If the proof was from that source alone, I would say that it is only prohibited by a prohibition but the death penalty is not warranted. He therefore teaches us that all the stringencies of untithed produce are in force.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘转 诇讜讬 诪讗讜专住转 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇诇讜讬 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讝专讜转 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讛 谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐

搂 The Gemara asks: In what manner did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But if so, say the latter clause: The daughter of a Levite betrothed to a priest and the daughter of a priest betrothed to a Levite may eat neither teruma nor tithe. Here, what foreignness is there that prohibits her from partaking of the tithe? Even according to the opinion that prohibits the first tithe to foreigners, this woman is a Levite on both sides. Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of: She may not eat, that the mishna teaches? It means that she may not give permission to others to separate the teruma from the tithe. As long as she is merely betrothed to a Levite, she may not appoint a messenger to set aside the teruma from the tithe on behalf of the Levite, as she is not yet his wife.

诪讻诇诇 讚谞砖讜讗讛 谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讗讻诇转诐 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗转诐 讜讘讬转讻诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐

The Gemara asks: Is it to be concluded by inference that a married woman may give permission to separate teruma from the tithe? The Gemara answers: Yes, and isn鈥檛 it taught: 鈥淎nd you may eat it in any place, you and your households鈥 (Numbers 18:31)? This teaches that an Israelite woman married to a Levite may give permission to another to separate teruma from the Levite鈥檚 tithe.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诪专转 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讜讻诇转 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讜转谞转 专砖讜转 诇转专讜诐

The baraita continues to discuss this halakha: Do you say she may give permission to separate teruma from the tithe, or perhaps it is only referring to eating? Say in response: If an Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of teruma, which is stringent, is it not all the more so true for tithe, which is lenient? Consequently, there is no need to teach us this halakha. Rather, the verse teaches that an Israelite woman married to a Levite may give permission to another to separate teruma from the tithe.

诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 诇讛 诪注砖专 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬讬讞讜讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讙专讜砖讛 讙专讜砖讛 讘转 诇讜讬 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘诪注砖专

Mar, son of Rabbana, said: The mishna is not teaching that the daughter of a Levite who was betrothed to a priest may not partake of tithe, but rather it is coming to say that we do not distribute tithe to her in the granary. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the reason for the decree against distributing teruma to a woman in the granary is due to the prohibition (Yevamot 100a) against a woman being alone with a strange man in the granary, which is a secluded place, as this concern applies equally to the case here. But according to the one who says that the Sages prohibited this practice due to concern that the woman might be a divorc茅e, who is no longer entitled to teruma, this concern should not apply to the daughter of a Levite. Does she not partake of tithe on her own account, even after she is divorced?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讙专讜砖讛 讘转 讻讛谉 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讙专讜砖讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara refutes this argument: And according to your reasoning that rejects the explanation of Mar, son of Rabbana, with regard to the daughter of a Levite, does a divorc茅e who is the daughter of a priest not partake of teruma? Why should the daughter of a priest married to a priest not receive teruma in a granary? Rather, this is a rabbinic decree that was enacted primarily due to a priest鈥檚 divorc茅e who is the daughter of a non-priest, as she may no longer partake of teruma after her divorce. They also applied this decree to the daughter of a priest divorced from a priest. For this reason, they also decreed against a Levite woman receiving a portion in the granary.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讗讜专住转 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讜讗讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪讗讜专住转 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诪讗讜专住转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why specifically one who was betrothed; the same would hold true even for a married woman as well. The Gemara answers: There is no difference between them in this regard, but since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna: Betrothed, he also taught in the latter clause: Betrothed, although the halakha in the latter clause does not apply exclusively to a betrothed woman.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专

The Sages taught: Teruma is given to a priest, and the first tithe is given only to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:

诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诇讜讬 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇 讛诇讜讬诐 转讚讘专 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讬讛诐 讘诇讜讬诐 拽讗 诪砖转注讬 拽专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞拽专讗讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讘谞讬 爪讚讜拽

The first tithe is given to a priest. The Gemara is puzzled: To a priest and not to a Levite? But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: Say he means it can be given also to a priest. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason for Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淵ou shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them鈥 (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, the verse speaks of Levites, not priests. And the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, maintains in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: 鈥淎nd the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok鈥 (Ezekiel 44:15).

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转诐 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬爪讗 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讜 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讗讬讚讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讗讬 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 诇讗 诇拽讬

And Rabbi Akiva replies: Here you cannot say the verse is referring to priests, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you may eat it in any place鈥 (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to one who can eat it in any place. This excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it anywhere that he wishes, that is, in any city, as it does not require the wall of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. And we further learn from here that if he eats it in a state of bodily impurity he is not flogged. Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.

讛讛讬讗 讙讬谞转讗 讚讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讗讝诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 诇驻转讞讗 诇讘讬 拽讘专讬 讗诪专 注拽讬讘讗 讘转专诪讬诇讜 讜讗谞讗 讞讬讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a priest, would take the first tithe, in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. Rabbi Akiva went, closed up the garden, and changed its entrance so that it would be facing toward the cemetery, to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden. Rabbi Elazar said in the form of a lighthearted exaggeration: Akiva, a former shepherd, comes with his satchel, but I have to live; from where will I receive my livelihood if I cannot claim the first tithe? Rabbi Elazar was actually a very wealthy man and did not need the produce from this garden. However, his point was that Rabbi Akiva acted in order to stop him from receiving something that he felt was rightfully his.

讗讬转诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 拽谞住讜 诇讜讬诐 讘诪注砖专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜住讘讬讗 讞讚 讗诪专 砖诇讗 注诇讜 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬住诪讻讜 讻讛谞讬诐 注诇讬讜 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转谉

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following question: For what reason did the Sages penalize the Levites with regard to their tithe, by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders who were with him disagree with regard to this matter. One said it was because they did not ascend, i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, in the days of Ezra. And one said that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests so that they could rely on it during their days of impurity. Because it is prohibited for priests to consume teruma while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on teruma. It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 注诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽谞住讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬住诪讻讜 注诇讬讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讛谞讬诐 拽谞住讬谞讛讜 诇诇讜讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽谞住讗 砖诇讗 注诇讜 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽谞住讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转谉 注谞讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says it was because they did not ascend, we can understand that due to that reason they penalized the Levites by forcing them to share their tithe with the priests. But according to the one who says it was done so that the priests could rely on it during their days of impurity, should we penalize the Levites for the benefit of priests? Rather, everyone agrees that it was a penalty for the fact that they did not ascend in the days of Ezra, and here they disagree about this: One Sage holds that the penalty is that the tithe must be given to the poor, and one Sage holds that priests are classified as poor in the days of their impurity.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽谞住讗 诇注谞讬讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇驻转讞讗 诇讘讬 拽讘专讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 诇驻转讞讗 诇讘讬 拽讘专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚拽讗 讗转讬转 讘转讜专转 拽谞住讗 讗讬转 诇讱 讜讗讬 拽讗 讗转讬转 讘转讜专转 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讬转 诇讱

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that the penalty imposed on the Levites is that the tithe must be given to the poor, due to that reason Rabbi Akiva changed the garden entrance so that it would be facing toward the cemetery, as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a wealthy man. But according to the one who says the tithe was given to the priests, why did he change the entrance so that it would be toward the cemetery? The Gemara answers: This is what he said to him, i.e., this is what he meant: If you come to receive the tithe by virtue of the penalty imposed on the Levites, you may have it, but if you come by the standard halakha of distribution, demanding your share with the Levites, you may not have the tithe. If the owner of the garden chooses to give it to you, you may accept it, but you may not take it yourself.

讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 住诇讬拽讜 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗拽讘爪诐 讗诇 讛谞讛专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讛讜讗 讜谞讞谞讛 砖诐 讬诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讘讬谞讛 讘注诐 讜讘讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讘谞讬 诇讜讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 砖诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转讞诇讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪注诪讬讚讬诐 砖讜讟专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讜讟专讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 诇驻谞讬讻诐 注讻砖讬讜 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讜讟专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讜讟专讬诐 讛专讘讬诐 讘专讗砖讬讻诐

The Gemara asks with regard to the penalty imposed on Levites: And from where do we derive that the Levites did not ascend in the days of Ezra? As it is written: 鈥淎nd I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and we encamped there for three days; and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi鈥 (Ezra 8:15). With regard to this, Rav 岣sda said: Initially they would establish officers over the people only from among the Levites, as it states: 鈥淎nd the officers, the Levites, before you鈥 (II聽Chronicles 19:11), but now they establish officers only from among the Israelites, as it is stated: And the officers of the many at your heads. This indicates that officers were appointed from: The many, meaning the largest group, ordinary Israelites.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪转 讜诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞讬住转 诇诇讜讬 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专 诪转 讜诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专 谞讬住转 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 诪转 讜诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专

MISHNA: An Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of teruma. If the priest died and she has a child from him, she may continue to partake of teruma. If she subsequently married a Levite, she may no longer partake of teruma but she may partake of the first tithe on his account. If he, too, died and she had a child from him, she may continue to partake of tithe on account of the child. If she then married an Israelite, she may partake of neither teruma nor tithe. If her Israelite husband died and she had a child from him, she still may partake of neither teruma nor tithe.

诪转 讘谞讛 诪讬砖专讗诇 转讗讻诇 讘诪注砖专 诪转 讘谞讛 诪诇讜讬 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪转 讘谞讛 诪讻讛谉 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专

If her child from the Israelite also died, while her son from the Levite remained alive, she may partake of tithe on account of the Levite鈥檚 child. If her child from the Levite died, leaving her with a son from the priest, she may once again partake of teruma. If her child from the priest died as well, she may no longer partake of either teruma or tithe.

Scroll To Top