בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ נִינְהוּ עֶבֶד נָמֵי דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקֵי מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין עָרֵל וְטָמֵא מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיסִי נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ מִשּׁוּם קְנָסָא אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא as they are each an unusual creature of their own kind. With regard to a slave it is also clear, since if he is given teruma, perhaps the court will come to elevate him to the presumptive status of priestly lineage. Teruma may not be distributed to an uncircumcised man and a ritually impure man, because these situations are repulsive and it is unseemly to give them teruma in public. One may not distribute teruma to one who marries a woman unfit for him, due to a penalty that expropriates his priestly rights as long as he persists in his transgression. But for what reason is teruma not distributed to a woman?
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חַד אָמַר מִשּׁוּם גְּרוּשָׁה וְחַד אָמַר מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, disagree on this issue. One said that it is due to the case of an Israelite woman who was married to a priest and got divorced, thereby losing her permission to partake of teruma. Teruma is not distributed to women in public at all, lest this divorcée continue to receive teruma. And the other one said that it is due to the concern that the owner and the woman might be alone together in the granary.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ בֵּי דָרֵי דִּמְקָרַב לְמָתָא וְלָא שְׁכִיחִי בְּהוּ אִינָשֵׁי אִי נָמֵי דִּמְרַחַק וּשְׁכִיחִי בֵּהּ אִינָשֵׁי The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a granary that is close to town but is not frequented by people. Because it is close to town, the owner of the granary would know if she was divorced. However, since there are not many people there, the concern about their being alone together remains. Alternatively, there is a practical difference in the case of a granary that is distant but is frequented by people. There, there is concern that the owner of the granary might not know if she was divorced, but the concern that they might be alone together does not exist.
וְכוּלָּן מְשַׁגְּרִין לָהֶם לְבָתֵּיהֶן חוּץ מִטָּמֵא וְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ אֲבָל עָרֵל מְשַׁגְּרִינַן לֵיהּ מַאי טַעְמָא It is stated in the baraita under discussion: And with regard to all of them, one may send teruma to them, to their homes, with the exception of a ritually impure man and one who marries a woman unfit for him. The Gemara infers: However, to an uncircumcised man one may send it. What is the reason? How does he differ from an impure man?
מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲנִיס טָמֵא נָמֵי הָא אֲנִיס הַאי נְפִישׁ אוּנְסֵיהּ וְהַאי לָא נְפִישׁ אוּנְסֵיהּ The Gemara answers: One may send him teruma. It is because of circumstances beyond his control, i.e., the death of his brothers from their circumcision, that he was not circumcised. The Gemara asks: Isn’t an impure man also in his state due to circumstances beyond his control? Why is teruma not sent to him? The Gemara answers: This man is uncircumcised because of circumstances entirely beyond his control, as circumcision is considered life-threatening for him, whereas that impure man is not under circumstances entirely beyond his control, as one can protect himself from ritual impurity.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה אֵין חוֹלְקִין לָהֶם תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין נוֹתְנִין לָאִשָּׁה תְּחִלָּה וּפוֹטְרִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד מַאי קָאָמַר § The Sages taught: One may not distribute teruma to a slave or a woman if they are in the granary. And in a place where people do distribute it to them, the woman is given first and released immediately. The Gemara asks: What is this saying? If one may not distribute teruma to them, how can there be a place where it is distributed?
הָכִי קָאָמַר בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי נוֹתְנִין לְאִשָּׁה תְּחִלָּה מַאי טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם זִילוּתָא The Gemara explains that this statement is not referring to teruma. This is what it is saying: In a case where the poor man’s tithe is distributed to the poor from the owner’s house, the woman is given teruma first. What is the reason? She is given the tithe first because it is demeaning for a woman to have to wait in the company of men for a lengthy period of time.
אָמַר רָבָא מֵרֵישָׁא כִּי הֲווֹ אָתוּ גַּבְרָא וְאִתְּתָא לְדִינָא קַמַּאי הֲוָה שָׁרֵינָא תִּיגְרָא דְגַבְרָא בְּרֵישָׁא אָמֵינָא דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּמִצְוֹת כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא שָׁרֵינָא תִּיגְרָא דְּאִתְּתָא בְּרֵישָׁא מַאי טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם זִילוּתָא Rava said: Initially, when a man and a woman would come for judgment before me, each for a different case, I would resolve the man’s quarrel first. I would say that since he is obligated in many positive mitzvot I should not waste his time by causing him to wait. However, since I heard this baraita, I resolve the woman’s quarrel first. What is the reason? I resolve her quarrel first because it is demeaning for her to be waiting in the company of men.
הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת וְכוּ׳ שִׁיחְרְרוּ אִי בָּעֵי אִין אִי לָא בָּעֵי לָא וְאַמַּאי לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל אָמַר רָבָא אֵימָא כּוֹפִין אוֹתָן וּמְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה § It is stated in the mishna: If the mixed sons matured and freed each other, they may marry women fit for the priesthood. The use of the past tense indicates that this halakha applies after the fact. If one of the sons desires to free the other, he may, but if he does not desire to do so, he is not obligated. And why not? Neither of them can marry a maidservant in case he is a priest, nor can either of them marry a free woman, as he might be a slave. They are therefore unable to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply in their current state and should be obligated to free each other. Rava said: Say that the mishna means that we coerce them and they free each other.
נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶם חוּמְרֵי וְכוּ׳ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא לְמִנְחָתָם נִקְמֶצֶת כְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת כְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הָא כֵּיצַד הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַשִּׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בְּעַצְמָן It is stated in the mishna that we place upon them both the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated, beyond those cited specifically in the mishna? Rav Pappa said: It is stated with regard to their meal-offering: The handful is taken from it like the meal-offering of an Israelite, unlike that of a priest, which is burned in its entirety. However, the offering does not get eaten, like the meal-offering of priests. How so? How is the practice performed so that both stringencies are kept? The handful is sacrificed and burned by itself, and the remainder of the offering is offered by itself.
אִיקְּרִי כָּאן כֹּל שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים הֲרֵי הוּא בְּבַל תַּקְטִירוּ The Gemara asks: How can it be performed in this manner? There is a principle that should apply here, that whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of “you may not make…as an offering” (Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, e.g., the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal-offering, is burned on the altar, then burning any of its other parts, which are not designated for burning, is prohibited. How, then, can the remainder of the meal-offering be sacrificed?
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי דְּמַסֵּיק לְהוּ לְשׁוּם עֵצִים כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשׁוּם עֵצִים Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the remainder is brought up to the altar only for the purpose of wood, i.e., as fuel for the altar, not as an offering. In this manner, it is permitted. This answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: “But they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar” (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a “sweet savor,” i.e., an offering. However, you may bring up leaven, and honey, and other materials for the purpose of wood.
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּעָבֵיד לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַשִּׁירַיִם מִתְפַּזְּרִין עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא אֲבָל הָכָא אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Elazar. However, according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar and hold that it may not be burned for the purpose of fuel, what can be said? What is to be done with the remainder? The Gemara answers that the offering is treated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered over the place of the ashes. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, only with regard to a sinner’s meal-offering that belongs to priests, as it is fit to be sacrificed in its entirety. However, here, in the case of an uncertain priest, even the Rabbis agree that the remainder is scattered over the ashes, as it cannot be offered in case he is a non-priest.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעֲלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אִם בִּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבָנִים מִן הַשֵּׁנִי חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין וְכֵן הוּא לָהֶם חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם MISHNA: With regard to a woman who did not wait three months after separating from her husband, and remarried and gave birth to a son, and it is not known if he was born after nine months of pregnancy to the former husband or if he was born after seven months to the latter husband, if she had sons of certain patrilineage from the first husband and sons of certain patrilineage from the second one, and the son of uncertain patrilineage married and died childless, then the brothers from both husbands must perform ḥalitza with his wife, as they might be his paternal brothers. But they may not perform levirate marriage with her, in case he is only their maternal half brother, and his wife is forbidden to them. And similarly, with regard to him and their wives, if one of them dies childless, he performs ḥalitza and not levirate marriage.