וְאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין לְמֵתִים וְאֵינָן נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים בֵּין כְּשֵׁרוֹת בֵּין פְּסוּלוֹת הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת וְשִׁחְרְרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים רְאוּיוֹת לַכְּהוּנָּה And they may not become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, as each of them might be a priest. And they may not marry women, whether unflawed women, who may not marry a slave, or women unfit to marry into the priesthood, as with regard to each of them it is uncertain whether he is a priest or a slave. If the mixed sons matured and freed each other, they may marry women fit to marry into the priesthood, as a freed slave may marry such women. However, neither may marry a woman unfit for the priesthood, in case he is a priest.
וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין לְמֵתִים וְאִם נִטְמְאוּ אֵינָן סוֹפְגִין הָאַרְבָּעִים וְאֵינָן אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה וְאִם אָכְלוּ אֵינָן מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵינָן חוֹלְקִין עַל הַגּוֹרֶן וּמוֹכְרִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַדָּמִים שֶׁלָּהֶן And they may not become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, since they are uncertain priests. However, if they became impure, they do not receive the forty lashes, as each of them might not be priest. And they may not partake of teruma, as one of them is not a priest. However, if they ate teruma unwittingly they do not pay the principal and the additional fifth, as each of them might be a priest. And they do not receive a share of teruma in the granary, as neither can prove that he is a priest. However, they may sell the teruma that they remove from their own produce, and although they may not eat it, the money is theirs. Since it cannot be proven with regard to either of them that he is not a priest, teruma cannot be appropriated from them.
וְאֵינָן חוֹלְקִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְאֵין נוֹתְנִים לָהֶם קָדָשִׁים וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין שֶׁלָּהֶם מִידֵיהֶם And they do not receive a share of the consecrated offerings of the Temple, as each of them might not be a priest. And one may not give them consecrated offerings to sacrifice for the same reason. However, the hides of their own offerings may not be appropriated from their possession, as it cannot be proven with regard to either of them that he is not a priest.
וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וּמִן הַלְּחָיַיִם וּמִן הַקֵּיבָה וּבְכוֹרוֹ יְהֵא רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְנוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי כֹהֲנִים וְחוּמְרֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים And they are exempt from giving a priest the foreleg, and from giving him the jaw, and from giving him the maw of their non-consecrated kosher animals. And with regard to either of them, the firstling of his kosher animal should graze until it becomes unfit to be sacrificed, i.e., until it gets a blemish. It is against his interest to sacrifice the animal before it gets a blemish, thereby letting it be eaten by the priests. Once it gets a blemish, it cannot be appropriated from him. Since he is possibly a priest, he may claim that the animal is the property of a priest. The animal then becomes his private property, and he may eat it if he wishes. And in general, we place upon him both the stringencies of priests and the stringencies of Israelites.
גְּמָ׳ מֵתוּ הַכְּשֵׁרִים וְכוּ׳ אֶלָּא הָנָךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיעָרוּב לְהוּ הָווּ לְהוּ פְּסוּלִין אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא אֵימָא וּמֵתוּ הַוַּדָּאִין GEMARA: It is stated in the mishna that if the sons of certain, unflawed lineage were the ones who died, the mixed sons perform ḥalitza with the widows of the elder woman’s sons, but not levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: Does this indicate that because these sons were mixed up they are rendered unfit? The fact that their lineage is unclear should not render them unfit. Rava Pappa said: Say that the correct wording is: And if the certain sons were the ones who died.
לִבְנֵי הַכַּלָּה אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְכוּ׳ דַּוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא לָא דְּקָפָגַע בִּיבָמָה לַשּׁוּק It is stated in the mishna that with the widows of the certain sons of the daughter-in-law, one of the mixed sons performs ḥalitza and the other one performs levirate marriage. The Gemara comments that ḥalitza is specifically performed first, and afterward levirate marriage. However, levirate marriage is not performed first, because if she is not his own yevama but rather his brother’s daughter-in-law, doing so breaches the prohibition against a yevama engaging in intercourse with a member of the public.
כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב וְכוּ׳ חֵלֶק אֶחָד פְּשִׁיטָא אֵימָא חֵלֶק כְּאֶחָד § It is stated in the mishna that in the case of a priestess whose offspring was mixed with her maidservant’s offspring, they receive one share of teruma in the granary. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that they receive one share and no more? Rather, say that they receive a share as one, i.e., they receive a share at the granary only if they come together.
תְּנַן כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹלְקִין תְּרוּמָה לְעֶבֶד אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רַבּוֹ עִמּוֹ דְּתַנְיָא אֵין חוֹלְקִין תְּרוּמָה לְעֶבֶד אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רַבּוֹ עִמּוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל שֶׁיֹּאמַר אִם כֹּהֵן אֲנִי תְּנוּ לִי בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְמִי וְאִם עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן אֲנִי תְּנוּ לִי בִּשְׁבִיל רַבִּי The Gemara comments: According to this modification, we have learned in the mishna a ruling that is in accordance with the one who said that one may distribute teruma to a slave only if his master is with him, as it is taught in a baraita: One may distribute teruma to the slave of a priest who is possibly a priest himself only if his master is with him; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says that teruma is distributed to him alone, even without the accompaniment of his master, as he can say: If I am a priest, give me teruma due to my own priesthood, and if I am the slave of a priest, give me due to my master.
בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָיוּ מַעֲלִין מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִין מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין The Gemara explains the background behind this dispute: In Rabbi Yehuda’s place, they would elevate a person to the presumptive status of priesthood for the purpose of lineage on the basis of his having received teruma. If they saw a person receive teruma, they would assume that he is a priest and testify to that effect. Therefore, teruma was not distributed to someone who might be a slave, unless he was accompanied by his master, lest the slave be assumed to be a priest himself. Conversely, in Rabbi Yosei’s place they would not elevate a person to the presumptive status of priestly lineage on the basis of his having received teruma. Therefore, he was allowed to receive teruma independently.
תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק מִיָּמַי לֹא הֵעַדְתִּי אֶלָּא עֵדוּת אֶחָד וְהֶעֱלוּ עֶבֶד לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: In all my days I never had the opportunity to testify in court, besides one testimony, and they promoted a slave to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of my word. Although they presumably examined the matter carefully, an error occurred.
הֶעֱלוּ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ הַשְׁתָּא בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָן צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָן לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that they actually promoted him? Now consider: If, even through the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block, then through the righteous themselves, all the more so is it not so that He does not bring about stumbling blocks?
אֶלָּא אֵימָא בִּקְּשׁוּ לְהַעֲלוֹת עֶבֶד לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי חֲזָא בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וַאֲזַל וְאַסְהֵיד בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה Rather, say that this is what Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok meant: They sought to promote a slave to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of my word. How did this happen? Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok saw a man receiving teruma in Rabbi Yosei’s locale and went and testified in Rabbi Yehuda’s locale about what he saw, not realizing that this testimony would be sufficient grounds to assume that the man is a priest. Since teruma is distributed there only to priests, the slave was almost promoted to the presumptive status of priesthood erroneously.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן עֲשָׂרָה אֵין חוֹלְקִין לָהֶם תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת וְאֵלּוּ הֵן חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וְהָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה וְהֶעָרֵל וְהַטָּמֵא וְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ וְכוּלָּן מְשַׁגְּרִין לָהֶם לְבָתֵּיהֶם חוּץ מִטָּמֵא וְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ § The Sages taught: There are ten types of priests to whom one may not distribute teruma in the granary, and they are: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, a person whose sexual organs are concealed [tumtum], and a hermaphrodite, and a slave, and a woman, and an uncircumcised man, and a ritually impure man, and one who marries a woman who is unfit for him, i.e., who is unfit to marry a priest. 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 who is unfit for him.
בִּשְׁלָמָא חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן לָאו בְּנֵי דֵּיעָה נִינְהוּ טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס נָמֵי The Gemara asks: Granted, teruma may not be distributed to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, as they are not competent, and it is unbecoming to give them teruma in public. It is also inappropriate to distribute teruma to a tumtum and a hermaphrodite,