## Yevamot Daf 86a

###### Yevamot 86a:1
[Yevamot 86a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:1)

תְּרוּמָה לְכֹהֵן, וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לְלֵוִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מַתִּירוֹ לְכֹהֵן. מַתִּירוֹ?! מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָסַר? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: נוֹתְנוֹ אַף לְכֹהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***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.


###### Yevamot 86a:2
[Yevamot 86a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּגְמָרָא: ״כִּי אֶת מַעְשַׂר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳ תְּרוּמָה״. מָה תְּרוּמָה אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר לְזָרִים. אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ — אַף מַעֲשֵׂר חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **What is the reason** for **Rabbi Meir’s** opinion? **Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said in the name of tradition** that the verse states: **“For 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” (Numbers 18:24). From the fact that this verse calls the tithe “*teruma*,” 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?**


###### Yevamot 86a:3
[Yevamot 86a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:3)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ״, ״וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו״. ״בּוֹ״ — וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, ״עָלָיו״ — וְלֹא עַל מַעֲשֵׂר. וְרַבָּנַן, מָה תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי טוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **the verse states: “They will die through it if they profane it”** (Leviticus 22:9), and a different verse states: **“Then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto it”** (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.**


###### Yevamot 86a:4
[Yevamot 86a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:4)

וְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל טֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ כׇּל עִיקָּר. הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְלֹא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וַאֲפִילּוּ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s 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?


###### Yevamot 86a:5
[Yevamot 86a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:5)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכוֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ״. מָה ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, אַף ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן — מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תוּכַל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse states: “You may not eat within your gates** the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17), **and below,** with regard to the poor man’s tithe, **it states: “That they may eat within your gates and be satisfied”** (Deuteronomy 26:12). **Just as “your gates” stated below** is referring to **the poor man’s tithe, so too “your gates” stated here** is referring to **the poor man’s tithe, and the Merciful One states** in the Torah **“you may not** eat,” implying that it may be eaten only after separation.


###### Yevamot 86a:6
[Yevamot 86a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:6)

וְאִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְלָאו, אֲבָל מִיתָה — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 86a:7
[Yevamot 86a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:7)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן דְּטָבֵיל, מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי נָפְקָא! אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְלָאו, אֲבָל מִיתָה — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A different version** of this discussion presents it in the form of a question: Isn’t 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.


###### Yevamot 86a:8
[Yevamot 86a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:8)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בַּת לֵוִי מְאוֹרֶסֶת לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְלֵוִי — לֹא תֹּאכַל לֹא בִּתְרוּמָה וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, הָכָא מַאי זָרוּת אִיכָּא! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַאי ״אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת״ דְּקָתָנֵי — אֵינָהּ נוֹתֶנֶת רְשׁוּת לִתְרוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Yevamot 86a:9
[Yevamot 86a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:9)

מִכְלָל דִּנְשׂוּאָה נוֹתֶנֶת רְשׁוּת? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם אַתֶּם וּבֵיתְכֶם״ — לִימֵּד עַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתֶנֶת רְשׁוּת לִתְרוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’t it taught: “And you may eat it in any place, you and your households”** (Numbers 18:31)? This **teaches that an Israelite woman married** to a Levite **may give permission** to another **to separate** *teruma* from the Levite’s tithe.


###### Yevamot 86a:10
[Yevamot 86a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:10)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת לִתְרוֹם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֶאֱכוֹל? אָמְרַתְּ: תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה אוֹכֶלֶת, מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! אֶלָּא לִימֵּד עַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתֶנֶת רְשׁוּת לִתְרוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yevamot 86a:11
[Yevamot 86a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:11)

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין לָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם יִיחוּד, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם גְּרוּשָׁה, גְּרוּשָׁה בַּת לֵוִי מִי לָא אָכְלָה בְּמַעֲשֵׂר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 divorcée,** 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?


###### Yevamot 86a:12
[Yevamot 86a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:12)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, גְּרוּשָׁה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִי לָא אָכְלָה בִּתְרוּמָה? אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם גְּרוּשָׁה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 divorcée** 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’s **divorcée** 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.


###### Yevamot 86a:13
[Yevamot 86a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:13)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא מְאוֹרֶסֶת? אֲפִילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה נָמֵי! אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא מְאוֹרֶסֶת, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא מְאוֹרֶסֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yevamot 86a:14
[Yevamot 86a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/86a:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תְּרוּמָה לְכֹהֵן, וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לְלֵוִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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:**