משנה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָֽיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה בָּאוּ וְאָֽמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ אוֹ גִירְשָׁךְ. וְכֵן הָעֶבֶד שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וּבָאוּ וְאָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מֵת רַבָּךְ אוֹ מְכָרָךְ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ נְתָנָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה. אוֹ עֲשָׂאָךְ בֶּן חוֹרִין. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר כָּל־קָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵחַ פְּסוּלִין. וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר. נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. וְכוּלָּם שֶׁהָיָה תְרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ פִּיהֶם רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִבְלָעוּ וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר יִפְלוֹטוּ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ נִטְמֵאתָ וְנִטְמֵאת תְּרוּמָה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִבְלַע וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר יִפְלוֹט. טָמֵא הָייִת וּטְמֵאָה הָֽיְתָה תְרוּמָה אוֹ נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא טֵבֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ אוֹ שֶׁטָּעֲמוּ טַעַם פִּישְׁפֵּשׁ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו הֲרֵי זֶה יִפְלוֹט. MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave1The daughter of an Israel or a Levite married to a Cohen who may eat heave only as long as she is married to a Cohen or, if she becomes a widow, has descendants who may eat heave. and told her your husband died, or he divorced you2Since a woman is legally divorced only if the divorce document is delivered to her or her agent, the Halakhah has to find a case in which the divorced woman may have eaten heave in error.; similarly a slave3A Gentile slave owned by a Cohen who became Jewish by circumcision and immersion in a ritual bath and has to observe all rules of the Jewish religion. As long as he is owned by a Cohen, he eats heave. If he is manumitted, he becomes a full Jew but not a Cohen. who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died4In case the master has no heirs who may eat heave; for example, if the master had only daughters and they are married to Israel husbands., or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee5The son of a Cohen and a divorcee is desecrated (Leviticus.21.15">Lev. 21:15) and cannot eat heave. or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah6The widow of a childless man who is not married by her brother-in-law but freed from him by the ceremony of drawing off her brother-in-law’s shoe. While this act is not a divorce, it is considered close enough to a divorce to forbid the widow to any Cohen by rabbinic law., Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth7Like everybody eating heave in error., but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If8This part of the Mishnah will be explained in Halakhah 2. he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid.
All of these43Those mentioned in Mishnah 1 who have to stop eating heave immediately., if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it44And add the value of the food swallowed to the amount to be paid as principal and fifth, according to R. Eliezer., Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out45Since R. Joshua does not require payment, he cannot tolerate enjoyment of the heave for a single moment after it became forbidden.. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out46This case is parallel to the previous one. “He” in this case is a Cohen of unquestioned pedigree who started to fulfill his duty eating heave, thinking he and the heave were pure.. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed,47In all these cases, eating the food was sinful to begin with. An impure person may not eat heave and impure heave may not be eaten (Numbers.18.13">Num. 18:13). First Tithe remains ṭevel as long as the heave of the tithe was not lifted from it. Unredeemed Second Tithe can be eaten only in Jerusalem, and eating unredeemed dedicated food is larceny of Temple property. or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth48Swallowing such food would be a health hazard; it is forbidden knowingly to contribute to a deterioration of one’s health (Deuteronomy.4.15">Deut. 4:15)., he has to spit it out49R. Eliezer agrees that food cannot be swallowed if there never was a time when swallowing it was permitted..
הלכה: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה כו׳. נִיחָא מֵת בַּעֲלֵיךְ. גִּירְשָׁךְ. רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין כְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. שֶׁכֵּן אֲרוּסָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה וְאָבִיהָ מְקַבֵּל אֶת גִּיטָּהּ. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. תִּיפָּתֵר שֶׁאָֽמְרָה לוֹ הֲבֵא גִיטִּי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְהָיָה דַרְכּוֹ לְהָבִיא לָהּ בַּעֲשָׂרָה יָמִים וּמָצָא סוּס רָץ וְהֵבִיא לָהּ לַחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים. וְלֹא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּתַנִּינָן רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אוֹסֵר מִיַּד. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שֶׁאִם אָֽמְרָה הֲבֵא לִי גִיטִּי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ גֶּט לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָֽמְרָה לוֹ הֲבֵא לִי גִיטִּי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי כְּמִי שֶׁאָֽמְרָה לוֹ לֹא יְהֵא גֶט אֶלָּא לַעֲשָׂרָה יָמִים מַה שֶׁאָֽכְלָה בְּהֵיתֵר אָֽכְלָה. HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?2Since a woman is legally divorced only if the divorce document is delivered to her or her agent, the Halakhah has to find a case in which the divorced woman may have eaten heave in error.” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah9Ketubot 5:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.3.1">Mishnah Ketubot 5:3: “One gives a virgin 12 months after the bridegroom claimed her to get her trousseau … If that time arrived and she is not married she eats from him and she eats heave …, this is the old Mishnah. The later authorities said, no woman eats heave until she enters the bridal canopy.” The Mishnah deals with a minor who is married off by her father. After the preliminary wedding ceremony (cf. Peah 6:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.6.2.6">Peah 6:2, Note 46) the bride really is “acquired by the husband’s money” and, by biblical law (Leviticus.22.11">Lev. 22:11) she may eat heave if the husband is a Cohen. By an old rabbinic institution, she is prevented from eating heave until the date originally fixed for the actual wedding, when it was planned that she should start living with her husband. The later authorities restricted the access of the Israel bride of a Cohen to the time after the final marriage ceremony.
The final marriage ceremony emancipates the bride from her father’s authority. During the time between preliminary and final ceremonies, Gittin 6:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.6.2.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:2 states that both the minor and her father may accept a divorce document; R. Jehudah denies the right of the minor to receive the document (cf. Peah 4:6:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.6.6">Peah Chapter 4, Note 117). The Mishnah here can refer to with a woman eating heave in error only in case the woman still is a minor and the groom did not finally marry her at the previously stipulated time. In this approach, with the decree of the later authorities the mention of a divorce in our Mishnah became meaningless., according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer10He must be R. Eleazar ben Pedat, the student of R. Joḥanan. Probably, his name was changed here to distinguish him from R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna, who is quoted in the next sentence. [The changes from “R. Eliezer” to “R. Eleazar” and vice-versa in all printed editions has no basis in mss. The Yerushalmi tradition of Gittin 6:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.6.3.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:4 (Leyden ms. and Venice print, Mishnah ed. Low) as well as the main text of the Munich ms. of the Babli and the mss. of the later version of Maimonides’s Commentary read “R. Eleazar”; the Napoli Mishnah and the early version of Maimonides’s Commentary read “R. Eliezer”.] Since R. Eleazar is the main authority on divorce documents, it is reasonable to read “R. Eleazar” in the Mishnah. says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated11Gittin 6:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.6.3.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:4: “Bring me my divorce document, she eats heave until the document comes into her possession. Accept the document for me, she immediately is forbidden heave. Accept the document for me at place X, she eats heave until the document reaches place X; Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” This Mishnah speaks of the adult wife appointing an agent. (A minor, even though emancipated from her father, cannot appoint an agent. She can be divorced only by delivery of the document into her hands by the husband or his duly appointed agent. If she is too young to take care of the document, she cannot be divorced.): “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place12An agent who violates the terms of his appointment is not a valid agent for divorce documents. If the agent would accept the document at another place, the document would be invalid and the woman not divorced. There is no reason for her not to eat heave until the document reaches the specified place.? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission13In this case, even R. Eliezer will agree that heave was eaten lawfully, there is no case of restitution of anything, and the explanation of R. Eleazar ben Pedat is contradicted..
רִבִּי חַגַּיי שָָׁאַל לַחֲבֵרַייָה מְנַיִן לָאוֹכֵל בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חוּלִין וְנִמְצָא תְרוּמָה שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִמְצָא כֹהֵן שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ מֵהוֹרַייַת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר לוֹן עוֹד צְרִיכָה לִי. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חוֹל וְנִמְצָא שַׁבָּת שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא פֶּסַח וְנִמְצָא שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. אָֽמְרוּן לֵיהּ מִשּׁוֹחֵט בִּרְשׁוּת. אָמַר לוֹן עוֹד צְרִיכָה לִי. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא שׁוּמָּן וְנִמְצָא חֵלֶב שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר וְנִמְצָא מוּתָּר שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. לֹא אֲגִיבוּ מַה. אָמַר לוֹן נִמְלָכִין מִינָן אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. הַשָּׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ חַייָב עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֲפִילוּ יָדַע אֵינוֹ פוֹרֵשׁ. עָאַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְגַבּוֹן אָמַר לוֹן לָמָּה לֹא אַמְרִיתוּ לֵיהּ אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ הוּא קְשִׁיתָהּ וְהוּא קִייְמָהּ. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues, from where that he who eats with permission is free14This is not an attack on the argument of R. Ḥanina; if a person has no intention of breaking the law and is not breaking the law, obviously he is free not only of guilt but of all monetary obligations.
The parallel to this text is in Horayot 1:1:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.1.2-10">Horaiot 1:1, fol. 45c; a text which differs in places from the text here. The commentaries assume that the text there is the better one; they take the question of R. Ḥaggai as directed against the argument of R. Ḥaninah; therefore, they are forced in the next sentence to follow the Horaiot text and to switch the terms “Israel” and “Cohen”, an emendation not supported here by any manuscript and contradicted by the third question of R. Ḥaggai.? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out that it was heave, who is obligated15An Israel who ate what he thought was profane food. If it turns out that it was heave, he has to pay as stated in Mishnah 6:1. If it turns out that he was in fact a Cohen but did not know it, he does not have to pay even though at the time of eating he thought he was an Israel. If payment were a punishment for negligence, there is no reason why he should not be held liable.
In the Horaiot text, speaking of a person who thought he was a Cohen when he was not, the reference would be to the position of R. Joshua in the Mishnah here and the “declaration of the court” is the court decision which strips him of his priesthood, on the testimony of two cross-examined credible witnesses. The conditions under which an action of the court obligates him to bring a sacrifice are noted Horayot 1:1:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.1.2-10">Horaiot 1:1; the reading of Horaiot is appropriate there, the reading of Terumot is appropriate here., and him who thought that he was an Israel but it turned out that he was a Cohen, who is free? They said to him, by the declaration of the court16The interpretation of the biblical law quoted later.. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was a Sabbath17The person violating the Sabbath in error has to bring an expiatory sacrifice., who is obligated, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out that it was a well-being offering, who is free18This refers to Pesachim 6:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.3.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim6:4. The Passover sacrifice, a lamb or kid goat, has to be sacrificed during the afternoon of Nissan 14, even if that day is a Sabbath. It also has to be designated beforehand as Passover sacrifice and is counted as a special kind of well-being offering. If the 14th falls on a weekday, a festival offering, which is a well-being offering, is also slaughtered at the same time (cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 248.) On the Sabbath, any slaughtering not directly mandated by the biblical verse is forbidden. On that the Mishnah states: “If the Passover sacrifice [which is valid only if slaughtered for this particular purpose] was slaughtered not for its purpose on the Sabbath, one is obligated for an expiatory sacrifice. For any well-being offering slaughtered as a Passover sacrifice which was not usable [a calf or an old sheep or goat], one is obligated. If it was usable, R. Eliezer obligates him for an expiatory sacrifice, R. Joshua declares him free.” Why should he be free?? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission19The language refers to Pesachim 6:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.4.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim 6:6: “If he slaughtered [the Passover sacrifice on a Sabbath] and it turned out to have a blemish, he is obligated [for an expiatory sacrifice]. If it turned out to be unusable because of an internal defect [which could not have been detected by inspection when the animal was alive], he is free. If he slaughtered and then it turned out that the owners had withdrawn from it [they chose another lamb as their sacrifice], or that they had died [and the sacrifice became unusable because nobody may eat from the Passover unless he joined the group before the lamb was slaughtered], or had become impure, he is free since he slaughtered with permission.” Since R. Joshua declares him free and the animal could have been a valid Passover sacrifice, he slaughtered with permission.. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted fat but it turned out that it was forbidden fat, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was forbidden but it turned out that it was permitted, who is free20He thought the fat he ate was forbidden when in fact it was permitted. Then in his mind he should be more guilty of negligence than the one who thought the fat was permitted when it was in fact forbidden.? They did not answer him. What did he say to them? Let us take counsel! (Leviticus.4.23">Lev. 4:23,Leviticus.4.28">28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.21The involved statement is explained to mean that one became aware of the sinful character of what he had done inadvertently. If a person never knew that certain acts are forbidden, he cannot become obligated for an expiatory sacrifice since no negligence was involved. If he knew and then did something inadvertently, he is obligated for his negligence. But if he knew beforehand that, had he known then what he knows now, his action would have been legitimate, there is no negligence and no sacrifice.” He who returns from his prior knowledge is obligated for his error; this excludes one who would not stop even if he knew! Rebbi Assi went to see them and said, why did you not answer him (Leviticus.4.23">Lev. 4:23,Leviticus.4.28">28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”? They said to him, he asked the question and gave the answer22This paragraph is more explicit in Horaiot, and written in better style..
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי זֶה אֶחָד מִשָּׁלֹשׁ מִדְרָשׁוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְחֻװָרִין בַּתּוֹרָה. וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם. וְכִי יֵשׁ כֹהֵן עַכְשָׁיו וְאֵין כֹּהֵן לְאַחַר זְמָן. וְאֵי זֶה זֶה זֶה שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. אָמַר רַב וּפוֹעַל יָדָיו תִּרְצֶה כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. 23Here starts the discussion of the second part of Mishnah 1.: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three derivations24Cf. Terumot 1:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.1.3.2">Chapter 1, Note 159. The parallel in the Babli to the derivations here is Kiddushin.66b">Qiddušin 66b. The argument of Rav, Rav Abba, somewhat changed, is there given in the name of Samuel’s father, Abba ben Abba. Elsewhere (Sifry Deut. 298. Sanhedrin.28b">Babli Sanhedrin 28b) the argument of R. Yannai is given in the name of R. Yose the Galilean (the Tanna); the argument of Rav is not found in tannaїtic sources. which are clear from the Torah (Deuteronomy.26.3">Deut. 26:3): “You shall come to the Cohen who will be in those days.” Is there a Cohen now who is not a Cohen after some time? Who is that? That is one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of one who had performed ḥaliẓah, that his work is valid25In Tosephta Roš Haššanah 2:18, the similar verse Deuteronomy.17.9">Deut. 17:9 is explained that Cohen and judge in one’s own time have the same authority as Aaron and Moses in their time.. Rav said, (Deuteronomy.33.11">Deut. 33:11) “You will want the work of his hands,” that the work of everybody who is of the descendants of Levi is valid26Since the verse is addressed to the entire tribe of Levi and not only to the recognized Cohanim. Since the sons of divorcees are also descendants of Levi, they are included (if they happened to be admitted to the service.).
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב בִּלְבַד כֹּהֵן מַקְרִיב. וְעַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַאֲפִילוּ כָל־כֹּהֵן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב וּבִלְבַד בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִקְדָּשׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַאֲפִילוּ בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. עַל דַּעְתַּייְהוּ דְּרַבָּנִין וּבִלְבַד בִשְׁעַת מִקְדָּשׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַאֲפִילוּ בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה. In Rav’s opinion, only a sacrificing Cohen27In the preceding verse, burning of incense and sacrifices is mentioned. This restricts the verse to service in the Temple.. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, any Cohen28For any ceremony for which a Cohen is needed: Not only the reception of First Fruits but also the presentation of the firstling, judging skin disease, etc.. In Rav’s opinion, only for sacrifices in the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even holy food in the countryside. In the rabbis’ opinion, only during the existence of the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even today.
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי וְאַף לְעִנְייָן שְׁאָר הַדְּבָרִים כֵּן מְקַבֵּל וְאַחַר כָּךְ זוֹרֵק קוֹמֵץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְטִיר שׂוֹרֵף וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַזֶּה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק מִן מַה דְּתַנֵּי עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּחַטָּאת גְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לְרַבִּים שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת. הָדָה אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהוּא מְקַבֵּל וְאַחַר כָּךְ זוֹרֵק קוֹמֵץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְטִיר שׂוֹרֵף וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַזֶּה. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this apply even to the remaining actions29If he performed an action which has to be followed by another one and he is notified of his desecrated status in the middle of the first action, can he finish the entire procedure?? If he received [the blood], does he sprinkle [the blood on the walls of the altar]; if he takes a fist full [of the flour offering], can he burn it [on the altar]; if he burned [the red cow], can he sprinkle [water mixed with its ashes, to purify]? Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Since we have stated30This refers to Gittin 5:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.5.6.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:5, in which it is stated, as testimony from Temple times, that the priests have to accept every animal offered as a sacrifice of expiation (which has to be eaten by the priests) and are not permitted to investigate whether it was stolen or robbed, unless such defect was public knowledge. Both Talmudim agree that this arrangement can be justified by biblical verses and that it was strictly enforced since nobody would be able to bring such a sacrifice if the priests were allowed to set their own standards of what is kosher.: “they made it like a purification sacrifice which atones even if obtained by robbery, as long as this fact is unknown to the public;” this means31If a questionable sacrifice is valid as a sacrifice, then a questionable Cohen’s actions are counted as valid actions. that if he received, he sprinkles; if he takes a fist full, he burns; if he burned, he sprinkles.
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ. כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא מֵת וְיַחֲזוֹר הָרוֹצֵחַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. אוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. Rebbi Jacob ben Zavdi asked in the name of Rebbi Isaac: If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known to him that he was the son of a divorcee or a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah Moëd, how do you treat him32This thoroughly theoretical case deals with a High Priest who is informed that the special court judging the status of priests has stripped him of his office because he was found to be the son of a divorcee, or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, by the testimony of two reliable witnesses. The problem concerns a person found guilty of involuntary or negligent homicide sentenced to exile in a city of refuge (Numbers.35.9-34">Num. 35:9–34). He may return to his home town only after the death of the High Priest during whose term of office he was sentenced (Numbers.35.28">v. 28). This implies that if he was sentenced while there was no High Priest, he is sentenced to life in exile.? As if he had died and the homicide might return to his home town, or as if [the latter’s] trial had been concluded when there was no High Priest, when he never could leave from there?33The answer will be given in the paragraph after the next.
נִישְׁמְעִינָיהּ מִן הָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה בִּמְגוֹרָת שֶׁל דִּיסְקוֹס בְּיַבְנֶה שֶׁנִּפְגְמָה וְנִמְדְּדָה וְנִמְצֵאת חֲסֵירָה. וְהָיָה רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן מְטָהֵר וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְטַמֵּא. אָמַר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן הַמִּקְוֶה הַזֶּה בְּחֶזְקַת טָֽהֳרָה לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְטָֽהֳרָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁחָסֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הַטָּמֵא הַזֶּה בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְטוּמְאָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁטָּהֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְמָה זֶה דוֹמֶה לְעוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לְמָה זֶה דוֹמֶה לְעוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. אוֹמַר לוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן מַה עֲקִיבָה אֲנִי מְדַמֶּה לֵיהּ לְבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וְאַתְּ מְדַמֶּה לֵיהּ לְבַעַל מוּם. נִרְאֶה לְמִי דוֹמֶה אִם לְבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה הוּא דוֹמֶה נְלַמְּדֶינּוּ מִבֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה. וְאִם לְבַעַל מוּם הוּא דוֹמֶה נְלַמְּדֶינּוּ מִבַּעַל מוּם. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִקְוֶה פְסוּלוֹ בְגוּפוֹ וּבַעַל מוּם פְּסוּלוֹ בְגוּפוֹ. וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ מַחְמַת אֲחֵרִים. מִקְוֶה פְסוּלוֹ בְיָחִיד וּבַעַל מוּם פְּסוּלוֹ בְיָחִיד. וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין. וְנִימְנוּ עָלָיו וְטִימְּאוּהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כְפוֹרֵשׁ מֵחַייָו. Let us hear from the following34In slightly enlarged form, Tosephta Miqwa’ot 1:17–20; in much shortened form Kiddushin.66b">Babli Qiddušin 66b.
The “reservoir of Discus” according to Rashi is named either after a place or a person Discus, Latin proper n.: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient35Because something happened to the structure, they measured the volume of the water after the accident and found it to be less than 40 seah and, therefore, to be unusable for purification (cf. Terumot 4:8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.8.4">Chapter 4, Note 112). Since earlier, the miqweh was a valid one, a person who had immersed himself before the accident came to ask whether he could be considered pure because of the prior validity of the miqweh, or whether he was impure since now the miqweh was invalid.. Rebbi Ṭarphon declared pure and Rebbi Aqiba impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rebbi Aqiba said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rebbi Aqiba said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid36Leviticus.21.16-24">Lev. 21:16–24. Since it is stated (Leviticus.21.17">v. 17) that a person with a bodily defect “shall not come close to present the bread of his God,” it is clear that this prohibition overrides the general inclusion inferred from Deuteronomy.26.3">Deut. 26:3 or 33:11.. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, how is that, Aqiba? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others37His parents.. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court38As noted below, only the court can strip him of his role as Cohen, and only after regular judicial proceedings.. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to Rebbi Aqiba, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה עַד שֶׁיִּיפָּסֵל בְבֵית דִּין. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק בַּעַל מוּם עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְשֵׁירָה. דְּאַת מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לְבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה לְבֶן חֲלוּצָה. אֲבָל אִם מְדַמֵּי לְבַעַל מוּם עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. וּמִקְוֶה לֹא סָפֵק הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת פְּסוּל מִשְׁפָּחָה צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין. Rebbi Yose said, this39The argument of R. Aqiba, accepted by all other rabbis, that the son of a divorcee is not automatically disqualified but only by court decree. means that if he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, his work remains valid until he is disqualified by a court40For the original question, it means that the High Priest is validly officiating; therefore his removal will allow all homicides convicted during his tenure to return home.. That [also] means that if it was doubtful whether he was impure or had a bodily defect, his work is valid if you can compare him to the son of a divorcee [or] the son of a woman who had given ḥaliẓah. But if you have to compare him to a person with a bodily defect, his work is invalid. But is the case of the miqweh not that of a doubt41The entire argument started only because it was not known at which point in time the volume of the miqweh fell below 40 seah.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that any blemish on the family needs a court [judgment]42If it was not known at his birth that he was the son of a divorcee, he remains a Cohen until disqualified by a court..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה פְלִיגִין בְּעֶבֶד וְאִשָּׁה. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים אַף רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן אוֹ נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא טֵבֵל אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ וְלֵית רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר פַּלִּיג. Rebbi Joḥanan said, where do they disagree? Concerning slave and wife. But in the other cases, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the Mishnah says so: “or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree50Therefore, he will not disagree that a person disqualified as a Cohen has to spit out, including the son of a divorcee..
מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִתְחִיל בְּהֵיתֵר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי נָתַן אוֹמֵר. לֹא שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִתְחִיל בּוֹ בְהֵיתֵר. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַלָּעוּס כְּבָלוּעַ. אַף בְשַׁבָּת כֵּן. אַף בְפֶסַח כֵּן. אַף בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כֵּן. אַף בְּנָזִיר כֵּן. אַף בִּנְבֵילוֹת כֵּן אַף בִּטְרֵיפוֹת כֵּן אַף בִּשְׁקָצִים כֵּן אַף בִּרְמָשִׂים כֵּן. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds that chewed is like swallowed.” It is the same with the Sabbath51If somebody carries food in his mouth through the public domain on the Sabbath, he has desecrated the Sabbath. But if he chewed the food it is as if he swallowed it, it becomes part of his body and there is no desecration of the Sabbath. Since practice follows R. Joshua, these opinions are irrelevant for practice., Passover52If one chews leavened matter without swallowing, it is a transgression of the commandment not to eat leavened matter on Passover. The Pesachim.39b">Babli (Pesaḥim 39b) only forbids chewing grain kernels as a rabbinic precaution., the Day of Atonement53Chewing is breaking the fast., the nazir54If a nazir chews raisins, it is as if he had swallowed grapes., carcasses and torn animals55A carcass is the body of a permitted animal which was not killed by cutting its throat. A torn animal is a permitted animal which has an exterior or interior defect which excludes the animal’s long term survival. Such an animal may not be eaten. For R. Eliezer, chewing forbidden meat is as bad as eating it., abominations56Reptiles and amphibia. and crawling things57Insects and worms..
רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ שֶׁקֶץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה טַעֲמָא בְּהֵמָה בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹאכֵלוּ. וְלֹא שֶׁקֶץ בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹאכֵלוּ. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal (Leviticus.11.3">Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat,” but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.58[Sifra Šemini 2(9), Chullin.69a">Babli Ḥulin69a] The verse reads: “All that has hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud, inside an animal, such you may eat.” This is taken to mean that a fetus inside an animal may be eaten after the slaughter of the mother. {Sadducees did require separate slaughter of the fetus; MMT lines 37–38.} It is stated here that this applies only if the fetus itself is a permitted animal. The question remains open, what is meant by בהמה “animal”? A four-legged animal, a mammal, or a kosher mammal?
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָּעֵי מַה בֵינָהּ לְבֵין זִיזִין שֶׁבָּעֲדָשִׁין לִיתוּשִׁים שֶׁבַּכְּלֵיסִים. לְתוֹלָעִים שֶׁבַּתְּמָרִים וּבַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת. תַּמָּן בְּגוּפֵיהֶן הֵן. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵינוֹ בְגוּפוֹ. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What is the difference between this59The abominations in a slaughtered animal are compared to worms in fruits and vegetables of which Tosephta 7:11 (quoted in Chullin.67b">Babli Ḥulin 67b) declares that one is not guilty of a transgression if one eats them as long as they never left the fruit. and worms in peas, squash bugs60Usually, יתוּשׁ is translated as “mosquito”, the meaning of the word in modern Hebrew. However, a mosquito cannot be in vetch, only its larva which is not called יתוּשׁ. The translation follows H. L. Fleischer, from the Arabic root ختش. The translation fits not only here, but also in the story of Titus (Gittin.56b">Giṭṭin 56b) who is said to have died from an enormous יתוּשׁ growing in his head. in sweet vetch61Translation of Rashi (Babli Ḥulin 67b), supported by Halakhot Gedolot (ed. Hildesheimer Hilkhot Dagim) who translates by Arabic באקלי “legumes; portulac, fava beans”. Maimonides: A kind of figs. I. Löw proposes Prosopis Stephaniana, also of the family of legumes., worms in dates and dried figs? There, they are in their bodies62They grew inside the fruit whereas the reptile found inside a slaughtered mammal must have come from the outside.; here it is not in its body.
הָדֵין צִירָא מוּרִייֵסָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַצְלִיל שָׁרֵי. מִדְּהוּא צָלִיל אָסוּר. Muries sauce63Fish sauce, cf. Demai Chapter 1, Note 156. If the sauce is cloudy, it does not have to be checked for worms but if one can see through it, it is forbidden if it is seen to contain worms., if it is not clear, is permitted; if it is clear it is forbidden.
דַּם שֶׁעַל הַכִּכָּר גּוֹרְדוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה מִבֵּין שִׁינָּיו אוֹכְלוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. שֶׁקֶץ שֶׁבְּזִיזִין וּזְבוּבִין וּבַהֲגָזִין וּבִשְׁקָצִים וּבִרְמָשִׂים יָכוֹל בִּזְמָן שֶׁהָוּא בְּפֵירִי. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר טְמֵאִים הֵן בִּזְמָן שֶׁהֵן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְלֹא בִּזְמָן שֶׁהֵן בְּפֵירִי. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ יָֽצְאוּ וְחָֽזְרוּ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר טְמֵאִים הֵם וַאֲפִילוּ יָֽצְאוּ וְחָֽזְרוּ. רַב חִייָה בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב אֲפִילוּ יָֽצְאוּ עַל שְׂפַת אוֹכֶל וְחָֽזְרוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry65Tosephta 7:11 (in the name of R. Joshua), Keritot.21b">Babli Keritut 21b. In the Babli, blood from bleeding gums has to be sucked off (it may be swallowed), in the Tosephta it has to be wiped off. Blood on the bread (no longer liquid) is only rabbinically forbidden.. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things66The list is in Tosephta 7:11, Chullin.67b">Babli Ḥulin 67b. The derivation from the verse is only here; a different one in Sifra Šemini 12(1)., I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Leviticus.11.26">Lev. 11:26,Leviticus.11.27">27,Leviticus.11.28">28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return67As soon as any part of a worm or insect developing inside a fruit is visible from the outside, it becomes forbidden. (In talmudic theory, worms and insects develop spontaneously, not from eggs, and, therefore, may be considered as part of the fruit.).
אַבָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ חֲזִיר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה טַעֲמָא בְּהֵמָה בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹאכֵלוּ. וְלֹא עוֹף בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹאכֵלוּ. וְלֹא שֶׁקֶץ בָּאֲכִילָה. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal (Leviticus.11.3">Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat.58[Sifra Šemini 2(9), Chullin.69a">Babli Ḥulin69a] The verse reads: “All that has hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud, inside an animal, such you may eat.” This is taken to mean that a fetus inside an animal may be eaten after the slaughter of the mother. {Sadducees did require separate slaughter of the fetus; MMT lines 37–38.} It is stated here that this applies only if the fetus itself is a permitted animal. The question remains open, what is meant by בהמה “animal”? A four-legged animal, a mammal, or a kosher mammal?” You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animal68In the Chullin.69a">Babli, Ḥulin 69a, R. Joḥanan is quoted forbidding a pigeon found inside a slaughtered animal. That statement must have fallen out here since the interpretation of the verse also refers to birds which were not mentioned beforehand. On the other hand, the mention of the pig must have fallen out in the Babli since that source points out that the verse permits only the consumption of ruminants with cloven hoofs found inside a slaughtered animal. It is therefore determined, according to R. Jonah, that בהמה means only “kosher animal”, cf. Terumot 8:1:16" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.8.1.16">Note 58..
וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר פִּישְׁפֵּשׁ אֶלָּא כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם חַתָּה מִמֶּנּוּ. Not only a bed bug, but everything a person is afraid of69One has to spit it out even if it is sanctified food if it tastes like a health hazard..