cohen

If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.”

HALAKHAH: In the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes are related to the words of Scripture and are pleasant like the words of Scripture. (Song of Songs 7:10) “Your throat is like the good wine”; Simeon ben Abba in the name of R. Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture. (Song of Songs 1:2) “Since your friendship is better than wine”; Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Pazi: You can know that the words of the scribes are more pleasant than those of Scripture because if Rebbi Tarphon did not recite at all he would have transgressed only a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the school of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says: (Proverbs 10:8) “He who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.”

HALAKHAH: Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.

May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of his teacher? The father-in-law of Rebbi Yannai the younger died. He was both his father-in-law and his teacher. He asked Rebbi Yose who forbade it. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: His students should defile themselves for him. The students of Rebbi Yose defiled themselves for him but ate meat and drank wine. Rebbi Mana told them: One of two things you cannot escape. If you are mourners, why did you eat meat and drink wine; if you are not mourners, why did you defile yourselves?

May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of Torah? Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching when a dead body was brought in. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting.

Rebbi Nehemiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking on those streets of Sepphoris. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

Rebbi Nehemiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking on those streets of Sepphoris. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

It is stated: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year, to save a field from a Gentile, and he even may leave and lodge a complaint about it, to study Torah and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen that he defiled himself and followed his teacher to Sidon. In truth, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

It is stated: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year, to save a field from a Gentile, and he even may leave and lodge a complaint about it, to study Torah and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen that he defiled himself and followed his teacher to Sidon. In truth, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gedilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gedilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gedilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gedilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the king. When king Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

May a Cohen defile himself in honor of his father and mother? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra. He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road, leave. If it is in order to honor father and mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him, so he said: If you decided to go, return in peace. Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that.

May a Cohen defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition, that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah.

MISHNAH: He who stands before the arc should not answer Amen after the Cohanim because of the distraction. If there is no Cohen there but him, he should not lift his hands. But if he is sure that he can lift his hands and return to his prayer, he may do so.

Rebbi Ḥanina said: Two Israel and one Cohen, one takes the Cohen in the middle. That is, when they are all equal. But if one of them is learned, one takes the one with a title in the middle.

Rebbi Ḥanina said: Two Israel and one Cohen, one takes the Cohen in the middle. That is, when they are all equal. But if one of them is learned, one takes the one with a title in the middle.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: I never recited Grace in the presence of a Cohen and I never let an Israel say Grace before me.

Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment. When Rebbi Judah ben Pazi was weak he supported his head and stood behind a pillar. Rebbi Eleazar went outside.

Rav Ḥisda said, the organizer must be an Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if there was one Cohen he calls “Cohen”, if there are two they call “Cohanim”. Rav Ḥisda said, even if there was only one Cohen he says “Cohanim”, because he only calls the tribe.

Rav Ḥisda said, the organizer must be an Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if there was one Cohen he calls “Cohen”, if there are two they call “Cohanim”. Rav Ḥisda said, even if there was only one Cohen he says “Cohanim”, because he only calls the tribe.

Rav Ḥisda said, the organizer must be an Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if there was one Cohen he calls “Cohen”, if there are two they call “Cohanim”. Rav Ḥisda said, even if there was only one Cohen he says “Cohanim”, because he only calls the tribe.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi rose to read in the Torah and said “Praise the Eternal,” he did not add “the Praised One!” They wanted to silence him. Rav said to them, let him, because he follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Zeïra rose to read as Cohen in place of a Levite and recited the benediction before and after. They wanted to silence him. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said to them, let him, because that is their way of doing it.

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

Abba bar bar Ḥana and Rav Ḥuna were sitting down and eating and Rebbi Zeïra was standing and serving them. He came and carried both in one hand. Abba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Is your other hand cut off? His father got angry with him and said to him: “Is it not enough for you that you are reclining and he stands and serves? But in addition, he is a Cohen and you make fun of him when Samuel said that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny. I order that he should recline and you get up and serve in his stead.” From where that he who uses a Cohen commits larceny? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Samuel said (Ezra 8:28): “I said to them, you are holy and the vessels are holy.” Since one who uses the Temple vessels commits larceny, also one who uses a Cohen commits larceny!

MISHNAH: Forever he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. And he feeds domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl and is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. If a Cohen or a Levite bought all the grain of a threshing floor, the tithes belong to them until it was smoothed. He who dedicates to the Temple and then redeems is obligated for tithes unless it was smoothed by the Temple administrator.

A butcher who is a Cohen. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, I went to the South and I heard Rebbi Hanan, the father of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi (Simeon) [Joshua] ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yudan compares it to the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan, they fined them. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it is because of a fine, even one week should not be free for him. A grocer who is a Cohen, Rebbi Yudan said, one frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, one does not free him for one week. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between the grocer and the butcher? The grocer may cheat, the butcher cannot cheat.

A butcher who is a Cohen. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, I went to the South and I heard Rebbi Hanan, the father of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi (Simeon) [Joshua] ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yudan compares it to the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan, they fined them. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it is because of a fine, even one week should not be free for him. A grocer who is a Cohen, Rebbi Yudan said, one frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, one does not free him for one week. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between the grocer and the butcher? The grocer may cheat, the butcher cannot cheat.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself. What is the reason? (1Chr. 22:14) “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much, I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated there: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

A person brought a back-pack of leeks to Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi said, after its place of production and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. This means for back packs, but for animal loads everybody agrees after its place of production. If its place of production and of current placement are free but he is going to transport it through forbidden territory, that forbidden territory is as if he did not traverse it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, between Rebbi and his colleague, practice follows Rebbi. But Rebbi Jonah said, even Rebbi with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, what do you want from Rebbi Joḥanan! Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is of their words. Some want to say, the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rebbi and they form a majority against Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

What does he do? Rebbi Huna said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, and serves it to him. But then does he not deliver pure foods to an am haäreẓ? Rebbi Mana said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, watches him until sundown and then serves it to him. But then does he not support the sinners? Rebbi Simeon from Carsan in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He keeps it until the day before Passover and then burns it.

What does he do? Rebbi Huna said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, and serves it to him. But then does he not deliver pure foods to an am haäreẓ? Rebbi Mana said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, watches him until sundown and then serves it to him. But then does he not support the sinners? Rebbi Simeon from Carsan in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He keeps it until the day before Passover and then burns it.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay. But the Sages say, he has to give a name but does not have to separate. He who gave a name to his heave of the tithe of demay, or to the certain tithe of the poor, should not separate them on the Sabbath. But if a Cohen or a poor person were used to eat from his food at his table, they may come and eat it on condition that he inform them.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

So far for a Cohen or a Levi, but an Israel? If he will declare heave of the tithe, does he not separate for something that is not his?

That takes care of large quantities. If there was little, if he had ten figs, five large ones and five small ones? If he takes from the large ones, he has to take one minus a little. From the little ones, he has to take one plus a little. If he took one of the large ones, it contains a little bit of profane and one has to worry that maybe he turns that profane part into heave of the tithe for another place, and it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem and he marks it and says to the Cohen, as far as where I marked it.

MISHNAH: A Cohen or a Levite who received a field (as sharecroppers) share in the tithe in the same proportion as they share in a profane yield. Rebbi Eliezer says, the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.

It was stated: “A Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, an Israel from an Israel, split the tithes.” Who needs this statement? Rebbi Eliezer; even though Rebbi Eliezer says that the tithe is theirs because they came because of it, here he agrees that they divide up the tithes.

It was stated: “A Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, an Israel from an Israel, split the tithes.” Who needs this statement? Rebbi Eliezer; even though Rebbi Eliezer says that the tithe is theirs because they came because of it, here he agrees that they divide up the tithes.

“An Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is permitted. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, that is forbidden. That they be mine and yours, that is forbidden. If he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Even without that, do not the tithes belong to them? But so it must read: “My part is mine, your part is mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.”

“An Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is permitted. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, that is forbidden. That they be mine and yours, that is forbidden. If he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Even without that, do not the tithes belong to them? But so it must read: “My part is mine, your part is mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.”

“An Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is permitted. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, that is forbidden. That they be mine and yours, that is forbidden. If he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Even without that, do not the tithes belong to them? But so it must read: “My part is mine, your part is mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’, water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his. If he dies, his sons have no right to the tithes. ‘For me and my sons, for me and my heirs,’ his sons have the tithes, his heirs have the tithes.” Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom asked before Rebbi Yose: So far only for heirs whose claim is from the Torah? Even for heirs whose claim is not from the Torah!

“ That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rebbi Ḥanin stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes. For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes. But did we not state: “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes. If she married an Israel, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced, she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

“A Cohen who sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years can oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds. Mine forever, he cannot oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds.” There came a case before Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla and he obligated him to turn over to him one tenth of the reeds.

“If an Israel sold a field to a Cohen on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no Cohen can make a Cohen. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden.” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.

“If an Israel sold a field to a Cohen on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no Cohen can make a Cohen. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden.” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.

“If an Israel sold a field to a Cohen on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no Cohen can make a Cohen. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden.” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.

“If an Israel sold a field to a Cohen on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no Cohen can make a Cohen. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden.” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.

MISHNAH: If an Israel received (as sharecropper) from a Cohen or a Levite, the tithes are for the owners. Rebbi Ismael says, if a villager received a field from a Jerusalemite, the Second Tithe is the Jerusalemite’s. But the Sages say, the villager can make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: According to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, if an impure Cohen and a pure Cohen were partners, would they not split the tithes? There he may sell the tithes to another pure Cohen, here can the villager make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem?

HALAKHAH: According to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, if an impure Cohen and a pure Cohen were partners, would they not split the tithes? There he may sell the tithes to another pure Cohen, here can the villager make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem?

HALAKHAH: According to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, if an impure Cohen and a pure Cohen were partners, would they not split the tithes? There he may sell the tithes to another pure Cohen, here can the villager make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem?

MISHNAH: If somebody receives olives to make oil, they split heave just as they split the profane. Rebbi Jehudah says, if an Israel received olives from a Cohen or a Levite for oil or for half the yield as his wages, the tithes are for the landlords.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah treats olives like fields but the rabbis do not treat olives like fields. Now it seems that Rebbi Judah is thinking like Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer says, “the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.” So here, if a Cohen or a Levite received a field (as sharecroppers), the tithes are theirs because they came because of them.

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“If a Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

“If a Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

“If a Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

HALAKHAH: Why does he not take two? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: When he separated half of the heave from another place.

It was stated: There is no provisional kilaim in the Temple. But did we not state: A Cohen who stepped outside to talk with somebody, if it was for any length of time he needs immersion, if it was for a moment he needs to wash hands and feet? One for the golden garments, the other for the linen garments.

Rebbi was in Acco when he saw a man going up over the rock. He said to him, “are you not the son of the Cohen X, was your father not a Cohen?” He said to him, “the eyes of my father were high, but he married a woman unfit for him and profaned this man.”

Rebbi was in Acco when he saw a man going up over the rock. He said to him, “are you not the son of the Cohen X, was your father not a Cohen?” He said to him, “the eyes of my father were high, but he married a woman unfit for him and profaned this man.”

If a butcher who is a Cohen gets hold of a first-born, may he cut it up into roasts and sell it on the market? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say it is permitted, analogous to “anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market”. Rebbi Mana said, that statement itself implies that it is forbidden, that he should not treat its body as merchandise.

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from one species for another species; if he gave, his heave is no heave. All kinds of wheat are one. All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other. At a place where there is a Cohen one gives from the best, but where there is no Cohen he gives from what is durable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one always gives from the best. One gives a small whole onion as heave but not half a large onion. Rebbi Jehudah says it is not so, one rather gives half a large onion. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said one gives onions of town people as heave for rural ones but not rural ones for those of town people because they are city-dwellers’ food.

MISHNAH: One does not give heave from one species for another species; if he gave, his heave is no heave. All kinds of wheat are one. All kinds of figs, dried figs, and fig cakes are one; he may give heave from one for the other. At a place where there is a Cohen one gives from the best, but where there is no Cohen he gives from what is durable. Rebbi Jehudah says, one always gives from the best. One gives a small whole onion as heave but not half a large onion. Rebbi Jehudah says it is not so, one rather gives half a large onion. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said one gives onions of town people as heave for rural ones but not rural ones for those of town people because they are city-dwellers’ food.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi, and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues, so you should not say this applies here also; for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

How does he handle it? He gives both of them to the Cohen; the Cohen pays for one of them. Which one does he pay for, the larger or the smaller one? Since we have stated: “they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one,” this implies that he pays for the larger one.

How does he handle it? He gives both of them to the Cohen; the Cohen pays for one of them. Which one does he pay for, the larger or the smaller one? Since we have stated: “they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one,” this implies that he pays for the larger one.

This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” According to Rebbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest. In the opinion of Cahana who said, take from its sanctifiable part, also here one should take from the sanctifiable part. Even though Cahana says there, take from its sanctifiable part, he agrees only in what he is required to give to the Cohen.

It was stated: One seah of heave that fell into one hundred, he says to the Cohen, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema‘? Does firewood create dema‘? Does he not in the end have to give it to another Cohen who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest.

It was stated: One seah of heave that fell into one hundred, he says to the Cohen, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema‘? Does firewood create dema‘? Does he not in the end have to give it to another Cohen who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints, whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive. If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself, but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

“Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate, the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as it is stated: “(Lev. 22:14) ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave.”

“Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate, the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as it is stated: “(Lev. 22:14) ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave.”

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.