משנה: בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישְׂאֵת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָֽכְלָה תְרוּמָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֵת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וּמִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. נִישְׂאֵת לְאֶחָד מִכָּל־הַפְְּסוּלִין מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וּמִיתָתָהּ בְּחֵנֶק דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זוֹ וְזוֹ מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּמוֹת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וּמִיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. הַמַּאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו קְטַנִּים וְאֶת עֲבָדָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְהָאוֹכֵל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ וְהַתַשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין. אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֶן לִמְחוֹל לוֹ מוֹחֵל. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־הַמְּשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ וְתַשְׁלוּמִין תְּרוּמָה אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל וְכָל־הַמְּשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֵֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ וְהַתַשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל מוֹחֵל. MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel74She used to eat heave when unmarried. Once she is married outside the tribe, heave is forbidden to her (Lev. 22:12). However, if the marriage is dissolved without issue, she returns to eat heave (v. 13). This implies that even in her marriage she is not a stranger in the sense of v. 13; the obligation of payment of a fifth (v. 14) cannot apply to her. It is clear that one has returned to the case of eating heave in error, not intentionally. who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning75If she commits adultery, Lev. 21:9.. If she married one of the ineligible76A castrate, bastard, Ammonite or Moabite (Deut. 23:2–4), or a Cohen after she had been divorced (Lev. 21:7). In these cases, even if her marriage is dissolved, she may never return to eating heave since she is desecrated. R. Meïr holds that she is now a stranger to her former tribe., she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation77The normal penalty for adultery, which applies to the adulterer in all cases., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say78Since in Lev. 21:9 she is characterized as “daughter of a Cohen man,” and this she remains [Sifra Emor Parašah 5(7), Babli Sanhedrin 51a]. The involved formulation is taken to include also illegitimate offspring of a Cohen [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(16)]. In Babli Keritut 6a, the opinion of the Sages is traced to R. Jehudah., both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning.
He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth88Lev. 22:14: “If a man ate in error from the holy [food], then he has to add a fifth and hand over the holy [food] to the Cohen.” In the first cases of the Mishnah, he himself does not eat; therefore, he is not covered by the verse. But minors and slaves are not responsible; they cannot be asked to pay. Heave from outside the Land is of questionable holiness. Less than the volume of an olive may be nibbling; it is not eating.. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive.
This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.
הלכה: כָּךְ הִיא מַתְנִיתָא זִינְתָה מִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If she commits adultery, her death is by burning79Only for adultery, not for any other capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(14)]..
מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. נִישְׂאֵת לְכָשֵׁר וְזִינָת הֲרֵי הִיא רְאוּיָה לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵית אָבִיהָ. מַיי כְדוֹן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת אֶת שֶׁחִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת הַזְּנוּת וְלֹא חִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת נִישּׂוּאִין. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִין וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. מֵעַתָּה וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲלָלָה מִבְּנָהּ. תַּנָּא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַר פַּפָּא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת אָבִיהָ הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת. אֶת שֶׁחִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת עַצְמָהּ. וְלֹא שֶׁחִילּוּלָהּ מַחְמַת אָבִיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה שׁוֹנֶה אֲנִי עַל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וַאֲפִילוּ חֲלָלָה מִבְּנָהּ. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring80“A Cohen man’s daughter, if she desecrates her father’s house by whoring, she desecrates her father; she shall be burned by fire.” The status of an adulterous daughter of a Cohen also determines her status for restitution of heave.,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house81The language is difficult. In the Rome ms., “this excludes one who may leave her father’s house.” The commentators switch the places of “may” and “may not”, but the manuscript evidence forbids this emendation. One has to say that the one who may not return is one living (or who lived previously) in a prohibited marriage; the one who may return is the one living in an acceptable marriage who will be able to resume eating heave as a childless widow or divorcee.. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house82The previous argument is patently false; a Cohen’s daughter acceptably married by her adultery becomes a permanently disqualified whore.? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage83The woman living in a forbidden marriage is disqualified already before her adultery; the special rules for daughters of Cohanim cannot apply to her. The woman married acceptably falls under the rules for Cohanim and their descendants.. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son84If the Cohen’s daughter sleeps with her own son, the punishment should be death by stoning which is considered a harsher punishment than death by burning.? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son85The Babli, Sanhedrin 51a, disagrees and in all cases requires the harsher punishment..
וְהָתַנִּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ. וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ פּוֹטֵר. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מַה פְלִיגִין בְּחוֹמֶשׁ אֲבָל בְּקֶרֶן אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ מוֹדֵי. מַה פְלִיגִין לְשֶׁעָבַר אֲבָל לָבֹא אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ מוֹדֵי. Did we not state86Mishnah 8:1, dealing with a man who is informed that he falsely was held to be a Cohen. He should not be treated differently from a woman falsely continuing her lost Cohen status.: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees87Since in our Mishnah there is no doubt that restitution of the principal is required.. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees.
לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר נוֹתֵן. הָיוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לְרַבּוֹ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן נוֹתֵן. If he89The master who fed his slave illegitimate heave. did not have occasion to pay before he90The slave. was manumitted, he90The slave. gives. If he had property about which his master had no power, he gives91In principle, anything the slave acquires, the master acquires. However, if a third person gives property to the slave with the explicit condition that the master should have no power of disposal over the property, that condition is valid and enforceable in court..
הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁגָּזַל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ לְלֵוִי יָצָא יְדֵי גְזֵילוֹ. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי חִייָה רַבָּא וְרִבִּי יַנַּאי. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן גָּזַל מַעֲפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וּנְתָנוֹ לְזֶה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָה רַבָּה מוֹצִיאִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֶׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי אַף מוֹצִיאִין מִן השֵּׁנִי. וְאַף רִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָה מוֹדֵי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לְלֵוִי יָצָא בָהּ יְדֵי גְזֵילוֹ. How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery92If Levi paid Simeon, is Reuben free from the obligation of restitution? This refers to the previous paragraph which seems to imply that the payment by an ex-slave frees his former owner from the obligation of restitution for the heave taken in error.? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second93By the transaction, the second owner acquired ownership and the original owners can only sue the robber for monetary damages.. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second94In the Babli, Baba Qama 111b, it is held in the name of R. Ḥisda that a change of ownership removes the buyer from the obligation of restitution only if the original owners had given up hope to regain the robbed article. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi.. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery95Even R. Ḥiyya will agree that if Levi, who cannot be sued, voluntarily pays Simeon, Reuben is freed from his obligation towards Simeon..