1) "then she shall return to the house of her father": to exclude a woman awaiting levirate marriage, (her being linked to the yavam.) "as in her maidenhood": to exclude one who is pregnant. (— But why is the verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place where a child from her first husband is not made equivalent to a child from her second husband to exempt her from levirate marriage, a fetus is made equivalent to a child (to exempt her), then here, where a child from her first husband is made equivalent to a child from her second husband to disqualify her from terumah (in her father's house), how much more so should a fetus be equivalent to a child to disqualify her from terumah! — No, why is a fetus made equivalent to a child to exempt her from levirate marriage? Because a dead child is made equivalent to a living child (i.e., If her husband had a son who died after his father's death, she is exempt from levirate marriage.) Should we then make a fetus equivalent to a child to disqualify her from terumah, where a dead child is not made equivalent to a living child? (i.e., Only a living child disqualifies her from the terumah of her father's house, and not a dead child. (Therefore, the verse is necessary.) "then she shall return": I might think (that she returns) even to the breast and the thigh. It is, therefore, written "From the bread of her father she may eat. We are speaking only of "the holy things of the boundary" (i.e., terumah, and not of "the holy things of the altar," breast and thigh). 2) Whence is it derived that the daughter of a Cohein who married an Israelite and then ate terumah, and, similarly, a Cohein who ate the terumah of his neighbor — I might think that they are liable for the fifth; It is, therefore, written "but no non-priest (zar) may eat of it, (followed by 22:14) "And a man if he eat the holy thing unwittingly, (then he shall add its fifth [in payment] upon it") — to exclude those who are not zarim to it. "a man" — to exclude a minor. 3) "if he eat": There is no "eating" (for "fifth" liability) less then an olive. Just as "the holy thing" there (Vayikra 22:13) speaks of the holy things of the boundary (i.e., terumah), so, "the holy thing" here. 4) "unwittingly": to exclude (one-fifth liability) in an instance of knowing violation. R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one ate of the flesh of holy of holies after the sprinkling of the blood, he pays the principal and one-fifth to the Cohanim and they buy peace-offerings for the money. "then he shall add its fifth upon it": so that it and its fifth are five (e.g., if the valve were four, he does not pay one-fifth of the four, but adds, as it were, an equal fifth part to the four parts. 5) Whence is it derived that he does not pay (for what he ate of the terumah) from shikchah (viz. Devorim 24:19), from peah (viz. Vayikra 19:9), from hefker (what is ownerless), from first tithe whose terumah has been taken, or from second tithe which was redeemed? From "and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing" — that which can become holy (thus, the signification in the Hebrew). 6) And whence is it derived that payment is made only with the same kind (of food) that he ate? From "and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing" — the same holy thing that he ate. Therefore, if he ate cucumbers of the eve of the Sabbatical year, he waits for those of the end of the sabbatical year and pays with them. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Elazar says: Payment may be made from one kind for another, as long as he pays from a superior kind for an inferior one. How so? If he ate figs and paid in dates — "May he be blessed!" 7) I might think that its separation (by the zar for payment) makes it holy towards liability for the principal and a fifth (if he eats it); it is, therefore, written "and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing." His living renders it holy towards liability for the principal and a fifth, and not its separation. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: His separation, too, renders it holy towards liability for the principal and fifth. 8) (Vayikra 22:15) ("And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they will lift to the L–rd.") "And they shall not profane": to include (in the prohibition) one who anoints (himself with terumah) as well as one who drinks it. "the holy things of the children of Israel": There is one-fifth liability for the holy things of the children of Israel, but not for those of the gentiles. These are the words of R. Shimon. 9) I might think that there is liability (for the principal and a fifth) for the terumah in the tevel (i.e., if one unwittingly ate the food before terumah was taken from it); it is, therefore, written "which they will lift to the L–rd." They are liable for what has been lifted (from the tevel), and they are not liable for the terumah in the tevel. 10) (Vayikra 22:16) ("And they will cause them to bear the sin of guilt when they eat their holy things; for I am the L–rd who makes them holy.") "And they will cause them to bear the sin of guilt": For eating tevel, too (before terumah has been taken from it), there is death liability. "when they eat their holy things": to exclude (from such liability) burning or conferring tumah (upon the tevel). "for I am the L–rd who makes them holy." This is the "rationale" for the death liability.
Sifra Emor Chapter 6
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.