Komentarz do Terumot 8:14

האשה – the daughter of an Israelite married to a Kohen.

Introduction This mishnah deals with cases where a person was allowed to eat terumah and while they were eating it became known that their status had changed and that they were not allowed to eat terumah. The question is do they have to make full repayment, including the added fifth.

מת רבך – and he was inherited by the son of his daughter from an Israelite or his daughter was married to an Israelite.

If a woman was eating terumah, and they came and said to her, “Your husband is dead”, or “He divorced you.” When a woman is married to a priest, she is allowed to eat terumah. When the marriage is terminated upon death or divorce, she loses the ability to eat terumah, assuming that she has no children from that marriage and that she herself was an Israelite.

שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה – and he is unfit/disqualified from eating Terumah/heave-offering.

Or, if a slave was eating terumah, and they came and said to him: “Your master is dead”, or “He sold you to an Israelite”, or “He gave you away as a gift”, or “He emancipated you.” A slave owned by a priest is allowed to eat terumah. When that relationship is terminated, the slave loses the right to eat terumah.

רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש – in all of them.

So too, if a priest was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah (a woman released from levirate: A priest whose mother is a divorcee or a halutzah (a woman who had been previously released from levirate marriage marriage to her dead husband’s brother) cannot eat terumah because his father shouldn’t have married his mother.

ורבי יהושע פוטר – In the Gemara (Tractate Pesahim 72b; Tractate Yevamot 34a), it maintains it especially with eating leavened heave-offering on the Eve of Passover, because his time (for doing the thing) is pressed (and cannot be postponed) and the hour is pressed as he stands to remove the leavening from the Terumah/heave-offering. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they must repay both the value and the fifth. In all three of these cases, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the person must repay both the value of the terumah s/he ate and the added fifth.

ורבי יהושע מכשיר – as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:11): “Bless, O Lord, his substance, and favor his undertakings,” even one unfit for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection, that he favor his undertakings.

But Rabbi Joshua exempts them [from the added fifth]. Rabbi Joshua exempts them from the added fifth (according to the explanation founding in the Yerushalmi) because there was nothing that they could have done in this situation. In normal situations when a person unwittingly eats terumah, he must pay the added fifth because he should have been more careful and made sure that the food he was eating was not terumah. In these cases, the food was not the problem, the person was. Therefore, Rabbi Joshua exempts from the added fifth, meaning there is no need for atonement.

נודע שהוא בעל מום עבודתו פסולה – even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is written (Numbers 25:12 – and not chapter 28, as indicated in the printed text): “My pact of friendship/peace,” when he is complete and when he is lacking/defective. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

If [a priest] was standing and sacrificing on the altar and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah: Rabbi Eliezer says: all the sacrifices he had offered on the altar are disqualified. But Rabbi Joshua pronounces them valid. This is the same debate as that above. A priest whose mother was a divorcee or a halutzah is a disqualified priest and cannot serve on the altar at the Temple. If in the middle of performing Temple worship he finds out that he is disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says that all of the sacrifices he previously offered are disqualified. Rabbi Eliezer takes a “realistic” point of view since he was not actually a valid priest, his sacrifices are invalid. Rabbi Joshua does not disqualify his prior sacrifices. According to the traditional interpretation, Rabbi Joshua holds that a disqualified priest’s sacrifices are still valid. I might also suggest that Rabbi Joshua takes what we might call a “legalistic” point of view since he was at the time that he offered the sacrifices considered a valid priest, his sacrifices are valid, even though in reality he was not a valid priest.

If it, however, it became known that he possessed a blemish, his service is disqualified. Both sages agree that if it turns out that the priest was blemished with one of the blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple that all of his sacrifices are disqualified. It seems that Rabbi Joshua cannot ignore the “reality” in this situation and he must agree with Rabbi Eliezer.

וכולם – a slave and a woman who ate from the beginning with permission, it is in this that Rabbi Eliezer states that they should swallow it. But the son of a woman divorcee or the son of a woman who performed the ceremony of removing her deceased husband’s brother’s shoe, that forever did not eat with permission, Rabbi Eliezer admits that he should spit it out, something that he was disqualified, or the heave-offering was disqualified prior to his placing it in his mouth, as Rabbi Eliezer admits that he should spit it out.

Introduction In today’s mishnah, which is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate whether a person who finds out that s/he has begun to eat something forbidden but has not yet swallowed the food, must spit it out.

אם שטעם טעם פשפש – an unclean reptile, for when they crush it, his breath is most repulsive, and it is found in the walls and in the beds and we call it B’KEE in Arabic and in the foreign language, TZIMITZA, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

In all the above cases, if terumah was still in their mouth: Rabbi Eliezer says: they may swallow it. But Rabbi Joshua says: they must spit it out. Albeck explains that according to Rabbi Eliezer since in these cases s/he is going to have to pay back the value and the added fifth in any case, it is not forbidden for him/her to swallow the food that is in his/her mouth. Rabbi Joshua, in contrast, held above that s/he will not have to pay back the added fifth. Since he will have to pay back less, he has to make sure that he doesn’t eat or even swallow any terumah whatsoever intentionally.

[If it was said to him], “Your have become unclean”, or “the terumah has become unclean”, Rabbi Eliezer says: he may swallow it. But Rabbi Joshua says: he must spit it out. In this case, while the terumah was still in his mouth someone told him that he had just become impure or that the terumah had just become impure. In other words, when he began to eat the terumah, he was pure and the terumah was pure, but while eating he, or the terumah became impure. In this case, again Rabbi Eliezer says he may swallow that which is in his mouth whereas Rabbi Joshua says he has to spit it out. This is similar to the previous cases because when he began to eat it was permitted for him to do so.

[If it was said to him], “You were unclean” or “the terumah was unclean”, or it became known that [the food he was eating] was untithed, or that it was first tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken, or second tithe or dedicated produce that had not been redeemed, or if he tasted the taste of a bug in his mouth, he must spit it out. In this section, it is made known to him that he or the terumah was impure before he began to eat. Alternatively, it is made known to him that the food he was eating was forbidden in some way. For instance, it was not tithed, or it was tithe from which terumah had not been removed, or it was second tithe or dedicated produce that had not yet been redeemed. Or he tasted a bug in his mouth (yuk!). In these cases, he is simply one who unwittingly ate food that he shouldn’t have eaten and hence Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Joshua that he must spit it out. The mishnah distinguishes between cases of accidentally eating something forbidden in these cases a person should have been more careful and cases where a person couldn’t have done anything to prevent the food from becoming prohibited in these cases Rabbi Eliezer holds that he may swallow the rest of his food.

היה אוכל באשכול – he detached a cluster from the vine that is in the garden and he would eat while walking until he entered the courtyard, for the courtyard establishes [its liability] for tithing, and even an incidental meal is forbidden until he separates heave-offering and tithes.

Introduction In our mishnah a person begins to eat untithed grapes while he is still in the field, which is permitted. After beginning to eat the grapes they become liable for tithes. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua again disagree as to whether he may finish eating.

ר' אליעזר אומר יגמור – not that he should eat in the courtyard, but rather, he should leave outside the courtyard and complete eating the cluster in the garden.

If he was eating a bunch of grapes, and he entered from the garden into the courtyard: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may finish eating. But Rabbi Joshua says: he may not finish. While still out in the garden, one may eat produce without tithing it, as long as he is eating it in an “ad hoc” fashion, meaning he is not making a meal out of it. However, once he brings the grapes into the courtyard he cannot eat them until they have been tithed. Rabbi Eliezer says that since he began to eat the grapes with permission, he may finish doing so without tithing them. Rabbi Joshua says he cannot finish them until he tithes.

לא יגמור – and even in the garden, until he tithes.

If dusk set in at the eve of Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may finish eating. But Rabbi Joshua says: he may not finish. When Shabbat begins one cannot eat untithed food, even in an ad hoc fashion out in the garden. In essence, all eating on Shabbat is considered formal and therefore food cannot be eaten untithed. If he begins eating it before Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer says he may continue, whereas Rabbi Joshua again says that he may not.

חשיכה לילי שבת – and he was eating an incidental meal, for Shabbat establishes [liability for] tithing and even an incidental meal is prohibited.

יגמור – on Saturday night, but on Shabbat itself, he admits that it is prohibited.

לא יגמור – even on Saturday night, until he tithes, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

ישפך – and there isn’t here because of the destruction of heave-offering because it is forbidden to drink of it, lest a snake drank from it.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that it was forbidden to drink water, wine and milk that had been left uncovered for fear that a snake had put poison into the mixture. Whether this was a realistic fear, or a superstition shared by many people, I don’t know. We should note that by the middle ages most halakhic authorities had stated that this halakhah no longer applies.

ושארכל המשקים מותרים – because a snake does not drink from them, but that the honey and brine and pickle (containing fish-hash and sometimes wine) and pounded garlic, all of these are mentioned in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 49b) for prohibition, for the snake drinks from them.

If wine of terumah was left uncovered, it must be poured out, and there is no need to say this in the case of hullin. Normally, it is forbidden to cause terumah to come to ruin. Pure terumah must be eaten. However, if the terumah wine was left uncovered, the rabbis considered it dangerous to drink it. The concern for the danger to one’s life overrides the prohibition of causing terumah to be lost and therefore, if the terumah wine was left uncovered, he should spill it out. It is obvious that he should spill out hullin (non-sacred) wine that had been left uncovered.

כמה ישתה – how much should stand uncovered.

Three kinds of liquids are forbidden if they were left uncovered: water, wine and milk, but all other drinks are permitted. It was assumed that snakes wouldn’t drink from anything but water, wine and milk. Therefore, only these three are prohibited if left uncovered. I wonder if they had had Coca-Cola back then, would snakes have drunk from it?

הרחש – the snake, and because it walks on its belly, it is called רחש/a creeping thing/reptile, for it does not appear like walking but rather, like moving/vibrating and shaking.

How long do they remain uncovered for them to become prohibited? The time it takes the snake to creep out from a place near by and drink. The liquid must be left uncovered long enough for a snake to sneak up and inject his poison into it. If you just leave your cup uncovered for a moment while you get something from the refrigerator (to be anachronistic) you can still go back and finish your drink. But if you go out to the backyard to play football with your kids for a few minutes, leaving your glass of milk on the table, you may be at risk.

ממקום קרוב – the explained it (Tractate Hullin 10b), in order that it can go out from underneath the ear of he utensil, and it will drink and return to its hole.

שיעור המים – that it would be forbidden because of being uncovered.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with the issue of uncovered water that might have poison in it.

כדי שתאבד בהןמרה – if here was such a great deal that the poison of the snake would deteriorate [its venom] and would be lost in them, there would be nothing of being uncovered, and they would know how much poison a snake it puts in at one time.

The amount of water that is uncovered: enough to negate the poison. There are two explanations to this section. The first explanation is that if there is enough water to negate the effects of the poison, then even uncovered water is permitted. The second explanation is opposite if there is enough water so that one cannot taste the poison, then it is prohibited. If there is not that much water it is assumed that the poison would have taste, and therefore it is permitted.

מרה – the poison that the snake puts in is called מרה/bitterness.

Rabbi Yose says: in vessels [it is forbidden] whatever the quantity, but for water on the ground, it must be forty se'ahs. According to the first interpretation, Rabbi Yose says that if the water is in vessels, even if there is a lot of water, it is prohibited. The vessels concentrate the solution, making the poison more potent. According to the second interpretation, we would have to say that even if there is little water, it is prohibited. Perhaps the vessels would mask the taste. However, if the water is on the ground, the standard measure is forty seahs. According to the first interpretation, more than that is permitted, assuming that the poison is nullified. The second interpretation would seem to have some difficulty in interpreting this line.

בכלים כל שהן – even if they are many, whatever the amount as they are, there is in them on account of be uncovered, when the water is in the utensils.

ובקרקעות עד מ' סאה – there is in them because of being uncovered, more than this, there is none because of uncovering, for the poison is abolished in them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi. But a spring that draws out even a bit, there is nothing in it of uncovering. And uncovered kwaters when they are prohibited to drink them, thusly there are forbidden to give to his cattle to drink and to wash in them his face, hands and feet, and to knead the plaster, and to use them in any manner of usage.

נקורי תאנים – a fig in which appears in it a biting, it is prohibited, perhaps the snake bit it and put in it poison.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with fruit and animals that may have been bitten by a snake.

אפילו הן ככר – meaning to say that they are very large and the bite is from one side, he should not say that he eats from one side and I [eat] from the other side.

Figs, grapes, cucumbers, pumpkins, melons or watermelons that have bite marks, even if they are in a jar, both large or small, both plucked or still attached to the soil, they are forbidden as long as there is juice in them. Any fruit that has a bite mark on it, one that could have come from a snake, is forbidden. The fear is that the snake left some poison in the fruit and the moisture that remains in the fruit will convey the poison to all parts of the fruit. That is why the mishnah says “as long as there is juice in them.” If the fruit is dry, then they can get rid of the part near the bite and safely eat the rest (I’m not necessarily recommending this at home). The prohibition holds true even if the fruit is in a jar, because it may have been bitten before it was put in the jar. It also holds true no matter the size of the fruit, or whether it is still attached to the ground.

כל שיש בו ליחה – the poison combines with the moisture, and permeates through everything, ut in a dry thing, he cuts the bitten part and eats the rest.

[An animal] bitten by a snake is forbidden on account of the danger to life. If an animal was bitten by a snake, it is prohibited to eat that animal because of the danger to one’s life.

ונשוכת נחש – a beast/cattle that was bitten by a snake and he slaughtered it (i.e., the cattle), it is forbidden, because the poison permeates in the entire body.

משמרת של יין – even though the lower uensil is covered with a strainer, there is in it because of uncovering, for the poison passes along the path of the strainer and goes into the lower utensil.

A wine-filter [used as a cover] does not prevent [the wine from becoming] forbidden by being uncovered.
But Rabbi Nehemiah permits it.
In our mishnah there is a dispute concerning a wine jug covered by a filter. According to the first opinion, poison can pass through the filter and therefore the wine is halakhically considered to be uncovered and it is prohibited. Rabbi Nehemiah says that the poison will not pass through the filter and hence it is permitted.

רבי נחמיה מתיר – because the poison floats and does not pass, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Nehemiah.

ספק טומאה – as, for example, two jugs in the private domain, and a reptile touched one of them, and it is not known to which of them, and both of them are suspended.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses a jar of terumah that may have become impure but is not definitely impure. The problem is that it is forbidden to get rid of terumah (or intentionally make it impure) and it is forbidden to eat impure terumah. So he can’t use this terumah lest it is impure, but he can’t get rid of it, lest it is pure. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the sages who disputed each other throughout the chapter, resume their series of disputes here.

במקום התורפה – a place that is ownerless and it stands to suffer loss there.

A jar of terumah which may have become impure:
Rabbi Eliezer says: if it had been deposited in an exposed place, he must now place it in a hidden place; and if it had formerly been uncovered, it must now be covered. According to Rabbi Eliezer, one should protect this jar of terumah so that it doesn’t go from being doubtfully impure to certainly impure. For instance, if it had been in an exposed place, where it will likely become impure, he should put it into a more protected place. If it had been uncovered, then he should cover it so that a snake doesn’t put poison in it. In other words, even though he can’t use this terumah, lest it is impure, he should treat it as carefully as possible so that it is not defiled or made poisonous.

יניחנה במקום המוצנע – for he is still careful on its being guarded, as it is written (Numbers 18:8): “[I hereby give you] charge of all My gifts, [all the sacred donations of the Israelites],” with two heave-offerings the Biblical verse speaks – one is pure heave-offering and the other is suspended Terumah and both of them require guarding.

But Rabbi Joshua says: if it had been in a hidden place, he must now place it in an exposed place; and if it had formerly been covered up, he must now uncover it. Rabbi Joshua holds that one should do everything he can so that the jar becomes certainly prohibited and he can legally get rid of it. If it had been previously protected in a hidden place, he should now put it in an exposed place so that it is more likely to become impure. If it was covered, he should uncover it so that it becomes prohibited to drink and permitted to pour out. In other words, since he can’t use it, he should cause it to become strictly forbidden, thereby allowing him to pour it out, or burn it (if it was made impure). If he leaves it around, he might accidentally use it, and thereby perhaps transgress (if it was actually impure).

ר' יהושע אומר וכו' – for he holds that the word "תרומתי" – is written without the [letter] “Vav”, and there is the traditional Scriptural text (i.e., letters without vowels) is authoritative in Biblical interpretation.

Rabban Gamaliel says: let him not do anything new to it. Rabban Gamaliel says one shouldn’t do anything to the jar. On the one hand, he holds that it is forbidden to intentionally put the jar somewhere where it will become more prohibited. Therefore, he can’t agree with Rabbi Joshua. On the other hand, he is not obligated to go out of his way to protect the jar, as Rabbi Eliezer says. So the best he can do is just leave it wherever it may already be. If it becomes impure, so be it. If it doesn’t then he must refrain from using it in any way.

אל יחדש בה דבר – and there is no need to guard it, and it is even prohibited to cause the riual defilement, and he Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel.

בגת העליונה – place where they store it away.

A jar [of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the wine-press, and the lower part was unclean: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if one can save at least a reviit of it in cleanness he should save it. Our mishnah deals with a case where there is a jar of pure terumah in the upper part of a wine-press, and the lower part of the wine-press contains impure hullin wine. If the terumah flows down to the lower part it will all become impure medumma (doubtful terumah) and no one will be able to drink it not a priest because it is impure and not an Israelite, because it contains terumah. The person does not have any pure vessels handy with which to immediately save the terumah. Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if he can fetch clean vessels and save at least a reviit of pure terumah wine before it all flows into the lower part he should do so. In other words, rather than save all of the terumah wine in impure vessels, he should save a small amount of it in a pure vessel, even though the rest of the terumah wine will render undrinkable the hullin in the lower part.

והתחתונה – a pit on the inside of the vat where the wine goes into it.

But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and become unclean of its own accord, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate what to do in a situation in which it is impossible to save a reviit before the terumah flows down into the lower parts. Rabbi Eliezer says he should just let it all flow into the impure hullin below and that he should not defile the terumah with his own hands by putting it into unclean vessels, even though this will make the hullin below undrinkable for everyone. Rabbi Joshua’s response to Rabbi Eliezer will come mishnah eleven below, so stay tuned!

טמאה – it has ritually impure unconsecrated produce, and it is appropriate for it during the days of its ritual defilement, or for someone who does not consume unconsecrated produce in ritual purity, and if the heave-offering/Terumah falls into it, he should have something impure that is forbidden to all non-priests, but even to Kohanim, it is not appropriate.

ואם יכולים להציל ממנה רביעית – if he able to search around behind the utensils and to save from it a fourth [of a LOG; a LOG= six eggs) in ritual purity prior to its all descending and becoming defiled.

יציל – he should go around behind he utensils and save it, and even though it is within , he should go round behind the utensils that it would descend from the heave-offering to the unconsecraed produce that is in the lower [vats] and he will lose the heave-offering, he should no defile the heave offering with hands to save the heave-offering, since he is able to save from it one-quarter of a LOG in ritual purity which is an important thing.

ואם לאו – that he should not find a totally pure utensil, and eventually, all of it goes o riual impurity, and in this they dispute, for Rabbi Yehoshua holds that he should defile it by hand, to save the heave-offering as it is taught at the end [of this chapter, Mishnah 11) “but as regards both of these cases (Mishnayot 9-10), Rabbi Yehoshua stated, etc. But Rabbi Eliezer holds that even though that ultimately, it would all go to become unclean, he should not make it unclean by hand to save the Hullin, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

וכן חבית של שמן – [a jug of] pure [oil] that spilled, and everything goes to loss, they dispute as what is above (in Mishnah 9), and thus they teach regarding oil that spilled, and they did not take it like regarding wine, because a barrel of oil [that broke] in the upper vat, but in the bottom is unconsecrated ritually impure produce, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that if he is able to save from it one-fourth [of a LOG] in ritual purity, he should save it, and if not, let it descend, and he should not defile it by hand, because the oil is appropriate to kindle and they did not trouble to lose a little bit. And with wine, also, they did not dispute, other than specifically when the lower [vat] has less than one-hundred [parts] of unconsecrated produce, for the entire unconsecrated produce becomes forbidden even for non-priests, and there is loss, but if there is one-hundred [parts] of unconsecrated produce, everyone admits, do not defile it by hand because there is no loss.

Introduction This mishnah contains a very similar scenario to the mishnah we learned yesterday.

Similarly a jar of [terumah] oil which spilled: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if he can save at least a reviit in purity he should save it; In this case a jar of pure terumah oil fall on the ground and it will take time for him to get clean vessels to scoop it up. The choice is to let the oil seep into the ground or to pick it up with unclean vessels. Again, both agree that if he can save at least a reviit, he should do so, even though most will be lost. The reason is that he should do whatever he can to save the purity of the pure terumah. Note that they do not disagree with regard to a situation in which the oil is in the upper part of an oil press and it will flow down into a vat impure hullin oil, thereby making the entire mixture impure medumma (terumah mixed in with hullin). The reason is that such impure medumma oil can be burned, and therefore the loss is not so great. In such a situation all would agree that he should just let the pure terumah oil flow into the impure hullin oil. This is different from the scenario in yesterday’s mishnah where there is no use for impure medumma wine.

But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and be swallowed up by the ground, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua again disagree if there is no other way to save the oil besides using the unclean vessels. Rabbi Eliezer says that he may not use the unclean vessels and he should rather just let the whole mixture go to waste. Rabbi Joshua’s response is in tomorrow’s mishnah. I’m sure the suspense is just killing you.

ועל זו ועל זו – on that which a doubt of ritual impurity resulted, and on this that is getting lost, Rabbi Yehoshua stated he is not warned on their ritual defilement, and that which is is warned about, lest it become defiled, how so? He was passing [from place to place with loaves of heave-offering in his hand when a heathen approaches him who says to him – give him one of them so that he can defile it and if not he would defile all of them], Rabbi Yehoshua stated, he should leave one of them on the rock in order that he doesn’t cause ritual defilement to the others. Ans even that one, he should leave on the rock and not give it to him in his hand, so that he would not defile the hands. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Introduction Finally, we get Rabbi Joshua’s response. The mishnah also contains another scenario in which Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer debate. I should note that I have explained the mishnah according to the version of the mishnah which Albeck claims is correct and is found in most good manuscripts of the Mishnah. The text of other versions is slightly different and they also have a different interpretation.

Concerning both cases Rabbi Joshua said: This is not the kind of terumah over which I am cautioned lest I defile it, but rather to eat of it and not to defile it. Regarding the cases mentioned in mishnayot nine (the wine) and ten (the oil) Rabbi Joshua says it is not prohibited to defile them by putting them in unclean vessels. Meaning if the wine or oil is going to be completely lost, it is not prohibited to bring unclean vessels and save whatever can be saved. Rather, what he should do is try to save some of it, if he can save at least a reviit. If he can’t, he is allowed to make it unclean, rather than let it and all the hullin in the lower vat (in the case of the wine in mishnah nine) go to complete waste.

If one was passing from place to place with loaves of terumah in his hand and a Gentile said to him: “Give me one of these and I will make it unclean; for if not, I will defile them all,” let him defile them all, and not give him deliberately one to defile, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. In this scenario a Gentile tells a Jew to give him a loaf of terumah which he will defile and that if he doesn’t give it to him, the Gentile will defile all of the loaves. Rabbi Eliezer is strict and holds that the Jew should let the Gentile defile all of the loaves rather than give over one of the loaves himself. Again, Rabbi Eliezer does not seem concerned that the result will be that all of the terumah loaves will become inedible.

But Rabbi Joshua says: he should place one of them on a rock. Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Eliezer that he may not give over one of the loaves. Rather what he should do is place one on a rock and let the Gentile take it himself. This way he will hopefully prevent all of the loaves from becoming unclean while at the same time he will not give one over with his own hands.

תנו לנו אחת מכם – they want to come upon her with force.

Introduction Yesterday we learned about a Gentile who threatens to defile a Jew’s bread. In today’s mishnah, the Gentile becomes far more dangerous, threatening to defile Jewish women.

יטמאו כולן – they do not set aside the regard due to one human life for the sake of saving another human life, and in this, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree.

Similarly, if gentiles say to women, “Give us one of you that we may defile her, and if not, we will defile you all”, then let them all be defiled rather than hand over to them one soul from Israel. In this case even Rabbi Joshua, who yesterday said he could leave one loaf of bread on a rock for the Gentile to take, agrees that the women should in no way give over one of the other women to be raped. We should note that the same halakhah is true for murder. If a murderer says to a group, “Give over one person that we may kill him, or we will kill everyone” it is forbidden to give over that person. Needless to say, Jews have been through such situations, especially in the Shoah. This is probably one of the most difficult dilemmas a person could ever face (I’m reminded of “Sophie’s choice”) and I don’t think any of us could know what we would actually do in such a horrible situation. The halakhah expresses the idealistic notion that it would be impossible to choose one person to die, because everyone’s life has equal worth. Whether this is the correct, smart or sane solution in the real world, I leave for you to ponder.