תּלמוד אויף דברים 26:3

MISHNAH: Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration¹The thanksgiving declaration Deut. 26:5–10. It is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple. If there is no obligation to bring First Fruits then there is a prohibition to bring. If there is an obligation, a dedication must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple offerings., some bring and do not make the declaration, and some do not bring. The following do not bring²The reason is explained in Mishnah 2.: He who plants in his own but provines³He bends a branch of a vine down into the earth and has it reappear elsewhere; cf. Kilaim 7:1, Note 1. into a private or a public plot; and so he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own. If someone plants in his own and provines into his own but a private or public road is in the middle he cannot bring; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings.

²³Here starts the discussion of the second part of Mishnah 1.: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three derivations²⁴Cf. Chapter 1, Note 159. The parallel in the Babli to the derivations here is Qiddušin 66b. The argument of Rav, Rav Abba, somewhat changed, is there given in the name of Samuel’s father, Abba ben Abba. Elsewhere (Sifry Deut. 298. Babli Sanhedrin 28b) the argument of R. Yannai is given in the name of R. Yose the Galilean (the Tanna); the argument of Rav is not found in tannaїtic sources. which are clear from the Torah (Deut. 26:3): “You shall come to the Cohen who will be in those days.” Is there a Cohen now who is not a Cohen after some time? Who is that? That is one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of one who had performed ḥaliẓah, that his work is valid²⁵In Tosephta Roš Haššanah 2:18, the similar verse Deut. 17:9 is explained that Cohen and judge in one’s own time have the same authority as Aaron and Moses in their time.. Rav said, (Deut. 33:11) “You will want the work of his hands,” that the work of everybody who is of the descendants of Levi is valid²⁶Since the verse is addressed to the entire tribe of Levi and not only to the recognized Cohanim. Since the sons of divorcees are also descendants of Levi, they are included (if they happened to be admitted to the service.).

Let us hear from the following³⁴In slightly enlarged form, Tosephta Miqwa’ot 1:17–20; in much shortened form Babli Qiddušin 66b.
The “reservoir of Discus” according to Rashi is named either after a place or a person Discus, Latin proper n.: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient³⁵Because something happened to the structure, they measured the volume of the water after the accident and found it to be less than 40 seah and, therefore, to be unusable for purification (cf. Chapter 4, Note 112). Since earlier, the miqweh was a valid one, a person who had immersed himself before the accident came to ask whether he could be considered pure because of the prior validity of the miqweh, or whether he was impure since now the miqweh was invalid.. Rebbi Ṭarphon declared pure and Rebbi Aqiba impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rebbi Aqiba said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rebbi Aqiba said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid³⁶Lev. 21:16–24. Since it is stated (v. 17) that a person with a bodily defect “shall not come close to present the bread of his God,” it is clear that this prohibition overrides the general inclusion inferred from Deut. 26:3 or 33:11.. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, how is that, Aqiba? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others³⁷His parents.. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court³⁸As noted below, only the court can strip him of his role as Cohen, and only after regular judicial proceedings.. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to Rebbi Aqiba, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”