Shabbat 25a — the Talmud in English

as it is written: “On the first day

a cessation,”

which means

a positive command,

that He commanded us to cease from doing labor.

And it becomes

the prohibition of labor on a Festival

a positive command [

of “a cessation”]

and a prohibition,

as it is written: “You shall not do any labor.”

And a positive command

of the mitzva of burning sacred offerings [as it is written, “You shall burn it in fire”]

does not override the prohibition and the positive command

of the prohibition of labor on a Festival.

And we infer: from the fact that we prohibit lighting with oil of burning on a Festival, it follows

on an ordinary weekday—

it is properly permitted

to derive benefit from impure teruma oil.

And we raise an inquiry concerning it:

What is the reason

that it is permitted?

Rav said: Just as it is a mitzva to burn sacred offerings that became impure,

as it is stated [Leviticus 7:17], “It shall be burned in fire,”

so it is a mitzva to burn teruma that became impure,

for it resembles sacred offerings. And another reason is so that they should not come to a mishap, lest they eat it.

And the Torah said: At the time of its removal—

derive benefit from it.

And from this, it follows that it is permitted to derive benefit from impure teruma.

And we raise an inquiry concerning it:

Where did the Torah say

that one should derive benefit from impure teruma at the time of its burning?

And we explain:

From Rav Naḥman.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, the verse says: “And I, behold, have given you the charge of My terumot.” “My terumot” means

“my terumot”—

the verse is speaking of two terumot: one pure teruma and one impure teruma.

And the Merciful One said: “to you”—

it shall be yours,

so that you are permitted

to kindle it beneath your cooked dish.

And if you wish, say:

We learned from another verse that impure teruma is permitted for benefit.

From Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

It is written in the section of the confession over the second tithe:

“And I have not removed from it while impure.”

Whether the tithe became impure or whether the person is impure.

And this is how we expound it:

“From it”—

impure second tithe,

you may not kindle. But you may kindle oil of sacred offerings that became impure.

For it is permitted to derive benefit from impure teruma oil.

And we object:

And perhaps

we should expound it this way:

“From it” you may not kindle, but you may kindle oil of sacred offerings that became impure,

and we should expound that it is permitted to derive benefit from sacred offerings that became impure at the time of their burning.

And we are astonished: Is it not

a kal va-chomer?

And

if, concerning the tithe, which is lenient, the Torah said, “I have not removed from it while impure,”

so that it is forbidden for benefit when it is impure,

sacred offerings,

which are

more stringent—

is it not all the more so?!

And we object:

If so,

that you expound a kal va-chomer,

impure teruma—

let us also say a kal va-chomer

from the tithe

itself

that it should be forbidden to derive benefit from it!?

And we answer: With teruma we do not say a kal va-chomer, because

“from it” is written.

And we refute:

And what have you seen

to expound “from it” as permitting the use of impure teruma, and as prohibiting the use of impure sacred offerings?

And we explain:

It is reasonable that I should not exclude sacred offerings

from this prohibition—

for

sacred offerings contain many stringencies.

And their mnemonic

is

PENK EKAS [in contrast to teruma]. And these are they:

And these are they:

Pigul,

if he intended at the time of slaughtering the offering that he was slaughtering it in order to eat from its flesh after its time, it is pigul, and one who eats it is liable to excision.

Notar,

an offering that was not eaten during the time that the Torah established for its eating.

And it is called

an offering.

And there is

misuse

of it: with most holy offerings, one commits misuse of them before the dashing of the blood, and with lesser sacred offerings, one commits misuse of their portions after the blood has been dashed on the altar.

And

one who eats it in bodily impurity is liable to

excision.

[But with teruma he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, which is less severe than excision.]

And

it is forbidden for an acute mourner to eat it,

for we derive it by a kal va-chomer from the lenient tithe, which is forbidden for him to eat when he is an acute mourner.

But teruma is forbidden only to non-priests and not to an acute mourner.

And since sacred offerings are so stringent, it is reasonable that it is also forbidden to derive benefit from them in impurity.

And we refute:

On the contrary! Teruma—I should not exclude it

from this stringency; rather, impure teruma is forbidden for benefit,

for

it contains several stringencies whose mnemonic is

MAḤPAZ.

A non-priest who eats it is liable to

death

at the hands of Heaven.

And likewise, a non-priest who eats it is liable for a payment of

one-fifth.