Yevamot 70b — the Talmud in English

Apparently,

it is proven that

his body is not acquired

the body of the Hebrew slave

by his master.

His master does not acquire him with an “acquisition of the body”; rather, he has only a right of enslavement in him for labor. Therefore the Hebrew slave is not called his master’s priestly “acquisition of money,”

and for that reason he does not eat teruma.

And if so,

here too

with regard to the Passover offering,

his body is not acquired

by him

by his master.

Since Scripture revealed concerning teruma that a Hebrew slave is not acquired by his master with an acquisition of the body, he is therefore a complete Israelite with regard to Passover. Certainly he is not exempt from making the Passover offering and from eating it. And how can Scripture say concerning him, “A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat of it”!?

Rather,

since a sojourner and a hired servant do in fact eat the Passover offering, that which Scripture said concerning Passover, “A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat of it,” necessarily does not come to say that they shall not eat of it, but only

to designate it,

to be free for a gezera shava, so that we may learn from Passover by a gezera shava to teruma that an uncircumcised man does not eat of it.

And we object: And still,

even now, for the learning of the gezera shava “sojourner and hired servant,” this is insufficient, for this verse is

—

designated on one side

only

it is.

And

behold,

we have heard Rabbi Eliezer say:

a gzera shava for whose teaching there is a verse that is

free on one side

only—

we learn

from it only if there is no refutation of this teaching.

And

however,

we refute

it when there is something with which to refute it. And then we do not learn from it.

But this gzera shava can be refuted, as explained above!

And we answer:

Since

the entire verse of “resident and hired laborer” that is stated concerning the Passover offering

is not needed for its own matter

at all, we therefore have before us two superfluous words, “resident and hired laborer,” in order to make them free. And therefore—

Take

one,

one

of these words,

and assign it to the thing taught.

That is, move one word from its place, and take it and attach it to the matter being learned [the matter taught], namely, to the matter of eating teruma, which is learned from the Passover offering, as though that superfluous word had been written concerning teruma.

And take one—

and assign it to the teacher.

The second superfluous word: take it and attach it to the Passover offering, which is the teacher for the eating of teruma.

That is, leave it in its place, and associate it with the Passover offering as a superfluous word, so that this word will be free for the teaching of the gzera shava.

And it turns out for him

that we have thereby a teaching of

a gzera shava,

which is

free on both sides.

And concerning a gzera shava for which there is a verse free on both sides, everyone agrees that we learn and do not refute, even if there is something with which to refute.

The Gemara raises another difficulty concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s teaching from the gzera shava from the Passover offering:

If there is a gzera shava between the Passover offering and teruma, let us equate their laws also with regard to the prohibition of eating in aninut, and say:

What if

the offering

of Passover—

a person who is

an onen

is forbidden to eat it

[like all other sacred offerings, which are learned by a kal va-chomer from the second tithe, concerning which it is stated, “I did not eat of it in my mourning”]—

So too teruma—

an onen is forbidden to eat it!

He said

in answer,

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina:

The verse says, “And every

stranger

shall not eat of it” [concerning teruma].

And the verse did not say, “A stranger shall not eat of it.”

The verse teaches that the gzera shava was not stated with regard to every matter.

Rather, only the prohibition of

“strangerness I told you”

with regard to eating teruma,

and not

the prohibition of eating teruma in

mourning.

And we inquire about this:

And say,

say that “and every stranger shall not eat sacred food” came to exclude aninut, and to permit an onen to eat teruma.

Rather, the intention of the verse is to say: Only strangerness I told you is prohibited in eating teruma,

and not uncircumcision.

And an uncircumcised priest will be permitted to eat teruma.

And we answer: It is impossible to say so. For

behold, it is written

a gzera shava of

“resident and hired laborer”,

to teach from the Passover offering concerning teruma.

And just as an uncircumcised person does not eat the Passover offering, so he does not eat teruma.

And we inquire about this:

What did you see

to include the uncircumcised person as forbidden with regard to teruma, by means of the gzera shava, and not the onen, whom you excluded from the teaching of “and every stranger”?

But one can say the opposite: The gzera shava comes to include the onen, who is forbidden to eat teruma, and “and every stranger” comes to permit an uncircumcised priest to eat teruma?

And we answer:

It is logical

that

uncircumcision should be included

by the gzera shava as prohibited with regard to teruma, and not aninut.

For

the uncircumcised person is more stringent than the onen in four matters. And its sign is:

a.

Acts

b.

Cut off

c.

In the matter

d.

The slave

a. Acts:

The uncircumcised person

lacks an act

of circumcision in order to rectify his body.

And

that

act

which he lacks—

in his body

the uncircumcised person lacks it.

b. Cut off:

And

the uncircumcised person

is liable to karet

if he does not circumcise himself and nullifies the mitzva of circumcision.

c. In the matter:

And it exists

for the mitzva of circumcision also

before the utterance

[the giving of the Torah], for Abraham our forefather was already commanded concerning it.

d. The slave:

And the circumcision of his males

of the father,

and

the circumcision of

his slaves

of the master—

prevents

the father, or the master, from making the Passover offering.

For if he has a son fit for circumcision, or a slave fit for circumcision, the father or the master is forbidden to eat the Passover offering unless he circumcises him.

And all these four matters are stringencies that apply only to the uncircumcised person and not to the onen. Therefore, we learn by a gzera shava from the Passover offering to include the uncircumcised person as prohibited, and not the onen.

And we object:

On the contrary! Aninut should have been included

as prohibited by the gzera shava, more than the uncircumcised person, and “and every stranger” should be interpreted as coming to exclude the uncircumcised person from the prohibition of eating teruma,

for

aninut is more stringent than uncircumcision in these matters:

a. Aninut

exists at every time

that his dead person has died.

In contrast, the uncircumcised person, once he removes his foreskin, it no longer returns upon him ever.

b.

And it applies

to aninut

in men and women.

Which is not so with uncircumcision, which applies in men and women.

c.

And it is not in the power

of the onen

to rectify himself.

But the uncircumcised person can circumcise himself.

And we answer:

These

stringencies that we listed concerning uncircumcision

are more numerous [many] than the stringencies concerning aninut, for uncircumcision has four stringencies, while aninut has only three.

many] than the stringencies of mourning, since uncircumcision has four stringencies, while mourning has only three.

Rava said:

also

without

the answer that

“these are more numerous”,

you likewise cannot say

that the gzera shava comes to include the onen as prohibited, while the uncircumcised person is permitted to eat teruma because of the exclusion “and every stranger.”

We leave it—

should we leave off learning by a gzera shava from the Passover offering the prohibition of

uncircumcision, as it is written

[that it is written]

in the very matter of the

offering of

Passover.

And

instead

we learn

by a gzera shava the prohibition of eating teruma in

mourning

from the offering of

Passover,

while

the

prohibition of the onen from eating the offering of

Passover itself—

we learn from the second tithe!?

That is, should we learn the law of aninut from the Passover offering, when aninut itself in connection with the Passover offering is not written in the passage of the Passover offering, but is learned from the second tithe, concerning which it is stated, “I did not eat of it in my mourning,” while uncircumcision is stated explicitly concerning the Passover offering!?

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty against Rabbi Eliezer, who learns by a gzera shava teruma from the Passover offering to prohibit the uncircumcised person:

What if the Passover offering—when the circumcision of his males and his slaves prevents

him from making the Passover offering—

so too teruma,

shall

the circumcision of his males and his slaves prevent

him from eating teruma until he circumcises them?

And we answer:

The verse says

concerning the circumcision of slaves in the Passover offering an exclusion:

“And you shall circumcise him—

then he may eat of it” [the master concerning the Passover offering].

“Then he may eat of it” [the master concerning the Passover offering].

And the verse stated the exclusion “of it,” concerning the Passover offering only, in order to teach you:

The circumcision of his males and his slaves prevents him concerning it,

in the Passover offering,

from eating the Passover offering.

But the circumcision of his males and his slaves does not prevent him from

eating

teruma.

And we wonder:

If so,

that you expound from “of it,” stated concerning the circumcision of his slaves, to exclude that the circumcision of his slaves prevents him from eating teruma—

Say,

say that same exposition from the exclusion of the word “of it,” to permit an uncircumcised person to eat teruma.

For it is stated concerning the Passover offering:

“Every uncircumcised person shall not eat of it.”

And let us exclude,

“of it,”

in the Passover offering:

he does not eat

the uncircumcised person.

But he does eat

an uncircumcised priest

teruma!

And we answer:

This

but, on the other hand,

“resident and hired laborer” is written,

to teach from the Passover offering by a gzera shava concerning teruma, and the uncircumcised person is included through it.

And we inquire about this:

What did you see

to include the uncircumcised person as prohibited in eating teruma by the gzera shava “resident and hired laborer,” and to interpret “of it,” stated concerning the circumcision of his slaves, as coming to exclude teruma?

But one can say the opposite: The gzera shava comes to include the circumcision of his males and his slaves, so that it prevents him from eating teruma, while “of it,” stated concerning the uncircumcised person, comes to exclude teruma? And we answer:

It is logical; uncircumcision of his own body

[of the one who eats]

should have been included

as prohibited with regard to teruma, and not the uncircumcision of his sons or his slaves,

for

the uncircumcision of his own body is more stringent than the uncircumcision of his males and his slaves in two matters:

a. His own foreskin is

an act

of circumcision that is lacking

in the body

of the person.

b.

And he is liable to karet

for his own foreskin if he does not circumcise himself.

But the foreskin of his males and his slaves is not an act lacking in his own body, and he is not liable to karet for it.

And we object:

On the contrary, the circumcision of his males and his slaves should have been included

as prohibited with regard to teruma by the gzera shava, and not the uncircumcised person,

for:

The foreskin of his males and his slaves

exists at every time

that a son is born to him or he acquires a slave, whereas his own foreskin, from the time that he circumcised himself once, does not return ever.

And we answer:

These

two stringencies concerning his own foreskin

are more numerous [they are more numerous] than the single stringency concerning the circumcision of his males and his slaves.

And therefore it is logical to interpret the gzera shava as including the prohibition concerning the uncircumcision of his own body, whereas “of it,” stated concerning the circumcision of his males and his slaves, comes to exclude teruma.

And “of it,” stated concerning the uncircumcised person—the Gemara interprets it and proceeds below, on 71a.

And “of it,” stated concerning the uncircumcised person—the Gemara interprets it and proceeds below, on 71a.

And if you wish, say

there is another answer: also

without

the answer of

“these are more numerous,” you likewise cannot say

that the inclusion comes to prohibit him concerning teruma on account of the uncircumcision of his males and his slaves, while “of it” comes to permit eating with his own foreskin, for:

Is there such a thing

as this,

that uncircumcision of his own body does not prevent him

[does not prevent him] from eating teruma, whereas

the uncircumcision of others

[of others, his males and his slaves]

prevents him

from eating teruma!?

And now the Gemara explains further:

And we inquire about this:

Now,

now

that you say,

that

“of it”

stated in the verse concerning the circumcision of his males and his slaves

comes only for an exposition

[it comes for an exposition], that you learn from the word “of it” that the circumcision of his males and his slaves prevents him only from eating the Passover offering and not from eating teruma—

This that the verse stated concerning the Passover offering,

“Every uncircumcised person shall not eat of it.”

And likewise this that the verse stated concerning the Passover offering,

“Every foreigner

[one who became apostate, and whose deeds became foreign to his Father in Heaven ]

shall not eat of it”—

why do I need it,

for what exposition did the verse state “of it” in these two verses?

And we answer:

a. In the verse

“Every uncircumcised person shall not eat of it,”

the word

“of it”

serves for this exposition: Only concerning the Passover offering

he does not eat

of it, the uncircumcised person,

but he does eat

of it, he is obligated

in matza and maror.

2. And in the verse

“No foreigner may eat of it”—

the word

“of it”

serves for this exposition: