Yevamot 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

Apparently,

it is proven that

he does not acquire him,

the body of the Hebrew slave,

for his master.

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

and consequently he does not eat teruma.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the Passover offering,

he does not acquire him

himself

for his master.

Since the verse revealed concerning teruma that a Hebrew slave is not acquired by his master through acquisition of the body, he is therefore a full-fledged Israelite with regard to the Passover offering. Certainly, he is not exempt from offering and eating the Passover offering. How, then, could the verse say about him, “A resident and a hired laborer may not eat of it”?!

Rather,

since a resident and a hired laborer do in fact eat the Passover offering, when the verse says concerning the Passover offering, “A resident and a hired laborer may not eat of it,” it necessarily does not mean that they may not eat it; rather, it is only

made available,

to be free for a gezera shava, so that we may learn from the Passover offering by a gezera shava to teruma that an uncircumcised person may not eat it.

The Gemara asks:

And still,

even for the derivation by gezera shava from “a resident and a hired laborer,” this is insufficient, since this verse is

available on one side

alone

.

And

behold,

we have learned this from Rabbi Eliezer, who said:

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

available on one side

alone—

we derive

from it only when this derivation cannot be refuted.

And

yet,

it can be refuted

when there is a basis for a refutation. In that case, we do not derive from it.

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

And we answer:

Since

the entire verse concerning “resident and hired servant” stated with regard to the Paschal offering

is not needed for its own matter

at all, we have before us two superfluous words, “resident and hired servant,” to make available for derivation. Therefore—

Take

one of

the two

words

and apply it to the subject being derived.

That is, remove one word from its place and attach it to the subject being derived—namely, to the matter of eating teruma, which is derived from the laws of the Paschal offering—as though that superfluous word had been written with regard to teruma.

And apply the other one—

to the source of the derivation.

Apply the second superfluous word and attach it to the Paschal offering, which is the source from which the law of eating teruma is derived.

That is, leave it in its place and associate it with the Paschal offering as a superfluous word, so that this word is available for the derivation of a gzera shava.

And it thereby becomes

for us a derivation of a

gzera shava

that is

available on both sides.

With regard to a gzera shava for which there is a verse available on both sides, everyone agrees that we derive from it and do not refute it, even when there is a basis for a refutation.

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

If there is a gzera shava between the Paschal offering and teruma, let us equate their laws also with regard to the prohibition against eating while in mourning, and say:

If

with regard to the

Paschal offering—

a person who is

an onen

is prohibited from eating it

as food [like all other sacred offerings, whose prohibition is derived by a kal va-chomer from ma'aser sheni, concerning which it is stated: “I have not eaten of it in my mourning”]—

Then with regard to teruma as well—

an onen should be prohibited from eating it!

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina

answered

and explained:

The verse states: “And every

stranger

shall not eat of it” [with regard to teruma].

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

“strangeness I told you

with regard to eating teruma,”

but not

the prohibition against eating teruma in a state of

mourning.

The Gemara considers this:

Say

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

Rather, the intent of the verse is to say: Only strangeness did I tell you is prohibited in eating teruma,

but not uncircumcision.

Then an uncircumcised priest would be permitted to eat teruma.

And we answer: It is impossible to say this, because

it is written

a gzera shava concerning

“resident and hired servant”,

to derive the law of teruma from the Paschal offering.

Just as an uncircumcised person may not eat the Paschal offering, so too he may not eat teruma.

The Gemara considers this:

What did you see

that led you to include an uncircumcised person as prohibited from eating teruma by means of the gzera shava, and to exclude an onen from the derivation of “every stranger”?

One could say the opposite: The gzera shava comes to include an onen as prohibited from eating teruma, while “and every stranger” comes to permit an uncircumcised priest to eat teruma.

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that

uncircumcision should be included

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

For

an uncircumcised person is more severely restricted than an onen in four respects. And its mnemonic is:

a.

Deeds

b.

Cut off

c.

The matter

d.

The slave

a. Deeds:

An uncircumcised person

is lacking an act

of circumcision needed to rectify his body.

And

the

act

that he lacks

is lacking in his body

itself.

b. Cut off:

And

an uncircumcised person

is liable to karet

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

c. The matter:

And it exists

for the mitzva of circumcision even

before the Revelation

[the giving of the Torah], since Abraham our forefather had already been commanded concerning it.

d. The slave:

And the circumcision of his sons

by the father,

and

the circumcision of

his slaves

by the master,

prevents

the father or the master from offering the Paschal sacrifice.

If he has a son who is fit to be circumcised, or a slave who is fit to be circumcised, the father or master may not eat the Paschal offering unless he circumcises him.

All four of these matters are stringencies that apply only to an uncircumcised person and not to an onen. Therefore, by means of the gzera shava from the Paschal offering, we include an uncircumcised person in the prohibition, and not an onen.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary! Mourning should have been included

in the prohibition by means of the gzera shava rather than an uncircumcised person, and “every stranger” should be interpreted as coming to exclude an uncircumcised person from the prohibition against eating teruma,

for

mourning is more severe than uncircumcision in these respects:

a. Mourning

exists at every time

when a person’s relative dies.

By contrast, once an uncircumcised person removes his foreskin, his uncircumcision never returns.

b.

And mourning applies

to

men and women.

This is not so with regard to uncircumcision, which applies to men and women.

c.

And it is not in the power of

the

onen to rectify himself.

But an uncircumcised person can circumcise himself.

And we answer:

These

stringencies that we listed with regard to uncircumcision

are more numerous [

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

Rava said:

Even

without

the answer that

“these are more numerous,”

you still cannot say

that the gzera shava comes to include an onen in the prohibition, while an uncircumcised person is permitted to eat teruma by virtue of the exclusion “and every stranger.”

Should we leave aside

the derivation by gzera shava from the Paschal offering of the prohibition of

uncircumcision, as it is written [

that it is written]

in the body of the

Paschal

offering,

and

instead

derive

by gzera shava the prohibition against eating teruma in a state of

mourning from the

Paschal

offering,

when

the

prohibition against an onen eating the

Paschal offering itself

we derive from ma'aser!?

That is: Should we derive the law of mourning from the Paschal offering when mourning itself is not written in the section concerning the Paschal offering, but is derived from ma'aser sheni, concerning which it is stated: “I have not eaten of it in my mourning,” whereas uncircumcision is stated explicitly with regard to the Paschal offering!?

The Gemara nevertheless raises another difficulty against Rabbi Eliezer, who derives by gzera shava from the Paschal offering that an uncircumcised person is prohibited from eating teruma:

If with regard to the Paschal offering, the circumcision of one’s sons and slaves

prevents him from offering the Paschal sacrifice,

then teruma as well

should have

the circumcision of one’s sons and slaves prevent him

from eating teruma until he circumcises them?

And we answer:

The verse states

a limiting expression concerning the circumcision of slaves in the context of the Paschal offering:

“You shall circumcise him;

then he may eat of it” [

the master, with regard to the Paschal offering].

And the verse used the limitation “of it,” with regard only to the Paschal offering, in order to teach you:

The circumcision of one’s sons and slaves prevents him with regard to it,

the Paschal offering,

from eating the Paschal offering.

But the circumcision of one’s sons and slaves does not prevent him with regard to

eating

teruma.

We raise a difficulty:

If so,

since you derive from “of it,” stated with regard to the circumcision of his slaves, that the circumcision of his slaves does not prevent him from eating teruma—

Say

that same derivation, from the limiting word “of it,” permits an uncircumcised person to eat teruma.

For it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering:

“No uncircumcised person may eat of it.”

And let us exclude,

“of it,”

with regard to the Paschal offering:

he may not eat

the uncircumcised person.

But he may eat

an uncircumcised priest

from teruma!

And we answer:

But

on the other hand

it is written, “resident and hired servant,”

to derive from the Paschal offering by means of a gzera shava a law concerning teruma, and an uncircumcised person is included through it.

The Gemara considers this:

What did you see

that led you to include an uncircumcised person as prohibited from eating teruma by means of the gzera shava “resident and hired servant,” and to interpret “of it,” stated with regard to the circumcision of his slaves, as coming to exclude teruma?

One could say the opposite: The gzera shava comes to include the circumcision of his sons and slaves as preventing him from eating teruma, while “of it,” stated with regard to the uncircumcised person, comes to exclude teruma! And we answer:

It is reasonable that uncircumcision of one’s own body [

of the person himself]

should be included

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

for

the uncircumcision of his own body is more severe than the uncircumcision of his sons and slaves in two respects:

a. His own uncircumcision involves

an act

of circumcision that is lacking

in his body,

the person himself.

b.

And he is liable to karet

for his own uncircumcision if he does not circumcise himself.

By contrast, the uncircumcision of his sons and slaves is not an act lacking in his own body, and he is not liable to karet on account of it.

And we challenge this:

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

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

for:

The uncircumcision of his sons and slaves

exists at every time

when a son is born to him or he acquires a slave, whereas his own uncircumcision, once he circumcises himself one time, never returns.

And we answer:

These

two stringencies of his own uncircumcision

are more numerous [

they are more numerous] than the single stringency of the circumcision of his sons and slaves.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the gzera shava as including the prohibition of uncircumcision of one’s own body, while “of it,” stated with regard to the circumcision of his sons and slaves, comes to exclude teruma.

[And “of it,” stated with regard to the uncircumcised person, is explained further below, on 71a.]

And if you wish, say

that one can answer: Even

without

the answer of

“these are more numerous,” you still cannot say

that the inclusion comes to prohibit him from eating teruma on account of the uncircumcision of his sons and slaves, while “of it” comes to permit him to eat despite his own uncircumcision, for:

Is there such a thing

as

that his own uncircumcision does not prevent him [

does not prevent him] from eating teruma, while

the uncircumcision of others [

of others, his sons and slaves]

does prevent him

from eating teruma!?

The Gemara now explains further:

The Gemara considers this:

Now

that

you say

that

“of it”

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

comes for a derivation [

comes for a derivation], since you derive from the word “of it” that the circumcision of his sons and slaves prevents him only from eating the Paschal offering and not from eating teruma—

This that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering:

“No uncircumcised person may eat of it,”

and likewise this that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering:

“No foreign son [

one who has apostatized, whose deeds have become foreign to his Father in Heaven ]

may eat of it”—

why do I need it,

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

And we answer:

a. In the verse

“No uncircumcised person may eat of it,”

the word

“of it”

serves for this derivation: Only with regard to the Paschal offering

may he not eat

of it, the uncircumcised person;

but he may eat

of it, and is obligated

to eat matza and maror.

b. And in the verse

“No foreign son may eat of it”—

the word

“of it”

serves for the following derivation: