Yevamot 73a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains the source for the law that a tevul yom is fit for the para:

It is written:

“And the pure shall sprinkle it upon the impure.”

The verse did not need to state this, since the Torah calls the red heifer a “sin-offering”; therefore, the sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer must necessarily be performed specifically by a pure person.

Rather, it comes to teach:

that with regard only to sprinkling, he is considered

“pure”—

and

from this

you learn

that he is impure

.

The verse

taught

about a tevul yom [

who is still impure with regard to teruma, but is already called “pure,” as it is written: “And he shall wash in water, and become pure.” ]—

that he is fit

for

the

service of

the red heifer.

The members of the academy asked

Rav Sheshet:

An uncircumcised person—

what is his status with regard to

second tithe?

And the Gemara explains the two sides of the uncertainty:

Should we say:

Just as he derives

the eating of

the Paschal offering

from second tithe

with regard to

acute mourning,

so too, he derives second tithe

from

the Paschal offering with regard to being uncircumcised,

as an uncircumcised person is forbidden to eat it?

Or perhaps:

only

the more stringent [

the Paschal offering and other consecrated offerings ]

from the less stringent [

second tithe ]

does he derive.

But

from the less stringent to the more stringent—

.

Rav Sheshet said to them:

Рав Шешет:

You have learned it;

we learned an explicit answer to this question in a Mishna in tractate Bekhorot [2a]:

Teruma and first fruits—

one is liable to death at the hand of Heaven for them

if an impure person eats them.

And

a non-koen adds

a fifth

to the principal if he ate them unintentionally.

And

teruma and first fruits

are forbidden to non-koanim.

And they,

teruma and first fruits,

are the property of a koen,

to betroth a woman with them, and to purchase slaves, land, and an impure animal with them.

And they are nullified [

when mixed ]

in one

part of teruma

and one hundred

parts of non-sacred produce mixed with it; a mere majority is not sufficient to nullify them.

And they require

teruma and first fruits

the washing of hands

even when they are fruit, since ordinary hands are presumed to have second-degree impurity and, by rabbinic decree, disqualify teruma and first fruits.

And

they require

sunset,

but while he is still a tevul yom, he is forbidden to eat them.

Behold,

all

these distinctions apply to teruma and first fruits, unlike second tithe

.

For second tithe is permitted to non-koanim and is not the property of its owners, and if second tithe became mixed with non-sacred produce, it is nullified by a majority; second tithe has the status of non-sacred produce and does not require the washing of hands, for one who washes his hands for it is considered presumptuous; and a tevul yom is permitted to eat it, and it does not require sunset.

Rav Sheshet proves from this Mishna that an uncircumcised person is forbidden even to eat second tithe, just as he is forbidden to eat teruma, for:

If it is so,

that an uncircumcised person is permitted to eat second tithe,

let the tanna teach

this distinction as well:

An uncircumcised person is forbidden to eat them

—teruma and first fruits —

unlike second tithe

.

Rather, the Mishna certainly proves that an uncircumcised person is also forbidden to eat second tithe.

And we reject this proof:

The tanna

taught several distinctions in the Mishna

and omitted

this distinction.

And what else did he omit

the tanna

that he omitted this?

And we explain:

He omitted

the matter

that he teaches

in

the latter clause.

Although in the first clause the tanna omitted nothing besides the matter of the uncircumcised person, nevertheless, among the distinctions that the tanna taught in the latter clause, he omitted this one:

And so we learned in the latter clause of that same Mishna:

There are distinctions applying to second tithe and first fruits that do not apply to teruma.

For second tithe and first fruits—

require being brought to the designated place,

as second tithe is taken up to Jerusalem, while first fruits are brought to the Temple courtyard.

And they require

second tithe and first fruits

a confession.

One confesses over second tithe at the time of removal, saying: “I have removed the sacred portion from the house” [Deuteronomy 26:13]; and over first fruits one confesses when bringing them to the Temple courtyard, saying: “An Aramean sought to destroy my father” [Deuteronomy 26:5].

And they are forbidden

second tithe and first fruits

to an acute mourner, but Rabbi Shimon permits

first fruits to an acute mourner, [the reason for this is explained later in the sugya].

And they are liable

second tithe and first fruits

to removal.

Вот различия между второй десятиной и первыми плодами, которых нет в отношении терумы. Теруму едят даже за пределами Иерусалима; она не требует исповеди,

But Rabbi Shimon exempts

first fruits from removal, [the reason for this is explained later in the sugya].

These distinctions apply to second tithe and first fruits, unlike teruma.

For teruma may be eaten even outside the Land; it does not require a confession, it is permitted to an acute mourner, and it is not subject to removal.

Whereas

the following distinctions between second tithe and first fruits and teruma:

a.

It is forbidden to destroy any of them

from second tithe and first fruits [to use them for kindling] even

in a state of impurity

of the second tithe and first fruits, [and Rabbi Shimon permits]; unlike teruma, whose impurity permits it to be burned.