Yevamot 73b (עג:) — the Talmud in English

b.

And

they

who eat them

the tithe and the first fruits

in a state of impurity

[the impurity of the object, not of the person]

are flogged

[whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that they are not flogged].

This is not so with teruma,

for if one ate it in a state of impurity, he is not flogged, since this is only a prohibition derived from a positive commandment [and later in the sugya the source of all that is stated here is explained]—

all these distinctions

the tanna did not teach

.

Apparently: He taught some matters and omitted others.

And just as he omitted these matters in the latter clause, so too he omitted the case of the uncircumcised man in the first clause.

The Master said:

And they are prohibited

the tithe and the first fruits

to an onen, and Rabbi Shimon permits

the first fruits to an onen:

And we raised the following question:

From where do they derive

that, according to the Sages, the first fruits are prohibited to an onen?

And we answer: From this verse:

“You may not eat within your gates

[outside Jerusalem]

the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil

[this is second tithe]

and the firstborn of your cattle, and the teruma of your hand.”

And the Master said: “The teruma of your hand”

refers to the first fruits,

as it is stated concerning them: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand.”

And

since

the first fruits were juxtaposed to the tithe

in this verse, you learn:

Just as second tithe is prohibited to an onen,

as it is stated: “I have not eaten of it in my mourning,”

so too first fruits are prohibited to an onen.

But Rabbi Shimon,

who permits first fruits to an onen, bases his reasoning on the fact that

“the Merciful One called them ‘teruma’”

—as it says: “And the teruma of your hand.”

Just as teruma is permitted to an onen,

as was explained earlier in the sugya: “I told you [to avoid] foreignness, but not mourning,”

so too first fruits are permitted to an onen.

The Sages maintain that although the first fruits are called teruma, nevertheless, with regard to the stringencies that apply to second tithe but not to teruma, the first fruits were juxtaposed to second tithe, Ritva.

The Master said:

And they are obligated

the tithe and the first fruits

in the removal.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

the first fruits from removal:

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute:

One Master

—the first tanna—

juxtaposes

the first fruits to second tithe.

And second tithe requires removal, as it is stated concerning the removal of tithes: “When you have finished tithing all the tithe of your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe.”

And he says in the confession made at the time of removing the tithe: “I have removed the sacred portion from the house”—this refers to second tithe and fourth-year produce.

And this is consistent with his position concerning an onen.

And the other Master

—Rabbi Shimon—

does not juxtapose

the first fruits to second tithe, since “the Merciful One called them teruma” [Tosafot], and teruma does not require removal—

and this is consistent with his position concerning an onen.

The Master said:

And it is prohibited to remove from them

—from the tithe and the first fruits—

in a state of impurity, and

one who

eats them in a state of impurity is flogged:

And we explain:

From where do we derive this?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

Since, in the confession over second tithe, the confessor says:

“I have not removed anything from it

[I did not burn it in fire, nor did I kindle it]

in impurity,”

it is implicit in his words that he means: I did not merely refrain from removing it in purity, using it only for eating, drinking, and anointing, but even when it was impure, when I was prevented from eating it, I still did not remove anything from it—

and the expression “in impurity” includes:

whether I was

impure

and it

—the second tithe—was

pure,

and

whether

when

I was pure, and it

—the second tithe—was

impure—

I did not use it in impurity.

Accordingly, I learn from his confession that in these circumstances he was prevented from eating the second tithe.

But

nevertheless,

where is he warned concerning eating it

in impurity?

I do not know

of an explicit prohibition to this effect [and the conclusion of the beraita is: Therefore the verse states: “You may not eat within your gates”].

Before the beraita’s conclusion, which explains the source of this prohibition, is quoted, the Gemara challenges it, because it initially understood Rabbi Shimon to be saying: Even “when I am impure and it is pure,” I do not know where one is warned concerning eating it. Therefore we ask:

But the prohibition against eating second tithe in

the bodily impurity

of the person eating it

is explicitly written!

As it is stated:

“A person who touches it shall be impure until evening, and shall not eat of the sacred things unless he has washed his flesh in water.” And this verse is stated concerning second tithe, since it permits one who has immersed that day [as it says: “unless he has washed his flesh in water”], whereas such a person is not permitted to eat sacrificial food or teruma. Is that not so?

“A person who touches it shall be impure until evening, and shall not eat of the sacred things unless he has washed his flesh in water.” And this verse is stated concerning second tithe, since it permits one who has immersed that day [as it says: “unless he has washed his flesh in water”], whereas such a person is not permitted to eat sacrificial food or teruma. Is that not so?

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Shimon is asking

in the beraita.

That is, Rabbi Shimon did not say, concerning “when I am impure and it is pure”: I do not know where one is warned concerning eating it.

Rather,

the impurity of the object itself

—of the second tithe—

from where?

That is, it is concerning “when I am pure and it is impure” that Rabbi Shimon said: I do not know where one is warned concerning eating it.

The Gemara now returns to the conclusion of the beraita, which explains the source of the prohibition against eating second tithe when the object itself is impure:

The verse states

concerning second tithe:

“You may not eat ‘within your gates’ the tithe of your grain,”

your wine, and your oil.

And elsewhere

—concerning consecrated animals disqualified from sacrifice after their redemption—

it says: “Within your gates you shall eat it; the impure and the pure together, as the gazelle and as the deer.”

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

that the verse teaches

that even an impure person and a pure person may eat

redeemed disqualified sacrificial animals

at one table, from one bowl, without concern!

For the pure person need not be concerned about the impurity imparted to the food through contact with the impure person, since even after the food becomes impure it may still be eaten.

And the Merciful One says

[and the verse teaches you] in the verse “You may not eat”:

That which, there, I told you, “Within your gates you shall eat it,”

namely, the impurity of the objects themselves, which I permitted to you in the case of disqualified sacrificial animals—

here,

in the case of second tithe,

you may not eat

[do not eat it]!

It follows from this beraita that:

a. Second tithe is not removed when it is impure. Accordingly, the same applies to the first fruits, since according to the first tanna they were juxtaposed to second tithe [whereas according to Rabbi Shimon, who equates the law of the first fruits with that of teruma in every respect, the first fruits are removed when impure, just as teruma is removed, Rashi on the previous amud].

b. One who eats second tithe when the object itself is impure is flogged. The same applies to the first fruits according to the first tanna [whereas according to Rabbi Shimon he is not flogged, just as one is not flogged for eating teruma in this state, Rashi there].

The Master said: It is prohibited to remove them in impurity,

which is not so with teruma:

From where do we derive

that impurity permits teruma to be burned?

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Because

the verse says

concerning second tithe:

“I have not removed ‘from it’ in impurity.”

“From it”

[from second tithe],

you may not burn

when the object itself is impure.

But you may burn impure teruma oil.

And we challenge this:

Say

that the verse did not come to exclude teruma, but rather to teach:

“From it” you may not burn, but you may burn sacred oil

—such as the oil of meal-offerings—

when it is impure.

The Gemara resolves the challenge rhetorically:

But

is this not a kal va-homer,

that impure sacred food should be prohibited from burning?!

And if second tithe,

which is

less stringent

than sacred food,

the Torah says

concerning it:

“I have not removed from it in impurity,”

sacred food,

which is

more stringent

than the tithe—

all the more so

should it be prohibited.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since you derive such a kal va-homer, how can you exclude teruma, which may be burned in impurity?

But

teruma too is subject to a kal va-homer

that it should be prohibited, since teruma too is more stringent than the tithe?!

And we answer:

It is written

concerning second tithe:

“From it”

in impurity.

And inevitably, the verse came to exclude teruma.

And we ask:

What did you see

that led you to exclude teruma rather than sacred food? Both are more stringent than the tithe?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable that

I should not exclude sacred food

but rather teruma,

since

the sacred is more stringent than teruma with regard to these matters, as indicated by the mnemonic

P-N-K-E-A-K-S—

P

Sacred food is prohibited as

piggul, whereas teruma is not.

N

Sacred food is prohibited as

notar, whereas teruma is not.

K

Sacred food is called

“a sacrifice” to indicate that it must be brought inside to the Temple courtyard, whereas teruma is not called a sacrifice.

E

One who derives benefit from sacred food inadvertently is liable for a sacrifice for

misuse, whereas one who derives benefit from teruma adds a fifth but does not bring a sacrifice.

"karban" to bring it before the altar, and teruma is not called a korban.

A

One who derives benefit from consecrated food unintentionally is liable for

asham, the offering for misuse of consecrated property, whereas one who derives benefit from teruma must add a fifth of its value but does not bring an offering.

misuse, whereas one who derives benefit from teruma adds a fifth but does not bring a sacrifice.

K

One who eats sacred food in a state of bodily impurity is liable for

karet, whereas one who eats teruma is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.

S

Sacred food

is prohibited to an onen, whereas teruma

is permitted to him.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary,

we should say that

I should not exclude teruma

to permit its burning in impurity, but rather should exclude sacred food—

since

teruma is more stringent than sacred food with regard to these matters, as indicated by the mnemonic

M-H-P-Z—

M

One who eats teruma in a state of bodily impurity is liable for

death at the hands of Heaven,

whereas for eating sacred food in impurity he is liable to

karet.

H

A non-priest who inadvertently eats teruma must pay an additional

fifth, even when the teruma is permitted to a priest.

But with sacred food, once it becomes permitted to priests, there is no longer either a sacrifice for misuse or an additional fifth [Rashi].

P

Teruma has no

redemption, whereas with sacred food we find redemption while it has not yet acquired intrinsic sanctity through a consecrating vessel.

Z

Teruma is prohibited to

non-priests, whereas with sacred food we find permission for non-priests to eat lesser sacred food.

And since teruma too is more stringent than sacred food, the question again arises: What did you see that led you to exclude sacred food rather than teruma?!

And we explain:

These

stringencies in which sacred food is more stringent than teruma

are more numerous

[they are more numerous] than the stringencies in which teruma is more stringent than sacred food.

Alternatively,

the stringency of

karet

that applies to one who eats sacred food in a state of bodily impurity

is superior

to all the other stringencies that apply to teruma.

The Master said:

“And one who eats them in a state of impurity of the objects themselves is ‘flogged,’ which is not so with teruma”:

The Gemara infers:

It is only that he is not flogged

if he eats teruma when the object itself is impure.

But there is a prohibition!

And we ask:

From where

is there a prohibition against eating teruma when the object itself is impure?

And we explain:

When

the verse says

concerning redeemed disqualified sacrificial animals:

“Within your gates you shall eat it;

the impure and the pure together.”

The verse teaches that the pure person need not be concerned about the impurity imparted through the impure person.

And the wording of the verse, “you shall eat it,” implies that it comes to exclude, saying: Only

this

may you eat,

but not another!

And the verse thereby excludes teruma.

And a prohibition derived from a positive commandment

is classified as

a prohibition of a positive commandment,

and one is not flogged for it.

The Gemara now returns to the question left unresolved above by the students of the academy: whether an uncircumcised man is permitted to eat second tithe. The proof offered for the prohibition of an uncircumcised man from second tithe was based on the first clause, in which the uncircumcised man was not listed among the matters that apply to teruma and the first fruits but not to second tithe. The Gemara rejected this proof by saying: “He taught some matters and omitted others,” just as he omitted matters in the latter clause:

Rav Ashi said,

to add to the Gemara’s rejection:

From the first clause itself you can also infer that he taught some matters and omitted others.

Since he did not teach

in the first clause the following additional distinctions between teruma and the first fruits and second tithe:

From the first clause

itself

you can also infer that he taught some cases and omitted others.

Since he did not teach

in the first clause the following additional distinctions between teruma and first fruits and second tithe: