Yevamot 73b — the Talmud in English

b.

And

he

eats them

the tithe and first fruits

in their own impurity

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

he is flogged

[but Rabbi Shimon holds that he is not flogged].

What is different in teruma:

if he ate it in its own impurity, he is not flogged, because it is only a prohibition derived from a positive commandment [and further on in the sugya the source for all that is explained here is clarified]—

All these distinctions—

the tanna did not teach

them.

It follows: he taught, and omitted.

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

The Master said:

And they are forbidden

the tithe and first fruits

to an onen, and Rabbi Shimon permits

the first fruits to an onen:

And we considered it:

From where do they have it

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

And we answer: From this,

as it is written: “You may not eat within your gates

[in the common areas]

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

[this is second tithe]

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

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

—this is first fruits,

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

And

since

first fruits were compared to the tithe

in this verse, you learn:

just as the tithe is forbidden to an onen,

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

so too first fruits are forbidden to an onen.

And Rabbi Shimon,

who permits first fruits to an onen, holds so because

“the Merciful One called them ‘teruma’

”—first fruits—as He said: “And the offering of your hand.”

Just as teruma is permitted to an onen,

as was explained in the earlier sugya: “I told you of foreignness, but not of mourning,”

so too first fruits are permitted to an onen.

The Master said:

And they are obligated

the tithe and first fruits

in removal.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

first fruits from removal:

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

One Master—

the first tanna—

compares

first fruits to the tithe.

And the tithe requires removal, as it is stated concerning the removal of the tithe: “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 at the time of the removal of the tithe: “I have removed the sacred thing from the house”—this is second tithe and fourth-year produce.

And this is consistent with his position concerning an onen.

And the other Master—

Rabbi Shimon—

does not compare

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

And this is consistent with his position concerning an onen.

The Master said:

And it is forbidden to remove from them

from the tithe and the first fruits

in impurity, and

he

who eats them in their own impurity is flogged:

And we explain:

From where do we know this?

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

Since in the confession of second tithe the one making the confession says:

“I have not removed from it

[I did not burn it with fire and did not kindle with it]

in impurity,”

it is implicit in his words: not only did I not remove it in purity, but used it only for eating, drinking, and anointing, but even in impurity, when I was prevented from eating it, even then I did not remove from it—

And the expression “in impurity” includes:

whether I am

impure

and it

the second tithe

is pure.

And

whether

I

am pure, and it—

the second tithe—

is impure—

I did not use it in impurity.

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

And

however,

where is he warned concerning its eating

in impurity?

I do not know

a specific prohibition for this [the conclusion of the beraita is: therefore the verse states: “You may not eat within your gates”].

Before the transcription of the conclusion of the beraita, which explains the source of this prohibition, the Gemara raises an objection to it, because it occurred to us that this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: even “when I am impure and it is pure,” I do not know where he is warned concerning its eating; and therefore we ask:

But the prohibition against eating second tithe in

the impurity of the body

of the one eating

is explicitly written concerning it!

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 was stated concerning second tithe, for it permits one who has immersed during the day [as it says: “unless he has washed his flesh in water”], which is not permitted with sacred things or teruma?!

Rather,

this is what he is asking

Rabbi Shimon in the beraita.

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

Rather,

its own impurity

of the second tithe—

from where?

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

And here the Gemara returns to the conclusion of the beraita, which explains the source of the prohibition against eating second tithe in its own impurity:

The verse states

concerning second tithe:

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

your wine and your oil.

And below—

concerning disqualified sacred offerings after their redemption—

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

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael

teaches that the verse

teaches that even an impure person and a pure person eat

redeemed disqualified sacred offerings

at one table, from one bowl, and they need not be concerned!

For the pure person is not concerned about the impurity by which the food became impure through the contact of the impure person, since even after they became impure they may be eaten.

And the Merciful One says

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

“That which, as I told you there, ‘within your gates you shall eat it,’

—their own impurity, which I permitted you in disqualified sacred offerings—

here,

in second tithe,

you may not eat

[do not eat]!

It follows from this beraita:

a. Second tithe is not removed in its own impurity; and if so, the same is true of first fruits, since according to the first tanna they were compared to the tithe. [But according to Rabbi Shimon, who equates the law of first fruits with that of teruma in every respect, first fruits are removed in their own impurity, just as teruma is removed, Rashi on the first side].

b. One who eats second tithe in its own impurity is flogged; and the same is true of first fruits according to the first tanna. [But according to Rabbi Shimon he is not flogged, just as he is not flogged for teruma, Rashi there].

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

which is not so with teruma:

From where do we know

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

in its own impurity.

But you may burn impure teruma oil.

And we object:

But say:

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

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

such as the oil of meal-offerings—

that became impure.

And the Gemara answers the objection by way of astonishment:

But

is it not a kal va-chomer

that impure sacred property should be forbidden to burn?!

And if the tithe

second tithe

which is lenient

relative to sacred property,

the Torah said

concerning it:

“I have not removed from it in impurity,”

sacred property,

which is

more stringent

than the tithe—

is it not all the more so

that it should be forbidden?

And we object:

If so, since you reason by such a kal va-chomer, how do you exclude teruma, which is burned in impurity?

But

surely

teruma too is subject to a kal va-chomer

that it should be forbidden, for teruma too is more stringent than the tithe?!

And we answer:

It is written

concerning second tithe: “I have not removed

from it

in impurity.”

And inevitably, the verse came to exclude teruma.

And we consider it:

And what did you see

that you exclude teruma and not sacred property? For both are more stringent than the tithe?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable that

sacred property

I would not exclude,

but teruma,

since

sacred property is more stringent than teruma in these stringencies, whose mnemonic is:

P-N-K-Ayin-Kaf-Samekh—

P

sacred property is forbidden because of

P

pigul, but teruma is not.

N

sacred property is forbidden because of

N

notar, but teruma is not.

K

sacred property is called a

“K

orban,” bringing it inside to the Temple courtyard, whereas teruma is not called a sacrifice.

Ayin

one who derives benefit from sacred property inadvertently is liable for a sacrifice for

Ayin

misuse, whereas from teruma he adds a fifth and does not bring a sacrifice.

Kaf

one who eats sacred property in bodily impurity is liable for

Kaf

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

Samekh

and

s

acred property is forbidden to an onen, whereas teruma is permitted to him.

And we object:

On the contrary,

we should say that

teruma I would not exclude

to permit its burning in impurity, but sacred property—

since

teruma is more stringent than sacred property in these stringencies, whose mnemonic is:

Mem-Het-Peh-Zayin—

Mem

one who eats teruma in bodily impurity is liable to

mem

death at the hands of Heaven, [Rashi], whereas for eating sacred property in impurity he is liable to karet.

Het

and a non-priest who eats teruma inadvertently is liable to pay an addition of

het

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

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

Peh

teruma has no

p

redemption, whereas with sacred property we find redemption when it has not yet been sanctified with bodily sanctity in a vessel.

Zayin

teruma is forbidden to

z

These

And since teruma too is more stringent than sacred property, the objection returns: what did you see that you exclude sacred property and not teruma?!

And we explain:

These

stringencies in which sacred property is more stringent than teruma

are more numerous

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

And if you wish, say: The stringency of

the

karet

that applies in sacred property to one who eats it in bodily impurity

is preferable

to all the other stringencies that apply to teruma.

The Master said:

“And one who eats them in their own impurity is ‘flogged,’ which is not so with teruma”:

And the Gemara infers:

It is flogging that he does not receive,

one who eats teruma in its own impurity.

But a prohibition—

there is!

And we consider it:

From where do we know

the prohibition against eating teruma in its own impurity?

And we explain: When

the verse says

concerning redeemed disqualified sacred offerings:

“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 through which the food became impure by means of the impure person.

And it is inferred from the wording of the verse, “you shall eat it,” that it comes to exclude and say: specifically

this one

shall eat it,

but not another!

And the verse comes to exclude teruma.

And a prohibition derived from a positive commandment,

its definition is

a prohibition derived from a positive commandment,

and one is not flogged for it.

Here the Gemara returns to the question left unresolved by the members of the academy above, whether an uncircumcised man is permitted to eat second tithe; and to the proof brought for the prohibition of an uncircumcised man with second tithe—from the first clause, in which the uncircumcised man was not listed among the matters that apply to teruma and first fruits but not to the tithe; and to the Gemara’s rejection, that “he taught and omitted,” just as he omitted in the latter clause:

Rav Ashi said,

to add to the Gemara’s rejection:

From the first clause

itself

you can also infer it: he taught and omitted.

Since he did not teach

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