Yevamot 74a (עד.) — the Talmud in English

And they observe

teruma and bikkurim even

during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle

[the third and sixth years of the Shemitta years], when ma'aser sheni does not apply.

And they have no

for teruma and bikkurim

redemption—

which is not the case with the tithe

of the second tithe, which does not apply in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, and which does have redemption.

Learn from this:

that the tanna omitted a case. And just as he omitted these cases, he likewise omitted the case of the arel.

Come and hear

a resolution of the uncertainty raised by the scholars of the academy: Is an arel prohibited from consuming ma'aser sheni?

As it was taught in a beraita:

If there remained on him

[one who had been circumcised]

foreskin strips that impede the circumcision, he may eat neither teruma

for an arel is prohibited from eating it,

nor the Paschal offering, nor sacrificial food, nor tithe.

Is it not so that

“nor tithe” means

grain tithe,

namely, ma'aser sheni? For with regard to the first tithe and the poor tithe there is no sanctity at all, and there would be no novelty in stating this. You have therefore learned that an arel is prohibited from eating tithe.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you explained it, that “nor tithe” means the second tithe.

Rather, it means

animal tithe,

from which an arel is prohibited from eating, like all other sacrificial food.

And we raise an objection to this:

Animal tithe is sacrificial food,

and we have already learned “nor sacrificial food.” Why, then, does the tanna need to add animal tithe?

The Gemara raises an objection to this objection:

But according to your reasoning—

that you prove from this that “tithe” means ma'aser sheni, because animal tithe need not be stated, since it is included among sacrificial food—one can likewise raise a difficulty:

Did we not learn the Paschal offering, and

nevertheless

he also teaches

also

sacrificial food?

But the Paschal offering is included among sacrificial food, so why did the tanna need to teach it separately?

And we answer:

Granted, the Paschal offering and sacrificial food both need to be stated

together.

For had he taught the Paschal offering

alone, that the foreskin strips impede one from eating it, I would have said: The Paschal offering specifically,

because

the fundamental prohibition against an arel eating sacrificial food

the uncircumcised state—

with regard to the Paschal offering

is what

is written

[as the prohibition of the arel is stated in the Torah specifically with regard to the Paschal offering], as it is stated: “No uncircumcised person may eat of it,” and all other sacrificial food is derived from the Paschal offering.

But as for other sacrificial food,

with regard to which the prohibition against an arel eating it is not explicitly stated,

I might say no,

he should not be prohibited from eating it when foreskin strips remained on him.

And had he taught

in the beraita

sacrificial food

alone, that the foreskin strips impede one from eating it,

I would have said: What does “sacrificial food

mean? The Paschal offering

? And it is only with regard to it that he is prohibited, because the fundamental prohibition of the arel is written with regard to the Paschal offering; whereas concerning the other sacrificial food I would not know. Therefore, the tanna taught sacrificial food as well.

Rather,

according to your statement, that you interpret “nor tithe” as meaning

animal tithe,

there is a difficulty:

why do I need

to teach it?

Since the tanna taught “sacrificial food,” animal tithe must necessarily be included in “tithe,” meaning “grain tithe,” and not animal tithe. The proof therefore returns: An arel is prohibited from eating ma'aser sheni.

And we reject the proof in another manner:

Perhaps

what does “nor tithe” mean?

The first tithe—and it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The first tithe is prohibited to non-kohanim

and just as it is stringent with regard to non-kohanim, so it is stringent with regard to the uncircumcised.

Come and hear

that an arel is prohibited from eating ma'aser sheni,

from what Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: An arel is prohibited from eating two tithes.

Is it not so that

this is what he means:

one is the grain tithe

[the second tithe]

and one is the animal tithe—

an arel is prohibited from eating both of these tithes.

Thus it is proven that an arel is prohibited from eating ma'aser sheni.

And we reject this:

Here too,

the tanna’s intention is

the first tithe, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

who prohibits the first tithe to non-kohanim.

Come and hear: An acute mourner—

is prohibited from eating the second tithe,

while

he is permitted to eat teruma

[as was already mentioned above],

and

the water used in the

red heifer

[for it is not sacrificial food of the altar. And a tevul yom is permitted to partake of it, and certainly an acute mourner].

A tevul yom—

is prohibited from eating teruma, but is permitted

a tevul yom, since he is not “lacking atonement,”

to participate in the rites of the red heifer and to eat the tithe

[as all this was already mentioned above].

One lacking atonement

[such as a zav who experienced three sightings, a confirmed leper, or a woman who gave birth, who must bring an offering after becoming pure]—

is prohibited from participating in the rites of the red heifer ,

but is permitted to eat teruma and the second tithe

.

And if it is so,

that an arel is permitted to eat ma'aser sheni,

let us teach:

[A tevul yom and an]

arel are prohibited from eating teruma, but are permitted to participate in the rites of the red heifer and to eat the tithe!?

Rather, certainly an arel is prohibited from eating tithe.

And we reject this: In fact, an arel is permitted to eat ma'aser sheni. But the tanna did not teach “an arel is prohibited from eating teruma but is permitted to participate in the rites of the red heifer and to eat the tithe,” because the tanna also maintains that an arel is prohibited from participating in the rites of the red heifer.

For

this tanna—

is from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who derives that an arel

should have the legal status

of one who is impure.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: “Any man”—

comes to include an arel!

And according to Rabbi Akiva, an arel is prohibited from participating in the rites of the red heifer, as was explained according to his opinion in the sugya above, on page 72b.

That is, the beraita cited above, on page 72b, states: An arel who performed the sprinkling—the sprinkling is valid. Who is this tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that sprinkling by an arel is invalid?

And we explain:

The first tanna

of

Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian!

He is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian in the following beraita:

As it was taught in a beraita: The burning

of the red heifer by

an acute mourner and one lacking atonement

is

valid.

This is not as we learned in the previous beraita, which we interpreted as expressing the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: One lacking atonement is prohibited from participating in the rites of the red heifer.

Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian says:

The burning by

an acute mourner

is

valid.

But the burning by

one lacking atonement

is

invalid, as in the beraita cited above, which we interpreted as expressing the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Thus you have learned: The first tanna of Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, who deems one lacking atonement fit to participate in the rites of the red heifer. And just as he disagrees with him concerning one lacking atonement, so he disagrees with him concerning an arel. He is the tanna of the beraita cited above, on page 72b, which states: An arel who performed the sprinkling—the sprinkling is valid.

And also

Rabbi Yitzhak held: An arel is prohibited from eating the second tithe

.

For Rabbi Yitzhak said: From where is it derived that an arel is prohibited from eating the second tithe

?

It is derived by a gzera shava:

“From it” is stated with regard to tithe ,

and “from it” is stated with regard to the Paschal offering.

Just as with regard to “from it” stated concerning the Paschal offering,

the

arel is prohibited from eating it—

so too, with regard to “from it” stated concerning tithe, an arel is prohibited from eating it.

And this gzera shava is

available for derivation

[“from it” was not written except in order to derive the gzera shava, and later in the sugya it will be explained which occurrence of “from it” is available for derivation]!

For if it were not available for derivation,

one does not derive by a gzera shava of this type when there is a possible refutation; and here,

there is a basis for refutation: What is distinctive about the Paschal offering? It is subject to liability for piggul and notar

[one who eats piggul or notar is liable to receive karet]

and impurity

when one who is impure eats sacrificial food. Can you say the same with regard to tithe, for one is not liable for any of these [since piggul and notar are entirely inapplicable to it, and one who eats second tithe while impure is not liable to receive karet]?

Indeed

[in truth]—

it is available for derivation!

What is available for derivation—

which occurrence of “from it” is available: the one stated with regard to the second tithe, or the one stated with regard to the Paschal offering?

Rava said ]above, on page 71a, the version reads:

Rabba]

Rabbi Yitzhak said: Three occurrences of “from it” are written with regard to the Paschal offering

[the Torah writes “from it” three times in the passage concerning the Paschal offering]:

One occurrence of

“from it” [“They shall eat it with fire-roasted meat and matzot, with bitter herbs they shall eat it. You shall not eat of it raw”]—

is for its own purpose,

that is, had the verse not stated “from it,” I would have said that the verse is not speaking about the Paschal offering, but about “matzot and bitter herbs,” which were mentioned in the preceding verse [Tosafot].

And one occurrence of

“from it” [“You shall not leave of it until morning”] is available

for the gzera shava.

And one occurrence of

“from it” [“And that which remains of it until morning you shall burn in fire”] is subject to a dispute:

According to the one who says that the verse came

“And that which remains of it until morning you shall burn in fire,” which is superfluous, since it could have said, “And that which remains of it you shall burn in fire,” since it had already stated, “You shall not leave of it until morning”—in order

to give you an affirmative mitzva following a prohibition,

of “You shall not leave of it until morning,” in order to detach the prohibition and make it subject to an affirmative mitzva, meaning that one is not flogged for violating it, as is established: one is not flogged for a prohibition that is remedied by an affirmative mitzva—

therefore the verse stated “from it,” because

since

it

wrote “that which remains,” it

also wrote “from it.”

And according to the one who says

that the verse “And that which remains of it until morning” came—which is superfluous, since it should have said, “And that which remains of it you shall burn in fire,” as it had already stated, “You shall not leave of it until morning”—

to give you a second morning for its burning,

meaning that the verse comes to teach that sacrificial food is not burned on a Festival; if some of the Paschal offering remains, it is not burned on the first morning of the Festival, but on the second morning, during the intermediate days of the Festival.

Therefore, the verse stated “from it,” because

since it wrote “until morning,” it also wrote “from it.”

And once the Gemara has explained every occurrence of “from it” stated with regard to the Paschal offering, it explains the same way the occurrences in the second tithe:

One occurrence of

“from it” [“I have not eaten of it in my acute mourning”]

is for its own purpose,

that is, to exclude the first tithe, which may be eaten in acute mourning [the old Tosafot].

And one occurrence of

“from it” [“nor have I removed from it while impure”]

is for the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

[above, on page 73b], who said: “You may not burn it, but you may burn impure teruma oil,” teaching that impurity permits teruma to be burned.

And one occurrence of

“from it” [“nor have I given of it to the dead”]

is for the teaching of Reish Lakish—

For Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Samya: From where is it derived that impure second tithe may be used for anointing,

and we do not say: Since anointing is like drinking, it is as though he drank it while impure, and it is prohibited because of “You may not eat it within your gates”?

As it is stated

in the confession over the second tithe: “Nor have I removed from it while impure” [when the second tithe is impure],

“nor have I given of it”

[from the impure tithe]

to the dead.

The verse teaches that

it is to the dead that “I have not given”

from impure tithe.

This implies that for the living, in a manner analogous to the dead

[the benefit is similar to the benefit of giving it to the dead]—

“I have given.”

But

what

is a

thing that has an equivalent application with the living and with the dead?

You must say that this is anointing.

This teaches you: It is only to the dead that I may not apply impure tithe; but to the living, I may apply it.

Mar Zutra challenges this: But perhaps

the Torah’s statement “nor have I given of it to the dead” should be interpreted as follows: The verse is not speaking of anointing. Rather, this is how he confesses: Even when it became impure, so that I could not eat it, I nevertheless did not change the tithe into something not intended for eating, namely, the needs of the dead , and I did not profane it in order

to purchase for him

for the dead

a coffin and shrouds —

And be precise: “this applies to a living person, analogous to a dead person”—namely, to acquire a garment for a living person, “I gave it.”

And the verse teaches that although pure second tithe may be used only for eating, drinking, and anointing, and may not be redeemed in order to purchase a garment with it , nevertheless, second tithe that became impure, which one cannot eat, may be redeemed and used to purchase a garment!

He said:

He answered:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

Since the Torah said: “And I did not give

of it”

to a dead person, it follows that the verse is speaking of giving

from the substance itself

of second tithe; that is anointing, but not a coffin or shrouds, since in the latter case one does not benefit from the tithe itself, but redeems it and purchases a coffin and shrouds for the dead person.

Rav Ashi said [

answered]:

“I did not give

of it to a dead person” \-

is analogous to “I did not eat

of it while impure,” which implies:

Just as there,

concerning “I did not eat,”

from the substance itself

of the tithe, he confesses that he did not eat,

so too here,

concerning “I did not give of it to a dead person,”

from the substance itself

of second tithe he did not give, and that is anointing.

And the verse teaches that anointing is permitted for a living person.

Here the Gemara returns to the gezeira shava, “of it, of it,” from the Paschal offering, which teaches that just as an uncircumcised man is forbidden to partake of the Paschal offering, so too he is forbidden to partake of second tithe. And as explained, this gezeira shava is explicit, since one of the instances of “of it” stated with regard to the Paschal offering is superfluous. Therefore, one may not challenge the gezeira shava, even though there is a basis for refuting it.

And we raise an objection:

Is it still “explicit” on one side

alone

?!

This works according to the one who says:

a gezeira shava that is explicit on one side

is expounded, and may not be challenged.

But according to the one who says:

a gezeira shava that is explicit on one side

is expounded, but may be challenged

until the gezeira shava is explicit on both sides—

what can be said?!

Although “of it” stated with regard to the Paschal offering is indeed superfluous, all three instances of “of it” that the Torah states with regard to second tithe are not superfluous; rather, they come to teach something, as explained.

If so, how can we derive this through a gezeira shava, since it can be refuted: What is true of the Paschal offering? It is subject to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and impurity?!

And we answer: The one who holds this view will not interpret what the verse states, “And I did not burn from it while impure,” as coming to teach the ruling of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: From it you may not kindle a fire, but you may kindle a fire with oil of teruma that became impure.

For

the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu—

from Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha

is derived, as will be explained below—

is derived,

and therefore the verse, “And I did not burn from it while impure,” is superfluous, making the gezeira shava explicit on the second-tithe side as well.

As Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I, behold, have given you the charge of My terumot”?

The verse is speaking of two terumot: one pure teruma and one impure teruma.

And the Merciful One said: “For you”—

it shall be yours, to use as fuel beneath your cooking pot.

You have learned from this that it is permitted to kindle a fire with oil of teruma that became impure.

We learned in our Mishna: An uncircumcised man

and all those who are impure

may not eat teruma:

And we considered it:

From where are these words derived

that it is forbidden to eat teruma while impure with bodily impurity?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states

in the portion of Emor:

“Any man of the offspring of Aaron, if he is a leper or a man with a discharge—

in the sacred offerings he may not eat until he becomes pure.

“And one who touches anyone impure, or a man from whom there has been a seminal emission, or a man who touches any swarming creature through which he becomes impure, with any of his impurities;

“a person who touches him shall be impure until evening. He may not eat of the sacred offerings unless he has washed his flesh in water. When the sun has set and he becomes pure, he may then eat of the sacred offerings, for it is his food.”

And since the verse said, “Any man of the offspring of Aaron,” it follows that every descendant of Aaron, when impure, is forbidden to eat sacred offerings that are given to the priests; and you cannot explain it as referring to most holy offerings that are given to the priests—