Yevamot 74a — the Talmud in English

And they practice

teruma and first fruits even

in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle [the third and sixth years of the years of the Sabbatical cycle], when second tithe is not practiced.

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

And they have no

for teruma and first fruits

redemption—

which is not so with second tithe

which is not practiced in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, and which has redemption.

Learn from it that the tanna omitted [items]. And just as he omitted these, so too he omitted the uncircumcised.

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 doubt that the members of the academy raised: Is the uncircumcised forbidden with second tithe?

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

For it was taught:

There remained on him [on one who was circumcised]

foreskins that impede circumcision, he may not eat

either teruma

because the uncircumcised is forbidden in it,

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

Is it not so that

“nor tithe” means

grain tithe,

that is, second tithe, for with first tithe and poor-man’s tithe there is no sanctity at all, and there is no novelty in the matter? You have therefore learned that the uncircumcised is forbidden with tithe.

And we reject this:

No, it is not as you explained, that “nor tithe” means second tithe.

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

Rather,

animal tithe,

for the uncircumcised is forbidden to eat it, like all sacrificial offerings.

And we raise an objection against it: But

animal tithe is sacrificial offerings, and we already learned “nor sacrificial offerings”; why must the tanna add animal tithe?

And the Gemara raises an objection against the objection:

The Gemara raises an objection to this objection:

And according to your reasoning—

that you prove from this that “tithe” means second tithe, and that animal tithe need not be taught because it is included among sacrificial offerings—there is likewise a difficulty:

Did we not learn the Paschal offering, and

nevertheless

he also teaches

also

sacrificial offerings?

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

And we answer:

Granted, the Paschal offering and sacrificial offerings are both necessary

to teach them both.

For if he taught the Paschal offering

alone, that the foreskins impede eating from it, I would say: specifically the Paschal offering,

because

the primary prohibition against an uncircumcised person eating sacrificial offerings

uncircumcision—

with the Paschal offering

is what

is written [for the Torah explicitly stated the prohibition of uncircumcision with regard to the Paschal offering], as it is said, “Every uncircumcised male shall not eat of it”; and all sacrificial offerings are learned from the Paschal offering.

[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 sacrificial offerings

other than the Paschal offering, with regard to which the prohibition against an uncircumcised person eating was not stated explicitly,

I might say no

that one who was circumcised but had foreskins remaining on him is forbidden to eat them.

And if he taught

in the beraita

sacrificial offerings

alone, that the foreskins impede eating from them,

I would say: What is “sacrificial offerings

the Paschal offering”?

And it is only with regard to it that he is forbidden, because the primary prohibition of uncircumcision is written concerning the Paschal offering; but as for the other sacrificial offerings, I would not know. Therefore the tanna taught sacrificial offerings as well.

Rather,

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

animal tithe,

there is a difficulty:

Why do I need

to teach it?

For since the tanna taught “sacrificial offerings,” it necessarily follows that “tithe” is “grain tithe,” and not animal tithe; and the proof returns that the uncircumcised is forbidden with second tithe.

And we reject the proof in another manner:

And perhaps the meaning of “nor tithe” is

“first tithe,”

and it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: First tithe is forbidden to non-priests,

and just as it is stringent with regard to non-priesthood, so it is stringent with regard to uncircumcision.

Come and hear that the uncircumcised is forbidden with second tithe,

for Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav of Difti taught:

An uncircumcised person is forbidden with two tithes.

Is it not so?

This is what he is saying:

one is grain tithe [second tithe]

[the second tithe]

and one is animal tithe—

with these two tithes the uncircumcised is forbidden.

And it proves that the uncircumcised is forbidden with second tithe.

And we reject this:

Here too,

the tanna’s intention is

first tithe, and it is Rabbi Meir

who forbids first tithe to non-priests.

Come and hear: An acute mourner—

is forbidden with tithe

second tithe,

and is permitted with teruma [as was already mentioned above],

[as was already mentioned above],

and with

the deeds of the

red heifer [for it is not sanctified as an offering].

And one immersed during the day is permitted with it, and certainly an acute mourner.

One immersed during the day—

is forbidden with teruma, and is permitted

one immersed during the day, since he is not one “lacking atonement,”

with the red heifer and with tithe [as all this was already mentioned above].

[as all this was already mentioned above].

One lacking atonement [such as a person with a flux who saw three sightings, a confirmed leper, or a woman who gave birth, who must bring an offering after becoming pure]—

[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 forbidden with the red heifer ,

and is permitted with teruma and with second tithe

second tithe.

And if it is so,

that the uncircumcised is permitted with second tithe,

let him teach:

[One immersed during the day and]

an uncircumcised person is forbidden with teruma, and is permitted with the red heifer and with tithe!?

Rather, certainly the uncircumcised is forbidden with tithe.

And we reject this: Actually, the uncircumcised is permitted with second tithe. Rather, the tanna did not teach “an uncircumcised person is forbidden with teruma and is permitted with the red heifer and with tithe,” since the tanna also holds that the uncircumcised is forbidden with the red heifer.

For

this tanna—

it is from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes the uncircumcised

so that his status should be

like that of an impure person.

For it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: “Any man, any man”

барайте рабби Акива говорит: «Каждый человек» —

comes to include the uncircumcised!

And according to Rabbi Akiva, the uncircumcised is forbidden with the red heifer, as was explained according to his view in the discussion above, on 72b.

And who is the tanna who disputes Rabbi Akiva?

That is: The beraita brought above, on 72b, states: An uncircumcised person who performed the sprinkling—the sprinkling is valid. Who is this tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, who holds that an uncircumcised person who performed the sprinkling—the sprinkling is invalid? And we explain:

The first tanna

of Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian

is the one!

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

For it was taught: The burning

of the red heifer by

an acute mourner and one lacking atonement

is

valid.

And not as we learned in the previous beraita, which we explained as the view of Rabbi Akiva: One lacking atonement is forbidden with the red heifer.

Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian says: The burning of

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.

an acute mourner

is

valid.

But the burning of

one lacking atonement

is

invalid, like the beraita brought above, which we explained as the view of Rabbi Akiva.

is

You have therefore learned: The first tanna of Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, who invalidates one lacking atonement for the red heifer. And just as he disagrees with him concerning one lacking atonement, so he disagrees with him concerning the uncircumcised. And he is the tanna of the beraita brought above, on 72b, which says: An uncircumcised person who performed the sprinkling—the sprinkling is valid.

And even

Rabbi Yitzhak held: The uncircumcised is forbidden with second tithe

second tithe.

For Rabbi Yitzhak said: From where is it derived that the uncircumcised is forbidden with second tithe

second tithe?

It is 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

the uncircumcised is forbidden with it—

so too, with regard to “from it” stated concerning tithe, the uncircumcised is forbidden with it.

And this gzera shava

is free [“from it” was not written except to derive the gzera shava from it, and later in the discussion it will be explained which “from it” is free]!

[“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 free,

one does not learn by such a gzera shava if a refutation can be raised against it; and here there is indeed

a basis for refutation: What is true of the Paschal offering? That one is liable on its account for piggul and notar [one who eats piggul or notar is liable to excision]

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

and impurity

of one who ate sacred food. Can you say the same concerning tithe, with regard to which one is not liable for any of these [for piggul and notar are entirely inapplicable to it, and one who eats second tithe in impurity is not liable to excision]?

No indeed [in truth]—

[in truth]—

it is free for derivation!

What is free—which “from it” is free? Is it the one stated with regard to second tithe, or the one stated with regard to the tithe?

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 [above, on 71a, the version reads

Rabba]

said that Rabbi Yitzhak said: Three instances of “from it” are written with regard to the Paschal offering [the Torah wrote “from it” three times in the passage concerning the Paschal offering]:

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

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

“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”]—

for its own matter, that is: Had Scripture not said “from it,” I would say that Scripture is not speaking about the Paschal offering, but about “matzot and bitter herbs,” which were mentioned in the preceding verse [Tosafot].

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, “from it” [“You shall not leave from it until morning”], is free

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

for a gzera shava.

And one, “from it” [“and what remains from it until morning you shall burn in fire”—regarding this the matter depends on a dispute]:

“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 Scripture came

“and what remains from it until morning you shall burn in fire” in order

to give you an affirmative commandment following a prohibition

of “You shall not leave from it until morning,” in order to sever it from the affirmative commandment, meaning that one is not flogged for it, as is established: a prohibition that is severed by an affirmative commandment does not receive flogging—

therefore Scripture said “from it,” because

since

it was

written, “notar,”

“from it” was also written.

And according to the one who says that Scripture’s statement,

“and what remains from it until morning”—which is superfluous, for it could have said, “and what remains from it you shall burn in fire,” since it already said, “You shall not leave from it until morning”—came

to give you a second morning for its burning,

that is: Scripture came to say that sacrificial offerings are not burned on a Festival, and if some of the Paschal offering remained, you do not burn it on the first morning of the Festival, but on the second morning, during the intermediate days of the Festival.

Therefore Scripture said “from it,” because

since “until morning” was written, “from it” was also written.

And since the Gemara has explained every instance of “from it” stated concerning the Paschal offering, it explains similarly the instances concerning second tithe:

Three instances of “from it” are written with regard to tithe:

One, “from it” [“I have not eaten from it in my mourning”]

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

for its own matter, that is: to exclude first tithe, which is permitted in mourning [Tosafot of earlier editions].

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

And one, “from it” [“nor removed from it while impure”]

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

for the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan [above, on 73b], who said: “From it” you may not kindle, but you may kindle impure teruma oil; this teaches you that impurity permits teruma for burning.

[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, “from it” [“nor given from it for the dead”]

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

for the teaching of Reish Lakish—

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

and we do not say: Since anointing is like drinking, he is considered as one who drank from it in impurity, and it is forbidden because of “You may not eat within your gates”?

As it is stated in the confession over second tithe, “nor removed from it while impure” [when the second tithe is impure],

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

“nor given from it” [from the impure tithe]

[from the impure tithe]

for the dead.

The verse teaches that

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

from impure tithe.

This implies that for the living, in a manner analogous to the dead [an enjoyment analogous to the benefit of giving to the dead]—

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

“I have given.”

But

what

is the

thing that is equally applicable to the living and to the dead?

You must say: This is anointing.

This teaches you: It is for the dead that I may not anoint myself with impure tithe, but for the living—I may anoint myself.

Mar Zutra challenged it: And say,

say that this is how one should interpret what the Torah said: “Nor given from it for the dead”—Scripture is not speaking of anointing. Rather, this is what he confesses: Even when it became impure, so that I could not eat it, nevertheless I did not change the tithe into something not meant for eating, namely, the needs of the dead , and I did not profane it in order

to acquire for it

for the dead

a coffin and shrouds —

And be precise: this is for the living, analogous to the dead; that is, to buy a garment for the living—I gave it.

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

He said:

he explained:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

Since the Torah said, “And I did not give

from it”

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

from its substance

of the second tithe, and that is anointing, but not a coffin and shrouds, for one does not derive benefit from the tithe itself; rather, he redeems it and buys a coffin and shrouds for the dead person with it.

Rav Ashi said [

he explained]:

“I did not give

from it to a dead person”—

analogous to “I did not eat

from it while impure,” it implies.

Just as there—

regarding “I did not eat”—

from its substance

of the tithe he confesses that he did not eat,

so here—

regarding “I did not give from it to a dead person”—

from its substance

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

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

Here the Gemara returns to the gezerah shavah “from it, from it” from the Passover offering, which teaches that just as an uncircumcised person is forbidden with regard to the Passover offering, so is he forbidden with regard to the tithe. And for the reason explained: the gezerah shavah is open-ended, since one “from it” stated with regard to the Passover offering is superfluous; therefore, no refutation may be brought against the gezerah shavah, even though it is possible to challenge it.

And we ask:

But still, is it “open-ended on one side”

only

?!

This works out according to the one who says:

a gezerah shavah open-ended on one side

is learned, and no refutation may be brought.

But according to the one who says:

a gezerah shavah open-ended on one side

is learned, but a refutation may be brought until the gezerah shavah is open-ended on both sides—

until the expression is available on both sides—

what can be said?!

For although “from it” stated with regard to the Passover offering is open-ended, all three instances of “from it” that the Torah stated with regard to the tithe are not superfluous; rather, they come to teach, as was explained.

And if so, how can we derive it through a gezerah shavah, since it can be challenged: What is so about the Passover offering? It is liable on its account for piggul, notar, and impurity?!

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

For

that teaching of Rabbi Abahu—

from Rav Nahman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha

he explains it and proceeds—

is derived,

and therefore the verse, “And I did not burn from it while impure,” is superfluous, so as to make it open-ended also on the side of the second tithe.

For Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: What is the meaning of that which is written, “And I, behold, have given you the charge of My terumot”

? The verse speaks of two terumot: one pure teruma and one impure teruma.

And the Merciful One said: “To you”

—it shall be yours, for kindling beneath your cooked dish.

Thus you have learned that it is permitted to kindle with the oil of teruma that became impure.

We learned in our Mishna: The uncircumcised person

and all impure persons

may not eat teruma:

And we considered it:

From where are these matters

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

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

in the section of Emor:

“Any man, any man, of the seed of Aaron, and he is a leper or has a discharge

—he shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes pure.

And one who touches anyone impure through a person, or a man from whom there issues a seminal emission, or a man who touches any swarming creature through which he becomes impure, for all his impurity—

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

And since the verse stated, “Any man, any man, of the seed of Aaron,” it follows that every member of the seed of Aaron, when he is impure, is forbidden to eat sacred offerings given to priests, and you cannot interpret it as referring to the most holy offerings given to priests—