Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 16, 2022 | 讟状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 70

There is a second version of the debate between Rava and Abaye in how to understand the debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding an engaged woman who has a child. In what case do we assume it belongs to the husband and in what case would the child be a mamzer/shtuki? Rava holds that if the man admits that he had relations with his fianc茅, then the child is considered his, even if she is rumored to have been with other men. But if she is not rumored to have been with him and only with other men, the child is a mamzer, according to Rav. Abaye disagrees and if she is suspected of being with him and other men, we have to assume the child is a mamzer. Only if there are no rumors about her at all, and the man admits the child is his, then we can assume he is the father. Sources are brought to explain from where we learn the laws regarding one who has a grandson who is a slave, mamzer or kohen gadol that were mentioned in the Mishna. The Mishna had mentioned a case where the offspring born from a union of a Jewish woman and a gentile/slave is a mamzer and the Gemara tries to establish according to whose opinion the Mishna was stated. An uncircumcised or impure kohen can鈥檛 eat truma but their wives and slaves can. One with crushed testicles or his organ is severed 鈥 he and his slaves can eat truma but his wife cannot as he is not permitted to marry. The Mishna discusses details of these categories. From where do we derive that an uncircumcised man can鈥檛 eat truma? These laws are derived from Pesach as the same words are used in each 鈥toshav鈥 and 鈥sachir.鈥 This only works as one of the mentions of these words are unnecessary. Why are these words used specifically to teach about someone uncircumcised and not other possible laws that could have been derived from here?

讗讘诇 讚讬讬诪讗 诪谞讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

However, if she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, even if she is also rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讬诇讚讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚转讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讚讬讬诪讗 谞诪讬 诪注诇诪讗

Rava said: From where do I say that? My source is the mishna that teaches that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she gave birth, she may partake of teruma due to her child. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, need it be said that she may partake of teruma? It can easily be assumed that the priest is the father. Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well?

讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

And if there, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is in violation of a prohibition and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest is in violation of a prohibition of the same degree, and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with both, nevertheless, we cast the child after the priest, then here, where for her to engage in intercourse with that man who is not her betrothed is in violation of a Torah prohibition and to engage in intercourse with this man, her betrothed, is permitted by Torah law, is it not all the more so that he should be considered the father?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 讻诇诇

Abaye said to him: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she is also rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. And the mishna, which you cited as support for your claim, is referring to a situation where she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with anyone at all. Therefore, if they both concur that he is the father, the child is considered his.

讛注讘讚 驻讜住诇 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 讜讙讜壮

搂 It is stated in the mishna that a slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, but not due to his being her offspring. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he does not disqualify a woman whose offspring he is? The verse states with regard to a maidservant married to a Hebrew slave, that when he is released, 鈥渢he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4). This indicates that the maidservant鈥檚 children are considered her own and are not considered their father鈥檚 offspring at all. Therefore, a maidservant鈥檚 child does not disqualify his paternal grandmother from partaking of teruma.

诪诪讝专 驻讜住诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝专注讛 讝专注 讝专注讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 It is stated in the mishna that a mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. The Sages taught: The Torah states, 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child鈥he may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). I have derived only that her own child disqualifies her from partaking of teruma; from where do I derive that her child鈥檚 child disqualifies her as well? The verse states: 鈥淎nd she has no child [zera]鈥 at all, indicating that even her grandchild disqualifies her, as zera means offspring.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝专注 讻砖专 讝专注 驻住讜诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 注讬讬谉 注诇讛

I have derived only that an unflawed child disqualifies her; from where do I derive that an unfit child disqualifies her as well? The verse states: 鈥淎nd she has no [ein la] child,鈥 which can be homiletically interpreted as examine her [ayyein ala] to check if she has any offspring, fit or unfit.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讝专注 讝专注讛 讝专注 讝专注讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讘谞讬诐 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讝专注 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you already derive from that phrase that her child鈥檚 child disqualifies her? The Gemara answers: To derive the halakha with regard to her child鈥檚 child, no verse was necessary, as the children of children are considered like children. The verse was therefore necessary for deriving the halakha of an unfit child.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诪诪讝专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘注讜讘讚 讻讜讻讘讬诐 讜注讘讚 诪讜讚讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: In accordance with whose opinion is the assumption of the mishna that the child of a Jewess and a slave or a gentile is a mamzer? Is it in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: You can even say that it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is a mamzer only if the parents are liable to receive karet. This is because they concede with regard to a slave and a gentile, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 驻注诪讬诐 砖驻讜住诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 讻驻专转 讘谉 讘转讬 讻讜讝讗 砖诪讗讻讬诇谞讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讻驻专转 讘谉 讘转讬 讻讚讗 砖驻讜住诇谞讬 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna that even a High Priest sometimes disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. The Sages taught that she can say in disapproval: I am hereby atonement for my daughter鈥檚 son, the small jug [kuza], i.e., the mamzer. He is dear to me and I am willing to suffer to atone for him, as he is my offspring from a priest and therefore enables me to partake of teruma. However, I am not willing to be atonement for my daughter鈥檚 son, the large jug [kada], the High Priest, as he is my offspring from an Israelite and therefore disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇诪谞讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛注专诇 讜讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 谞砖讬讛谉 讜注讘讚讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: An uncircumcised priest, e.g., one for whom circumcision was considered too dangerous, and all those who are ritually impure with any type of impurity, may not partake of teruma, the portion of produce that must be set aside for the priests. However, their wives and their slaves may partake of teruma.

驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讛谉 讜注讘讚讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讜谞砖讬讛谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诪砖谞注砖讛 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗讻诇讜

With regard to both a man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals [petzua dakka] and one whose penis has been severed [kerut shofkha], it is prohibited for them to marry a woman who was born Jewish. If they are priests they and their slaves may partake of teruma, as this condition does not disqualify them or their property. However, their wives may not partake of teruma, because if a priest has relations with his wife after suffering his injury, he renders her a 岣lala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, as he has engaged in forbidden sexual relations with her. If such a priest did not know his wife, i.e., did not engage in sexual relations with her, after his testicles were crushed or his penis was severed, she may partake of teruma, as she had married the priest in a permitted manner.

讜讗讬 讝讛讜 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻诇 砖谞驻爪注讜 讛讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讻诇 砖谞讻专转 讛讙讬讚 讜讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 诪注讟专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 讻砖专

And who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? It is anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even one of them. And one whose penis has been severed is anyone whose sexual member has been cut off. As for the measure that renders him unfit, if there remains a portion of the corona, even as much as a hairsbreadth, he is still fit. However, if nothing at all is left of the corona, he is considered as one with a severed penis, for whom it is prohibited by Torah law to marry a Jewish woman.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇注专诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘驻住讞 讜谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma? It is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof鈥 (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner of a priest and a hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:10) with regard to teruma. Just as 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to the Paschal lamb indicates that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to teruma teaches that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讛注专诇

Rabbi Akiva says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word ish, meaning man, comes to include an uncircumcised man, indicating that he is like one who is ritually impure and therefore may not partake of consecrated food.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘驻住讞 讜谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜

The Gemara analyzes this baraita in detail. The Master said: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 with regard to teruma. Just as 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to the Paschal lamb indicates that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to teruma teaches that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇驻住讞 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛

With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: The phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 must be available, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if it is not available, the verbal analogy can be refuted logically, as it is possible to say: What is unique to the Paschal lamb? It is that one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to its being piggul, an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, or due to its being notar, the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, or due to the one consuming it being ritually impure. Therefore, it could be argued that it is owing to the Paschal lamb鈥檚 special sanctity and severity that an uncircumcised man may not partake of it. But from where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not eat teruma? The Gemara concludes: This is not so [la鈥檈i], as the phrase is in fact available for establishing the verbal analogy.

讛讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬 讚转专讜诪讛 诪爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚转谞讬讗 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 砖讻讬专 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: Which of the instances of the phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? If one would claim that it is that which is stated with regard to teruma, certainly those words are necessary, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎 sojourner鈥; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who was acquired as a permanent acquisition until the Jubilee Year, i.e., a slave who did not wish to terminate his servitude and underwent a ceremony in which his ear was pierced with an awl. 鈥淎 hired servant鈥; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who was acquired as an acquisition for a period of six years.

讜讬讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜讗诇 讬讗诪专 砖讻讬专 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The baraita asks: And let the verse state only that 鈥渁 sojourner鈥 may not eat teruma, and not state anything about 鈥渁 hired servant,鈥 and I would say by way of an a聽fortiori inference: If a slave who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may not partake of teruma, then with regard to one who was acquired as an acquisition for only six years, all the more so is it not clear that he should be prohibited from eating it?

讗讬诇讜 讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讜讻诇 讘讗 砖讻讬专 讜诇讬诪讚 注诇 转讜砖讘 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇

The baraita answers: If it was written so, I would have said with regard to 鈥渁 sojourner鈥 that this is referring to a slave who was acquired as an acquisition for a period of six years, as he may not eat teruma; but one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may in fact partake of teruma. Therefore, the term 鈥渁 hired servant鈥 comes and teaches that 鈥渁 sojourner鈥 is referring to a slave who had his ear pierced and must now remain with his master until the Jubilee Year, and that although he was acquired as a permanent acquisition, he may not partake of teruma.

讗诇讗 讚驻住讞 诪讜驻谞讬 讛讗讬 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘驻住讞 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 诪诪砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讗讬驻讟专 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara proposes: Rather, it is the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb that is available for establishing a verbal analogy. This phrase: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant,鈥 that the Merciful One writes with regard to the Paschal lamb, to what is it referring? If we say that the verse is referring to an actual sojourner and to a hired servant, i.e., a Hebrew slave who was acquired permanently or for a fixed number of years, can it possibly be that because he is a sojourner or a hired servant he is exempt from the mitzva of the Paschal lamb? If one answers in the affirmative and argues that a Hebrew slave, like his Canaanite counterpart, is considered his master鈥檚 property and is therefore no longer obligated in all the mitzvot like a freeman, this conclusion is difficult, as we maintain with regard to teruma that a Hebrew slave may not partake of it on account of his priestly master.

讗诇诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

Apparently his master does not acquire his body and thereby effect a change in his personal status; rather, he remains a Jew in every sense. Here too, then, with regard to the Paschal lamb, his master does not acquire his body as a slave, and so he is obviously obligated in the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. Rather, the phrase is superfluous and was written only to be available to teach a different matter.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉

The Gemara poses a question: And yet there is still a difficulty: The verbal analogy is available from only one side, as only the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its context, and we heard Rabbi Elazar, who said with regard to a verbal analogy available from only one side that one can derive from it, and one can also refute it logically if there is reason to distinguish between the two cases. Since there are grounds here for differentiating between the two halakhot in this case, why is the verbal analogy upheld?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 砖讚讬 讞讚 讗诇诪讚 讜砖讚讬 讞讚 讗诪诇诪讚 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: Since the phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 is not needed for its own matter, there are two superfluous terms, and one may cast one superfluous term on the halakha with regard to which it is learned that teruma may not be eaten by one who is uncircumcised, and one may cast the other one on the halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb that teaches this, and in this manner it is like a verbal analogy that is available from both sides, which cannot be refuted.

讗讬 诪讛 驻住讞 讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘讛

The Gemara raises a question: There is a principle that there cannot be half a verbal analogy. Consequently, if this verbal analogy is accepted, the following halakha that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: Just as with regard to the Paschal lamb, one who is an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, is prohibited from eating it, so too, with regard to teruma, an acute mourner should be prohibited from eating it, but in fact this is not the case.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 (讝专) 讜讻诇 讝专 讝专讜转 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗讬诪讗 讜诇讗 注专诇讜转 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The verse states: 鈥淣o foreigner may eat of the holy thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from foreignness I told you prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on acute mourning. The Gemara asks: Say that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on a priest鈥檚 lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to eat teruma.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 注专诇讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 (诪注砖讬诐 讻专讜转讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛注讘讚) 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讬砖谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专 讜诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma and exclude an acute mourner? Perhaps just the opposite is true. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that lack of circumcision should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as the halakhot governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: Acts; karetim; the divine word; the slave. The Gemara spells out these stringencies: An uncircumcised man lacks the act of circumcision, and this act is performed on his body; the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet; circumcision existed before the divine word was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; and the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves precludes one鈥檚 eating the Paschal lamb, as is explicitly stated in the Torah (Exodus 12:48).

讗讚专讘讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讛 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇转拽谉 讗转 注爪诪讜 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

The Gemara counters: On the contrary, acute mourning should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as acute mourning is also subject to several stringencies: It is relevant at any time after the death of a close relative, unlike circumcision, which is performed only once in a lifetime; it applies to both men and women, unlike circumcision, which is restricted to men; and it is not in the mourner鈥檚 power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried, unlike an uncircumcised man, who can render himself fit at any time by undergoing circumcision. The Gemara responds: Even so, these arguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition are more numerous.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 砖讘拽讬谞谉 注专诇讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讚驻住讞 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 诪驻住讞 讚驻住讞 讙讜驻讬讛 诪诪注砖专 讙诪专讬谞谉

Rava said: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still could not say that the verbal analogy renders it prohibited for an acute mourner to eat teruma. As, is it possible to say that we should leave out the lack of circumcision from the prohibition against eating teruma even though it is written explicitly with regard to the Paschal lamb itself, and learn the halakha that acute mourning is included in the prohibition by way of a verbal analogy from the Paschal lamb when this halakha that an acute mourner is barred from bringing the Paschal lamb is never stated explicitly? As the prohibition against acute mourning with respect to the Paschal lamb itself we learn only from the halakha governing tithes.

讗讬 诪讛 驻住讞 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转

The Gemara raises another question: If the verbal analogy is valid, then the following halakha that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: Just as with regard to the Paschal lamb, the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves prevents one from eating of the offering until he ensures that all of the male members of his household have been circumcised, so too, with regard to teruma, the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves should prevent one from partaking of teruma. However, in reality this is not the halakha.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪诇转讛 讗讜转讜 讗讝 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘驻住讞 讜讗讬谉 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转 讘转专讜诪讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淲hen you have circumcised him, then he shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:44). The words 鈥渇rom it鈥 teach that the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves prevents one from eating the Paschal lamb, but the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves does not prevent one from eating teruma, if he himself is eligible to eat it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the words 鈥渇rom it鈥 come to exclude any other case, say a similar exposition with regard to the uncircumcised. As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淣o uncircumcised person shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), indicating that 鈥渇rom it,鈥 the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised man may not eat, but he may eat from teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 注专诇讜转 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗讚专讘讛 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讛 讘讻诇 砖注讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma, and not one whose male children and slaves have not been circumcised? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one鈥檚 own lack of circumcision should be included and should preclude his eating teruma, as an uncircumcised man lacks an act that is performed on his own body, and the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet. The Gemara counters: On the contrary, the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves should be included and should preclude a priest鈥檚 eating teruma, as it is relevant at any time, since whenever one has a male child or slave under his authority he is commanded to circumcise him.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诇讗 [讛谞讱] 谞驻讬砖谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注专诇讜转 讚讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讘讬讛 注专诇讜转 讚讗讞专讬谞讬 诪注讻讘讗 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: These arguments for including one鈥檚 own circumcision in the prohibition are more numerous. And if you wish, say: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still could not say that the verbal analogy comes to include in the prohibition against eating teruma one whose male children or slaves have not been circumcised. As, is there anything that his own lack of circumcision does not preclude him from doing but the lack of circumcision of others does preclude him from doing? Rather, it must be that the verbal analogy comes to teach that the priest鈥檚 own lack of circumcision precludes his eating teruma, while that of his male children and slaves does not.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讘讜 诇讚专砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讜

The Gemara poses a question: Now that you have said that the phrase 鈥渇rom it鈥 used in this context comes for an exposition and serves to exclude other cases, with regard to the phrase 鈥渇rom it鈥 in the verse 鈥淣o stranger shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:43), why do I need it? The Gemara answers: This, too, teaches that it is only from it, eating the Paschal lamb,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 65-71 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue the discussion on the mitzvah of 鈥淧ru u鈥檙vu鈥, procreation, and learn who is obligated. This week we...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 70: Disqualifying Kohanim from Terumah

Closing the 7th chapter... On a strange situation where the difficult status grandson permits the grandmother to eat terumah, but...

Yevamot 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 70

讗讘诇 讚讬讬诪讗 诪谞讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

However, if she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, even if she is also rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, we cast the child after him.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讬诇讚讛 转讗讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚转讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讚讬讬诪讗 谞诪讬 诪注诇诪讗

Rava said: From where do I say that? My source is the mishna that teaches that if a priest engaged in extramarital intercourse with an Israelite woman and she gave birth, she may partake of teruma due to her child. What are the circumstances? If we say that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him and she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, need it be said that she may partake of teruma? It can easily be assumed that the priest is the father. Rather, is it not a case where she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others as well?

讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讚诇讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讛讗讬 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

And if there, where for her to engage in intercourse with this priest is in violation of a prohibition and to engage in intercourse with that non-priest is in violation of a prohibition of the same degree, and she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with both, nevertheless, we cast the child after the priest, then here, where for her to engage in intercourse with that man who is not her betrothed is in violation of a Torah prohibition and to engage in intercourse with this man, her betrothed, is permitted by Torah law, is it not all the more so that he should be considered the father?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚讬讬诪讗 诪谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚诇讗 讚讬讬诪讗 讻诇诇

Abaye said to him: Actually, I could say to you that anywhere that she is rumored to have engaged in intercourse with others, even if she is also rumored to have engaged in intercourse with him, Rav said that the offspring is a mamzer. And the mishna, which you cited as support for your claim, is referring to a situation where she is not rumored to have engaged in intercourse with anyone at all. Therefore, if they both concur that he is the father, the child is considered his.

讛注讘讚 驻讜住诇 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 讜讙讜壮

搂 It is stated in the mishna that a slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, but not due to his being her offspring. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he does not disqualify a woman whose offspring he is? The verse states with regard to a maidservant married to a Hebrew slave, that when he is released, 鈥渢he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus 21:4). This indicates that the maidservant鈥檚 children are considered her own and are not considered their father鈥檚 offspring at all. Therefore, a maidservant鈥檚 child does not disqualify his paternal grandmother from partaking of teruma.

诪诪讝专 驻讜住诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝专注讛 讝专注 讝专注讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 It is stated in the mishna that a mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. The Sages taught: The Torah states, 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child鈥he may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). I have derived only that her own child disqualifies her from partaking of teruma; from where do I derive that her child鈥檚 child disqualifies her as well? The verse states: 鈥淎nd she has no child [zera]鈥 at all, indicating that even her grandchild disqualifies her, as zera means offspring.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝专注 讻砖专 讝专注 驻住讜诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 注讬讬谉 注诇讛

I have derived only that an unflawed child disqualifies her; from where do I derive that an unfit child disqualifies her as well? The verse states: 鈥淎nd she has no [ein la] child,鈥 which can be homiletically interpreted as examine her [ayyein ala] to check if she has any offspring, fit or unfit.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讝专注 讝专注讛 讝专注 讝专注讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讘谞讬诐 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讝专注 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you already derive from that phrase that her child鈥檚 child disqualifies her? The Gemara answers: To derive the halakha with regard to her child鈥檚 child, no verse was necessary, as the children of children are considered like children. The verse was therefore necessary for deriving the halakha of an unfit child.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诪诪讝专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘注讜讘讚 讻讜讻讘讬诐 讜注讘讚 诪讜讚讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: In accordance with whose opinion is the assumption of the mishna that the child of a Jewess and a slave or a gentile is a mamzer? Is it in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: You can even say that it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that the offspring is a mamzer only if the parents are liable to receive karet. This is because they concede with regard to a slave and a gentile, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 驻注诪讬诐 砖驻讜住诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 讻驻专转 讘谉 讘转讬 讻讜讝讗 砖诪讗讻讬诇谞讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讬 讻驻专转 讘谉 讘转讬 讻讚讗 砖驻讜住诇谞讬 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna that even a High Priest sometimes disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. The Sages taught that she can say in disapproval: I am hereby atonement for my daughter鈥檚 son, the small jug [kuza], i.e., the mamzer. He is dear to me and I am willing to suffer to atone for him, as he is my offspring from a priest and therefore enables me to partake of teruma. However, I am not willing to be atonement for my daughter鈥檚 son, the large jug [kada], the High Priest, as he is my offspring from an Israelite and therefore disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇诪谞讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛注专诇 讜讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 谞砖讬讛谉 讜注讘讚讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: An uncircumcised priest, e.g., one for whom circumcision was considered too dangerous, and all those who are ritually impure with any type of impurity, may not partake of teruma, the portion of produce that must be set aside for the priests. However, their wives and their slaves may partake of teruma.

驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讛谉 讜注讘讚讬讛谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讜谞砖讬讛谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诪砖谞注砖讛 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讗讻诇讜

With regard to both a man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals [petzua dakka] and one whose penis has been severed [kerut shofkha], it is prohibited for them to marry a woman who was born Jewish. If they are priests they and their slaves may partake of teruma, as this condition does not disqualify them or their property. However, their wives may not partake of teruma, because if a priest has relations with his wife after suffering his injury, he renders her a 岣lala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, as he has engaged in forbidden sexual relations with her. If such a priest did not know his wife, i.e., did not engage in sexual relations with her, after his testicles were crushed or his penis was severed, she may partake of teruma, as she had married the priest in a permitted manner.

讜讗讬 讝讛讜 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻诇 砖谞驻爪注讜 讛讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讻诇 砖谞讻专转 讛讙讬讚 讜讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 诪注讟专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 讻砖专

And who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? It is anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even one of them. And one whose penis has been severed is anyone whose sexual member has been cut off. As for the measure that renders him unfit, if there remains a portion of the corona, even as much as a hairsbreadth, he is still fit. However, if nothing at all is left of the corona, he is considered as one with a severed penis, for whom it is prohibited by Torah law to marry a Jewish woman.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇注专诇 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘驻住讞 讜谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma? It is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof鈥 (Exodus 12:45) with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner of a priest and a hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:10) with regard to teruma. Just as 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to the Paschal lamb indicates that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to teruma teaches that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讛注专诇

Rabbi Akiva says: This proof is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word ish, meaning man, comes to include an uncircumcised man, indicating that he is like one who is ritually impure and therefore may not partake of consecrated food.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘驻住讞 讜谞讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讛讗诪讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜

The Gemara analyzes this baraita in detail. The Master said: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 with regard to the Paschal lamb, and it is stated: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 with regard to teruma. Just as 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to the Paschal lamb indicates that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 stated with regard to teruma teaches that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

诪讜驻谞讛 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇驻住讞 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪讜驻谞讛

With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: The phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 must be available, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if it is not available, the verbal analogy can be refuted logically, as it is possible to say: What is unique to the Paschal lamb? It is that one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to its being piggul, an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, or due to its being notar, the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, or due to the one consuming it being ritually impure. Therefore, it could be argued that it is owing to the Paschal lamb鈥檚 special sanctity and severity that an uncircumcised man may not partake of it. But from where is it derived that an uncircumcised priest may not eat teruma? The Gemara concludes: This is not so [la鈥檈i], as the phrase is in fact available for establishing the verbal analogy.

讛讬 诪讜驻谞讛 讗讬 讚转专讜诪讛 诪爪专讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚转谞讬讗 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 砖讻讬专 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: Which of the instances of the phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? If one would claim that it is that which is stated with regard to teruma, certainly those words are necessary, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎 sojourner鈥; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who was acquired as a permanent acquisition until the Jubilee Year, i.e., a slave who did not wish to terminate his servitude and underwent a ceremony in which his ear was pierced with an awl. 鈥淎 hired servant鈥; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who was acquired as an acquisition for a period of six years.

讜讬讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜讗诇 讬讗诪专 砖讻讬专 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The baraita asks: And let the verse state only that 鈥渁 sojourner鈥 may not eat teruma, and not state anything about 鈥渁 hired servant,鈥 and I would say by way of an a聽fortiori inference: If a slave who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may not partake of teruma, then with regard to one who was acquired as an acquisition for only six years, all the more so is it not clear that he should be prohibited from eating it?

讗讬诇讜 讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讜讻诇 讘讗 砖讻讬专 讜诇讬诪讚 注诇 转讜砖讘 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇

The baraita answers: If it was written so, I would have said with regard to 鈥渁 sojourner鈥 that this is referring to a slave who was acquired as an acquisition for a period of six years, as he may not eat teruma; but one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may in fact partake of teruma. Therefore, the term 鈥渁 hired servant鈥 comes and teaches that 鈥渁 sojourner鈥 is referring to a slave who had his ear pierced and must now remain with his master until the Jubilee Year, and that although he was acquired as a permanent acquisition, he may not partake of teruma.

讗诇讗 讚驻住讞 诪讜驻谞讬 讛讗讬 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘驻住讞 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 诪诪砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 讗讬驻讟专 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara proposes: Rather, it is the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb that is available for establishing a verbal analogy. This phrase: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant,鈥 that the Merciful One writes with regard to the Paschal lamb, to what is it referring? If we say that the verse is referring to an actual sojourner and to a hired servant, i.e., a Hebrew slave who was acquired permanently or for a fixed number of years, can it possibly be that because he is a sojourner or a hired servant he is exempt from the mitzva of the Paschal lamb? If one answers in the affirmative and argues that a Hebrew slave, like his Canaanite counterpart, is considered his master鈥檚 property and is therefore no longer obligated in all the mitzvot like a freeman, this conclusion is difficult, as we maintain with regard to teruma that a Hebrew slave may not partake of it on account of his priestly master.

讗诇诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

Apparently his master does not acquire his body and thereby effect a change in his personal status; rather, he remains a Jew in every sense. Here too, then, with regard to the Paschal lamb, his master does not acquire his body as a slave, and so he is obviously obligated in the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. Rather, the phrase is superfluous and was written only to be available to teach a different matter.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉

The Gemara poses a question: And yet there is still a difficulty: The verbal analogy is available from only one side, as only the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its context, and we heard Rabbi Elazar, who said with regard to a verbal analogy available from only one side that one can derive from it, and one can also refute it logically if there is reason to distinguish between the two cases. Since there are grounds here for differentiating between the two halakhot in this case, why is the verbal analogy upheld?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 砖讚讬 讞讚 讗诇诪讚 讜砖讚讬 讞讚 讗诪诇诪讚 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: Since the phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 is not needed for its own matter, there are two superfluous terms, and one may cast one superfluous term on the halakha with regard to which it is learned that teruma may not be eaten by one who is uncircumcised, and one may cast the other one on the halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb that teaches this, and in this manner it is like a verbal analogy that is available from both sides, which cannot be refuted.

讗讬 诪讛 驻住讞 讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘讛

The Gemara raises a question: There is a principle that there cannot be half a verbal analogy. Consequently, if this verbal analogy is accepted, the following halakha that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: Just as with regard to the Paschal lamb, one who is an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, is prohibited from eating it, so too, with regard to teruma, an acute mourner should be prohibited from eating it, but in fact this is not the case.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 (讝专) 讜讻诇 讝专 讝专讜转 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 讗讬诪讗 讜诇讗 注专诇讜转 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The verse states: 鈥淣o foreigner may eat of the holy thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from foreignness I told you prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on acute mourning. The Gemara asks: Say that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on a priest鈥檚 lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to eat teruma.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 注专诇讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 (诪注砖讬诐 讻专讜转讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛注讘讚) 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讬砖谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专 讜诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma and exclude an acute mourner? Perhaps just the opposite is true. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that lack of circumcision should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as the halakhot governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: Acts; karetim; the divine word; the slave. The Gemara spells out these stringencies: An uncircumcised man lacks the act of circumcision, and this act is performed on his body; the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet; circumcision existed before the divine word was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; and the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves precludes one鈥檚 eating the Paschal lamb, as is explicitly stated in the Torah (Exodus 12:48).

讗讚专讘讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讛 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇转拽谉 讗转 注爪诪讜 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

The Gemara counters: On the contrary, acute mourning should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as acute mourning is also subject to several stringencies: It is relevant at any time after the death of a close relative, unlike circumcision, which is performed only once in a lifetime; it applies to both men and women, unlike circumcision, which is restricted to men; and it is not in the mourner鈥檚 power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried, unlike an uncircumcised man, who can render himself fit at any time by undergoing circumcision. The Gemara responds: Even so, these arguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition are more numerous.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 砖讘拽讬谞谉 注专诇讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讚驻住讞 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 诪驻住讞 讚驻住讞 讙讜驻讬讛 诪诪注砖专 讙诪专讬谞谉

Rava said: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still could not say that the verbal analogy renders it prohibited for an acute mourner to eat teruma. As, is it possible to say that we should leave out the lack of circumcision from the prohibition against eating teruma even though it is written explicitly with regard to the Paschal lamb itself, and learn the halakha that acute mourning is included in the prohibition by way of a verbal analogy from the Paschal lamb when this halakha that an acute mourner is barred from bringing the Paschal lamb is never stated explicitly? As the prohibition against acute mourning with respect to the Paschal lamb itself we learn only from the halakha governing tithes.

讗讬 诪讛 驻住讞 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转 讗祝 转专讜诪讛 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转

The Gemara raises another question: If the verbal analogy is valid, then the following halakha that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: Just as with regard to the Paschal lamb, the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves prevents one from eating of the offering until he ensures that all of the male members of his household have been circumcised, so too, with regard to teruma, the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves should prevent one from partaking of teruma. However, in reality this is not the halakha.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪诇转讛 讗讜转讜 讗讝 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘驻住讞 讜讗讬谉 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转 讘转专讜诪讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淲hen you have circumcised him, then he shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:44). The words 鈥渇rom it鈥 teach that the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves prevents one from eating the Paschal lamb, but the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves does not prevent one from eating teruma, if he himself is eligible to eat it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the words 鈥渇rom it鈥 come to exclude any other case, say a similar exposition with regard to the uncircumcised. As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淣o uncircumcised person shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), indicating that 鈥渇rom it,鈥 the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised man may not eat, but he may eat from teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant鈥? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 注专诇讜转 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗讚专讘讛 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讛 讘讻诇 砖注讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma, and not one whose male children and slaves have not been circumcised? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one鈥檚 own lack of circumcision should be included and should preclude his eating teruma, as an uncircumcised man lacks an act that is performed on his own body, and the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet. The Gemara counters: On the contrary, the lack of circumcision of one鈥檚 male children and slaves should be included and should preclude a priest鈥檚 eating teruma, as it is relevant at any time, since whenever one has a male child or slave under his authority he is commanded to circumcise him.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诇讗 [讛谞讱] 谞驻讬砖谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注专诇讜转 讚讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讘讬讛 注专诇讜转 讚讗讞专讬谞讬 诪注讻讘讗 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: These arguments for including one鈥檚 own circumcision in the prohibition are more numerous. And if you wish, say: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still could not say that the verbal analogy comes to include in the prohibition against eating teruma one whose male children or slaves have not been circumcised. As, is there anything that his own lack of circumcision does not preclude him from doing but the lack of circumcision of others does preclude him from doing? Rather, it must be that the verbal analogy comes to teach that the priest鈥檚 own lack of circumcision precludes his eating teruma, while that of his male children and slaves does not.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讘讜 诇讚专砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讜

The Gemara poses a question: Now that you have said that the phrase 鈥渇rom it鈥 used in this context comes for an exposition and serves to exclude other cases, with regard to the phrase 鈥渇rom it鈥 in the verse 鈥淣o stranger shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:43), why do I need it? The Gemara answers: This, too, teaches that it is only from it, eating the Paschal lamb,

Scroll To Top