Yevamot 73
״וְהִזָּה הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא״, ״טָהוֹר״ — מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, לִימֵּד עַל טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁכָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה.
It is further stated: “And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure” (Numbers 19:19). The verse states “pure”; this indicates by inference that he is in some way ritually impure. In other words, the verse speaks of one who is pure only in relation to one who is impure. Were this not the case, there would have been no need at all to mention his purity, as it would have been understood that since the red heifer is called a sin-offering, with regard to which purity is paramount, the one performing the ritual must be pure. Of necessity, then, this “pure” individual is not completely pure in all regards. This teaches that one who immersed himself that day is fit to perform the rites connected to the red heifer.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עָרֵל מַהוּ בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּיָלֵיף פֶּסַח מִמַּעֲשֵׂר לְעִנְיַן אֲנִינוּת, יָלֵיף נָמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר מִפֶּסַח לְעִנְיַן עֲרֵלוּת,
The Gemara returns to the previous discussion. They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In the case of an uncircumcised man, what is the halakha with regard to his eating second tithe? Can one claim that just as the halakha governing the Paschal lamb is derived from the halakha governing second tithe with regard to acute mourning, in that an acute mourner, who may not eat second tithe, is likewise prohibited from partaking of the Paschal lamb, so too, the halakha concerning second tithe is derived from the halakha concerning the Paschal lamb with regard to lack of circumcision, in that an uncircumcised man, who may not partake of the Paschal lamb, is likewise prohibited from eating second tithe?
אוֹ דִלְמָא: חָמוּר מִקַּל יָלֵיף, קַל מֵחָמוּר לָא יָלֵיף.
Or perhaps the halakha governing the stringent case of the Paschal lamb is derived from the halakha governing the lenient case of second tithe, but the halakha concerning the lenient case of second tithe is not derived from the halakha concerning the stringent case of the Paschal lamb, and therefore it is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to partake of the Paschal lamb, but he may eat second tithe.
אֲמַר לְהוּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַבִּכּוּרִים חַיָּיבִים עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וַאֲסוּרִין לְזָרִים,
Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): The following halakhot apply to both teruma and the first fruits of the new harvest, which must be given to the priests: If a priest ate of them while in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable to the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven; and if a non-priest ate of them unintentionally, he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding one-fifth of its value as a fine; and they are both forbidden to non-priests.
וְהֵן נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן, וְעוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה, וּטְעוּנִין רְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְהֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַבִּכּוּרִים, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר.
The mishna continues: And they are considered in all regards the private property of the priest to whom they were given; and they are nullified, i.e., rendered permitted for consumption by non-priests, in a mixture of one hundred and one, when there are at least one hundred parts of permitted food for each part of teruma or first fruits; and they both require washing of the hands before they may be eaten; and if a priest is ritually impure, he may not eat of teruma or first fruits, even after immersion, until after sunset on the day of his immersion. All of these halakhot apply to teruma and first fruits, which is not the case with regard to second tithe.
וְאִם אִיתָא — נִיתְנֵי: עָרֵל אָסוּר בָּהֶן, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר!
Rav Sheshet resumes his argument: And if it is so that one who is uncircumcised may eat second tithe, let the tanna also teach: It is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to eat of teruma and first fruits, which is not the case with regard to second tithe.
תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. וּמַאי שַׁיַּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר?
The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as the tanna of the mishna taught only some of the differences between teruma and first fruits on the one hand and second tithe on the other, and he omitted others. The Gemara asks: The mishna is sometimes not exhaustive, but it never omits only one case. What other difference did he omit that you say that he also omitted this difference?
שַׁיַּיר דְּקָא תָנֵי סֵיפָא: יֵשׁ בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר וּבַבִּכּוּרִים מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּתְּרוּמָה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַבִּכּוּרִים טְעוּנִין הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם, וּטְעוּנִין וִידּוּי, וַאֲסוּרִין לְאוֹנֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְחַיָּיבִין בְּבִיעוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.
The Gemara answers: He omitted the following, as he teaches in the latter clause of the mishna: There are halakhot that apply to second tithe and first fruits, which is not the case with regard to teruma. As second tithe and first fruits require that they be brought to a particular place, Jerusalem, where they must be eaten, whereas teruma may be consumed in all places; and they both require a declaration, as a declaration must be made on the last day of Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle, stating that one’s agricultural obligations with regard to tithes have been fulfilled properly, and so too a declaration must be made when first fruits are brought to the Temple; and they are forbidden to an acute mourner; and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to partake of first fruits. And they both require eradication before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle if one failed to bring them beforehand; and Rabbi Shimon exempts first fruits from the obligation of eradication.
וְאִילּוּ אָסוּר לְבַעֵר מֵהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה,
And yet second tithe and first fruits differ from teruma in that it is prohibited to burn the former and benefit from the burning, even when the produce is in a state of ritual impurity and therefore unfit to be eaten, e.g., one may not burn impure oil for light;
וְאוֹכְלָן בְּטוּמְאַת עַצְמָן לוֹקֶה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּתְּרוּמָה — לָא קָתָנֵי. אַלְמָא תָּנֵי וְשַׁיַּיר.
and one who eats them when they themselves, the second tithe and first fruits, are ritually impure is flogged, even though he himself is ritually pure, which is not the case with regard to teruma; and these differences the tanna does not teach. Apparently, the tanna of the mishna taught certain differences between the cases and omitted others. Therefore, the omission of the halakha governing an uncircumcised man does not prove that it is permitted for him to eat second tithe.
וַאֲסוּרִין לְאוֹנֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. מְנָא לְהוּ — דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכוֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וְגוֹ׳ וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״תְּרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ — אֵלּוּ בִּכּוּרִים, וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ בִּכּוּרִים לְמַעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן — אַף בִּכּוּרִים אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן.
§ Having cited the mishna, the Gemara proceeds to discuss it. It was taught in the baraita that second tithe and first fruits are forbidden to an acute mourner; and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to partake of first fruits. The Gemara asks: From where do the Rabbis derive that first fruits are forbidden to one who is in acute mourning? As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil…nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and the Master said: “The offering [teruma] of your hand,” these are the first fruits. And first fruits are juxtaposed in this verse to second tithe: Just as the second tithe is forbidden to an acute mourner, so too, first fruits are forbidden to an acute mourner.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: תְּרוּמָה קְרִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, מָה תְּרוּמָה מוּתֶּרֶת לְאוֹנֵן — אַף בִּכּוּרִים מוּתָּרִים לְאוֹנֵן.
And Rabbi Shimon counters that since the Merciful One calls first fruits “teruma,” the halakha governing them is similar to that which governs teruma: Just as teruma is permitted to an acute mourner, so too, first fruits are permitted to an acute mourner.
וְחַיָּיבִין בְּבִיעוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. מָר מַקֵּישׁ וּמָר לָא מַקֵּישׁ.
The baraita continues: And both second tithe and first fruits require eradication before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle; and Rabbi Shimon exempts first fruits from the obligation of eradication. One Sage, the Rabbis, juxtaposes first fruits to second tithe: Just as second tithe is subject to eradication, so too are first fruits. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, does not juxtapose the two halakhot and derive one from the other.
וְאָסוּר לְבַעֵר מֵהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה, וְאוֹכְלָן בְּטוּמְאַת עַצְמָן לוֹקֶה, מְנָלַן — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא״, בֵּין שֶׁאֲנִי טָמֵא וְהוּא טָהוֹר, בֵּין שֶׁאֲנִי טָהוֹר וְהוּא טָמֵא.
It was stated above that it is prohibited to burn second tithe and first fruits even when they are in a state of ritual impurity, and that one who eats them when they themselves, the second tithe and first fruits, are ritually impure is flogged, even though he himself is ritually pure. From where do we derive these halakhot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The verse with regard to the confession of tithes states: “I did not consume of it while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14), a general statement that means whether I, the one who ate it, was ritually impure, and the tithe was ritually pure, or whether I was ritually pure and the tithe was ritually impure. Regardless, the tithe may not be consumed through burning or eating in a state of impurity.
וְהֵיכָא מוּזְהָר עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בּוֹ וְטָמְאָה עַד הָעָרֶב וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי אִם רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם״!
The tanna adds: And where one is actually warned against eating second tithe in a state of impurity, this I do not know. Although it is obvious from the verse that this is prohibited, the source for the prohibition is unclear. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: The prohibition against eating second tithe when one is in a state of ritual impurity of the body is explicitly written, as it is stated with regard to the ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal: “The soul that touches it shall be impure until the evening, and he shall not eat from the holy things unless he has washed his flesh in water” (Leviticus 22:6). This is referring to second tithe, as will be explained later (74b).
הָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: טוּמְאַת עַצְמוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכוֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יַחְדָּו כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֲפִילּוּ טָמֵא וְטָהוֹר אוֹכְלִין עַל שׁוּלְחָן אֶחָד בִּקְעָרָה אַחַת וְאֵינָן חוֹשְׁשִׁין, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: הָהוּא דַּאֲמַרִי לָךְ הָתָם ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ״ — הָכָא לָא תֵּיכוֹל.
The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the dilemma he is raising: From where is it derived that one may not eat it when the tithe itself is in a state of ritual impurity? The verse states: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states with regard to offerings that have been disqualified: “You shall eat it within your gates, the impure and the pure alike, as the gazelle and as the hart” (Deuteronomy 15:22). And a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Even a ritually impure and a ritually pure person may eat together on one table and out of one bowl without concern. And the Merciful One states: That which I said to you there, with regard to disqualified offerings: “You shall eat it within your gates,” means regardless of whether it is the individual or the meat that is impure; but here, with regard to second tithe, you may not eat it in that state. From here it is derived that one may not eat second tithe when the tithe itself is ritually impure.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּתְּרוּמָה. מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא״ — מִמֶּנּוּ אִי אַתָּה מַבְעִיר, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַבְעִיר שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא.
It was stated above that one is prohibited from burning second tithe and first fruits even when they are ritually impure, which is not the case with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this halakha does not apply to teruma? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As the verse with regard to the declaration of tithes states: “I did not consume of it while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14), and the words “of it” teach that of it, i.e., tithe, you may not burn when it is impure, but you may burn and derive benefit from the oil of teruma that has become ritually impure.
וְאֵימָא: מִמֶּנּוּ אִי אַתָּה מַבְעִיר, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַבְעִיר שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנִּטְמָא! לָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? וּמָה מַעֲשֵׂר הַקַּל אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״לֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא״ — קֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The Gemara asks: But say perhaps as follows: Of it you may not burn, but you may burn and derive benefit from consecrated oil that became ritually impure. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: That possibility is unacceptable. Is it not an a fortiori inference? If with regard to the tithe, which is lenient, the Torah said: “I did not burn of it while impure,” then with regard to consecrated oil, which is more stringent, is it not all the more so prohibited to burn them while ritually impure?
אִי הָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא! הָא כְּתִיב ״מִמֶּנּוּ״!
The Gemara retorts: If so, then with regard to teruma as well, say that it is an a fortiori inference, as teruma is certainly more sacred than tithes. If it is prohibited to benefit from second tithe while it is burning, all the more so would it be prohibited to benefit from teruma while it is burning. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written “of it”? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition against burning in a state of ritual impurity.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא קֹדֶשׁ לָא מְמַעֵיטְנָא שֶׁכֵּן פנקעכ״ס:
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that “of it” comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps it comes to exclude consecrated items. The Gemara replies: It is reasonable that I do not exclude consecrated items from the prohibition against benefiting from their burning, as with regard to consecrated items there are many stringent elements. Their Hebrew acronym is peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonic for the following stringencies that apply to consecrated items and not to teruma:
פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר, קׇרְבָּן, מְעִילָה, כָּרֵת, וְאָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן.
Piggul: If, during one of the rites involved in the sacrifice of an offering, i.e., slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar, the priest or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of eating the offering at a time that is unfit for eating, the offering is thereby invalidated. Notar: Meat of an offering that remained beyond its allotted time may not be eaten and must be burned. Offering [korban]: It is an offering to God. Misuse of consecrated objects [me’ila]: One who unwittingly derives benefit from consecrated items is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated objects. Karet: The punishment of one who eats consecrated items while ritually impure is karet. Forbidden to an acute mourner [asur le’onen]: An acute mourner is prohibited from eating consecrated items. None of these halakhot apply to teruma. Therefore, consecrated items are more stringent than teruma, and accordingly they are not excluded from the prohibition against deriving benefit while ritually impure.
אַדְּרַבָּה, תְּרוּמָה לָא מְמַעֵיטְנָא שֶׁכֵּן מחפ״ז: מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וְאֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן, וַאֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים!
The Gemara rejects this argument. On the contrary, it is teruma that I would not exclude from the prohibition, as with regard to teruma there are many stringent elements, represented by the acronym mem, ḥet, peh, zayin, which is a mnemonic for the following: Death [mita]: One who is prohibited from eating teruma but ate it intentionally is liable to the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. One-fifth [ḥomesh]: A non-priest, to whom teruma is forbidden, who unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth of the sum. And teruma does not have the possibility of redemption [pidyon]: Once it is sanctified, teruma may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. And it is forbidden to non-priests [zarim]. These stringencies do not apply to consecrated items.
הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כָּרֵת עֲדִיפָא.
The Gemara answers: Those stringencies that apply to consecrated items are more numerous than those that apply to teruma. Therefore, it is appropriate to be more stringent with consecrated items and exclude impure teruma from the prohibition against deriving benefit from it while it is burned. And if you wish, say instead a different reason, without counting the number of stringencies: Consecrated items are more stringent because one who eats them while ritually impure is liable to receive karet, which is more severe than death at the hand of Heaven, the punishment in the case of teruma.
וְאוֹכְלָן בְּטוּמְאַת עַצְמָן לוֹקֶה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּתְּרוּמָה. מִילְקָא הוּא דְּלָא לָקֵי, הָא אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא — מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ״ — לָזֶה וְלֹא לְאַחֵר. וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה.
It was further stated above that one who eats second tithe and first fruits when they themselves, the second tithe and first fruits, are ritually impure is flogged, which is not the case with regard to teruma. The Gemara infers from this that it is lashes that he does not receive when he eats teruma that is ritually impure; however, the transgression of a prohibition is involved. From where do we derive that this is prohibited? The verse referring to offerings that have been disqualified states: “You shall eat it within your gates” (Deuteronomy 15:22). The word “it” indicates that it is only this, disqualified offerings, that may be eaten in a state of impurity, but not another type of consecrated food. This is a prohibition that is derived by inference from a positive mitzva, i.e., it is not stated in the Torah in the form of a prohibition. And there is a principle that a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is classified as a positive mitzva, for which no lashes are administered.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מֵרֵישָׁא נָמֵי שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ דִּתְנָא וְשַׁיַּיר — מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי
The Gemara demonstrated earlier that no proof can be adduced from the mishna cited by Rav Sheshet, as the tanna of that mishna taught only some of the differences between second tithe and teruma. Rav Ashi said: From the first part of the mishna as well, you can conclude that he taught certain differences and omitted others, from the fact that he does not teach the following additional difference:
