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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 19, 2022 | 讬状讞 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 73

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor on the occasion of the 50th yahrzeit of her father, Rafael ben Breindl v鈥橝vraham Yaakov, and to celebrate the medical school graduation of her daughter, Dr. Shayna Schor.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom in honor of Adrienne鈥檚 birthday. 鈥淗appy special birthday to my cherished long-time friend, and now chavruta, Adrienne. May you continue to go from strength to strength.鈥

Rav Sheshet was asked whether an uncircumcised male can eat maaser sheni, the second tithe. Do we derive from Pesach that he cannot just as we learn from maaser to Pesach that an onen can’t eat the Pesach sacrifice? Or do we only learn from maaser to Pesach as maaser is more lenient, but not from Pesach to maaser as Pesach is more stringent? Rav Sheshet brings a Mishna from Bikurim 2:1 which lists the differences between truma and bikurim on the one hand and maaser on the other – since an uncircumcised person doesn’t appear on this list, it must be that he is forbidden to eat maaser just as he is forbidden to eat truma and bikurim. The Gemara rejects this answer as it is possible the tanna left it off the list. If such an argument is to be used, one needs to prove that other details were left off the Mishna as well. To show this, the Gemara quotes the next Mishna Bikurim 2:2 (which compares maaser and bikurim to truma) and adds two items that are left off that list. The Gemara delves into some of the cases brought in the Mishna and the ones not mentioned and explains the source of these laws and the issues that led to a debate about some of them. Rav Ashi adds two differences that were left off the first Mishna as well.

讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻砖专 讘驻专讛

It is further stated: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure鈥 (Numbers 19:19). The verse states 鈥減ure鈥; 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 鈥減ure鈥 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.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 注专诇 诪讛讜 讘诪注砖专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讬诇讬祝 驻住讞 诪诪注砖专 诇注谞讬谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 讬诇讬祝 谞诪讬 诪注砖专 诪驻住讞 诇注谞讬谉 注专诇讜转

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?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞诪讜专 诪拽诇 讬诇讬祝 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讗 讬诇讬祝

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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬转讜讛 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇讝专讬诐

Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in a mishna (岣lla 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.

讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讛谉 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专

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.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 讜诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专

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?

砖讬讬专 讚拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬砖 讘诪注砖专 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讛诪注砖专 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讜讬讚讜讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讬注讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬诇讜 讗住讜专 诇讘注专 诪讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛

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;

讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇诪讗 转谞讬 讜砖讬讬专

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.

讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讜转讬专砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 讜讙讜壮 讜转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讜讗诪专 诪专 转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讗诇讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬转拽砖 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

搂 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: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil鈥or the offering of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and the Master said: 鈥淭he offering [teruma] of your hand,鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转专讜诪讛 拽专讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讗讜谞谉

And Rabbi Shimon counters that since the Merciful One calls first fruits teruma,鈥 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.

讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讬注讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 诪专 诪拽讬砖 讜诪专 诇讗 诪拽讬砖

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.

讜讗住讜专 诇讘注专 诪讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 讘讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淚 did not consume of it while impure鈥 (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.

讜讛讬讻讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讙注 讘讜 讜讟诪讗讛 注讚 讛注专讘 讜诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 专讞抓 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐

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: 鈥淭he 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:6). This is referring to second tithe, as will be explained later (74b).

讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘砖注专讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 讛讟诪讗 讜讛讟讛讜专 讬讞讚讜 讻爪讘讬 讜讻讗讬诇 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 讗讞讚 讘拽注专讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬谞谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 讛转诐 讘砖注专讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇

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: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states with regard to offerings that have been disqualified: 鈥淵ou shall eat it within your gates, the impure and the pure alike, as the gazelle and as the hart鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall eat it within your gates,鈥 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.

诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗

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 Yo岣nan said: As the verse with regard to the declaration of tithes states: 鈥淚 did not consume of it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14), and the words 鈥渙f it鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 拽讚砖 砖谞讟诪讗 诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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聽fortiori inference? If with regard to the tithe, which is lenient, the Torah said: 鈥淚 did not burn of it while impure,鈥 then with regard to consecrated oil, which is more stringent, is it not all the more so prohibited to burn them while ritually impure?

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara retorts: If so, then with regard to teruma as well, say that it is an a聽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鈥檛 it written 鈥渙f it鈥? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition against burning in a state of ritual impurity.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 驻谞拽注讻住

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that 鈥渙f it鈥 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:

驻讙讜诇 谞讜转专 拽专讘谉 诪注讬诇讛 讻专转 讜讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

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鈥檌la]: 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鈥檕nen]: 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.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐

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, 岣t, 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 [岣mesh]: 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.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻专转 注讚讬驻讗

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.

讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬诇拽讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘砖注专讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专 讜诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛

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: 鈥淵ou shall eat it within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:22). The word 鈥渋t鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬

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:

  • 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: 72-78 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, we will learn about the laws pertaining to a Jewish male who can鈥檛 be circumcised for health reasons....
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

The Unique Character of Maaser Sheni – Gefet 34

https://youtu.be/GJWsQhHcpaA In our new chapter, we are exposed to discussions regarding eating prohibitions which are less familiar to us, as...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 73: When Is Bikkurimm Like Maaser Sheni

A detour to some agricultural mitzvot, albeit still as compared to terumah. Ma'aser sheni, bikkurim, etc. Plus, a person in...

Yevamot 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 73

讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻砖专 讘驻专讛

It is further stated: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure鈥 (Numbers 19:19). The verse states 鈥減ure鈥; 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 鈥減ure鈥 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.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 注专诇 诪讛讜 讘诪注砖专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讬诇讬祝 驻住讞 诪诪注砖专 诇注谞讬谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 讬诇讬祝 谞诪讬 诪注砖专 诪驻住讞 诇注谞讬谉 注专诇讜转

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?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讞诪讜专 诪拽诇 讬诇讬祝 拽诇 诪讞诪讜专 诇讗 讬诇讬祝

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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬转讜讛 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇讝专讬诐

Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in a mishna (岣lla 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.

讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讛谉 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专

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.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 讜诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专

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?

砖讬讬专 讚拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬砖 讘诪注砖专 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讛诪注砖专 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讜讬讚讜讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讬注讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬诇讜 讗住讜专 诇讘注专 诪讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛

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;

讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇诪讗 转谞讬 讜砖讬讬专

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.

讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讜转讬专砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 讜讙讜壮 讜转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讜讗诪专 诪专 转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讗诇讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬转拽砖 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

搂 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: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil鈥or the offering of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and the Master said: 鈥淭he offering [teruma] of your hand,鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转专讜诪讛 拽专讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讗讜谞谉

And Rabbi Shimon counters that since the Merciful One calls first fruits teruma,鈥 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.

讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讘讬注讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 诪专 诪拽讬砖 讜诪专 诇讗 诪拽讬砖

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.

讜讗住讜专 诇讘注专 诪讛谉 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 讘讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讟诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讘讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淚 did not consume of it while impure鈥 (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.

讜讛讬讻讗 诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讙注 讘讜 讜讟诪讗讛 注讚 讛注专讘 讜诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讻讬 讗诐 专讞抓 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐

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: 鈥淭he 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:6). This is referring to second tithe, as will be explained later (74b).

讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘砖注专讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 讛讟诪讗 讜讛讟讛讜专 讬讞讚讜 讻爪讘讬 讜讻讗讬诇 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讟诪讗 讜讟讛讜专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 讗讞讚 讘拽注专讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬谞谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 讛转诐 讘砖注专讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇

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: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states with regard to offerings that have been disqualified: 鈥淵ou shall eat it within your gates, the impure and the pure alike, as the gazelle and as the hart鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall eat it within your gates,鈥 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.

诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗

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 Yo岣nan said: As the verse with regard to the declaration of tithes states: 鈥淚 did not consume of it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14), and the words 鈥渙f it鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪诪谞讜 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讘注讬专 砖诪谉 砖诇 拽讚砖 砖谞讟诪讗 诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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聽fortiori inference? If with regard to the tithe, which is lenient, the Torah said: 鈥淚 did not burn of it while impure,鈥 then with regard to consecrated oil, which is more stringent, is it not all the more so prohibited to burn them while ritually impure?

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪诪谞讜

The Gemara retorts: If so, then with regard to teruma as well, say that it is an a聽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鈥檛 it written 鈥渙f it鈥? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition against burning in a state of ritual impurity.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 驻谞拽注讻住

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that 鈥渙f it鈥 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:

驻讙讜诇 谞讜转专 拽专讘谉 诪注讬诇讛 讻专转 讜讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

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鈥檌la]: 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鈥檕nen]: 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.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪诪注讬讟谞讗 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 驻讚讬讜谉 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讝专讬诐

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, 岣t, 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 [岣mesh]: 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.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻专转 注讚讬驻讗

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.

讜讗讜讻诇谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 诇讜拽讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬诇拽讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇拽讬 讛讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬讻讗 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘砖注专讬讱 转讗讻诇谞讜 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专 讜诇讗讜 讛讘讗 诪讻诇诇 注砖讛 注砖讛

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: 鈥淵ou shall eat it within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:22). The word 鈥渋t鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬

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:

Scroll To Top