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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 20, 2022 | 讬状讟 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • 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".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yevamot 74

After Rav Sheshet鈥檚 first failed attempt to prove that an uncircumcised man cannot partake in maaser sheni, the second tithe, the Gemara tries to bring three other sources to prove this as well. But all attempts are rejected 鈥 the first two because they can be explained as referring to maaser rishon, the first tithe and the last one as it can be attributed to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yitzchak held as Rav Sheshet and proves it from a gezeira shava from Pesach, using the word mimenu. That gezeira shava can be difficult as Pesach is more stringent and therefore they must prove that one (or two, depending on how one holds on this issue) or the mentions of the word are unnecessary and therefore can be used for the gezeira shava. There are 3 mentions of the word mimeni in maazer sheni and in Pesach 鈥 what are they all needed for and which is unnecessary? Now that the Gemara finished dealing with the first word in the Mishna (that an uncircumcised man can鈥檛 eat truma), they move on to the next case 鈥 an impure person. From where is this derived? The verse in Vayikra 22:4 discusses an impure kohen who can鈥檛 eat sanctified items 鈥 the Gemara proves that it is referring to truma. The verse there says after they are purified, they can eat it 鈥 how do we know that it means until the sun sets and not until one brings a sacrifice, in the event that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice, as it the cases in the verse (zav and leper)? Rabbi Yishmael explains that it is a zav or leper that do not need a sacrifice (zav 鈥 saw only two discharged, leper that was not a definite leper, musgar 鈥 only quarantined). They further explain that in case one may have thought that in a case where there is a sacrifice, perhaps one would need to wait until the sacrifice is brought to be able to eat truma, the Gemara brings the sources in the Torah for the law stated in a Mishna Negaim 14:3) that differentiates between eating maaser – immediately after immersing in a mikveh 鈥 truma – after sunset – and sacrificial items 鈥 after the sacrifice is brought. From which verses are they derived and why is it clear that each one is referring to that specific issue (maaser, truma or kodesh) and not to a different one?

讜谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 讜讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Teruma and first fruits apply in all the years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, including the third and the sixth years, and they do not have the possibility of redemption, as once they are sanctified they may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. This is not the case with regard to second tithe, which applies only in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the cycle and which can be redeemed. The Gemara concludes: Learn from here that the tanna did not list all of the differences between second tithe and teruma.

转讗 砖诪注 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘驻住讞 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 诇讗 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara resumes its discussion of whether or not an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe. Come and hear a proof with regard to this question from the following baraita: If shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision remain after the foreskin was removed, one may not eat teruma, nor the Paschal lamb, nor sacrificial food, nor tithe. What, is it not referring to tithe of produce, and so the dilemma is resolved? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, the tithe mentioned in this baraita is animal tithe. The baraita teaches that the meat of the animal tithe was forbidden to one who is uncircumcised.

诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 驻住讞 讜拽转谞讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara expresses surprise: Animal tithe is the same as sacrificial food, as it too is an offering the meat of which is eaten by the animal鈥檚 owner; why would the tanna single it out? The Gemara counters: And according to your reasoning that the baraita would not have singled out specific offerings, didn鈥檛 we learn in the baraita that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb, and yet it also teaches that the same halakha applies to sacrificial food?

讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讞 讜拽讚砖讬诐 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 驻住讞 诪砖讜诐 讚注专诇讜转 讘驻住讞 讻转讬讘讗 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 转谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽讚砖讬诐 驻住讞 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: Granted, it is necessary to mention both the Paschal lamb and sacrificial food. As, if the baraita had taught only the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb, one might have said that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb because the disqualification resulting from lack of circumcision is written explicitly with regard to the Paschal lamb, but with regard to other sacrificial food, concerning which the Bible says nothing about circumcision, one might say that there is no such prohibition. And conversely, if the baraita had taught only the halakha with respect to sacrificial food, I would say: What is meant here by sacrificial food? This is referring specifically to the Paschal lamb, concerning which the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man is stated explicitly, but other sacrificial food is permitted to him. But why do I need animal tithe to be mentioned at all? It is no different than any other sacrificial food. In that case, the tithe mentioned in the baraita is referring to second tithe.

讗诇讗 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐

The Gemara suggests a different refutation of this proof: Rather, the tithe mentioned in the baraita is referring to first tithe, the one-tenth of the produce that is given to the Levites, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that first tithe is forbidden to common Israelites. Since first tithe is forbidden to an ordinary Israelite, it may similarly be forbidden to an uncircumcised man. However, there is no proof from here that second tithe is forbidden to one who is uncircumcised, as second tithe is permitted even to ordinary Israelites.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚驻转讬 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬 诪注砖专讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讞讚 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught in the following baraita: An uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating of two different tithes. What, is it not that one is the tithe of produce and one is animal tithe? The Gemara refutes this argument: Here, too, the baraita is referring to first tithe, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 讜诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘驻专讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讗住讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 讘驻专讛 讜讘诪注砖专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讘驻专讛 讜诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘诪注砖专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 讘驻专讛 讜讘诪注砖专

Come and hear a proof from yet another baraita: It is prohibited for an acute mourner to eat second tithe, but it is permitted for him to eat teruma and to participate in the preparation of the red heifer. It is prohibited for one who immersed himself that day but does not become completely purified until nightfall to eat teruma, but it is permitted for him to participate in the preparation of the red heifer and to eat second tithe. It is prohibited for one who lacks atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, to participate in the preparation of the red heifer, but it is permitted for him to eat teruma and second tithe. And if it is so that an uncircumcised man may eat second tithe, let the baraita also teach: It is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to eat teruma, but it is permitted for him to participate in the preparation of the red heifer and to eat second tithe. The fact that the baraita omits this ruling proves that an uncircumcised man is in fact prohibited from eating second tithe.

讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 诇注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注专诇

The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be adduced from here, as this baraita was taught by a tanna from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes an uncircumcised man in the same halakha as that which governs one who is ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita, Rabbi Akiva says: The words 鈥渁ny man鈥 in the verse 鈥淎ny man 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) come to include one who is uncircumcised; he, too, is prohibited from partaking of consecrated food or participating in the preparation of the red heifer.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖专驻转 讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讻砖专讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

With regard to the issue itself, the Gemara inquires: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva? It is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian. As it is taught in a baraita: The burning of the red heifer by an acute mourner or by one who lacks atonement is valid. Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian says: If the burning is performed by an acute mourner, it is valid; but if it is performed by one who lacks atonement, it is invalid. The anonymous first tanna clearly disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as the previous baraita, which was attributed to Rabbi Akiva, states that one who lacks atonement is prohibited from participating in the preparation of the red heifer. It may be presumed that this tanna disagrees with Rabbi Akiva with respect to one who is un-circumcised as well.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 住讘专 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇注专诇 砖讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诪诪谞讜 讘诪注砖专 讜谞讗诪专 诪诪谞讜 讘驻住讞 诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 诪诪谞讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪注砖专 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜

The Gemara further comments on this issue. And Rabbi Yitz岣k, too, maintains that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe? It is stated: 鈥淎nd I did not consume of it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14) with regard to second tithe, and it is stated: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw鈥 (Exodus 12:9) with regard to the Paschal lamb. Just as in the case of the Paschal lamb, with regard to which 鈥渙f it鈥 is stated, an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, in the case of second tithe, with regard to which 鈥渙f it鈥 is stated, an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讬 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 诪讜驻谞讬

With regard to this verbal analogy, the Gemara comments: It must be that this phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 is available, i.e., it is superfluous in its own 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 it being piggul or notar, or due to him being ritually impure. It could therefore 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 man may not eat second tithe? The Gemara concludes: This is not so, as the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 is indeed available for establishing the verbal analogy.

诪讗讬 诪讜驻谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 转诇转讗 诪诪谞讜 讻转讬讘讬 讘驻住讞 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讞讚

The Gemara asks: Which of the phrases 鈥渙f it鈥 is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? Rava said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: 鈥淥f it鈥 is written three times with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw鈥 And you shall not leave any of it until morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9鈥10). The three instances of 鈥渙f it鈥 are expounded as follows: One for itself, to teach that the prohibition relates to the Paschal lamb; and one for the verbal analogy; and one for another purpose.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讱 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 谞讜转专 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 诪诪谞讜 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘拽专 砖谞讬 诇砖专讬驻转讜 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 讘拽专 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 诪诪谞讜

According to the one who says that the verse comes to provide you with a positive mitzva to burn that which is left over after it has taught the prohibition against leaving it over until the morning, to teach that one is not flogged for violating the prohibition, because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes; since 鈥渢hat which remains [notar]鈥 is written, 鈥渙f it鈥 is also written. And according to the one who says that the verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning, i.e., to teach that the leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following morning, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival; since 鈥渦ntil morning鈥 is written, 鈥渙f it鈥 is also written.

转诇转讗 诪诪谞讜 讻转讬讘讬 讘诪注砖专 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讞讚 诇讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

Similarly, 鈥渙f it鈥 is written three times with regard to second tithe: 鈥淚 did not eat of it in my mourning, and I did not consume of it while impure, and I did not give of it for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14). The three instances of 鈥渙f it鈥 are expounded as follows: One for itself; and one for that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, that the verse comes to permit a priest to burn impure teruma oil and derive benefit from its light; and one for the following teaching of Reish Lakish.

讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 住诪讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 砖诪讜转专 诇住讜讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 谞转转讬 诪诪谞讜 诇诪转 诇诪转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 谞转转讬 讛讗 诇讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪转 谞转转讬 讗讬讝讛 讚讘专 砖砖讜讛 讘讞讬讬诐 讜讘诪转讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 住讬讻讛

As Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Samya said: From where is it derived that if the second tithe became ritually impure, it is permitted for one to anoint one鈥檚 body with it? As it is stated: 鈥淣or did I give of it for the dead.鈥 It is for the dead that I did not give of it, but for the living in a manner similar to the way it is given for the dead, I gave of it. Now, what usage of tithe is the same for the living and the dead? You must say it is anointing.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪谞讜 诪讙讜驻讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗 谞转转讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讙讜驻讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讙讜驻讜

Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But say that the verse is referring not to anointing but to purchasing a coffin and shrouds for a one who is deceased with money received in exchange for the second tithe; this is prohibited, but buying clothing and the like for one who is living is permitted. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: 鈥淥f it鈥 indicates benefit derived from the tithe itself and not from the money acquired in exchange for the tithe. Rav Ashi said a different answer: 鈥淚 did not give鈥 must be similar to 鈥淚 did not eat鈥; just as there, eating is from the tithe itself, so too here, giving is from the tithe itself. In any event, the three instances of 鈥渙f it鈥 written with regard to second tithe are required for different expositions.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: And yet there is still a difficulty, as the verbal analogy is available only from one side, since only the verse with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its own context. Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that one can derive from a verbal analogy that is available only from one side and one cannot refute it logically, even if there are valid counterarguments. But according to the one who said that one can derive from such an analogy and one can also refute it logically, if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases, what can be said? As explained above, the analogy between the Paschal lamb and second tithe can be refuted.

讛讱 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗谞讬 讛谞讛 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 诪砖诪专转 转专讜诪转讬 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讱 砖诇讱 转讛讗 诇讛住拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讱

The Gemara answers: This halakha of Rabbi Abbahu with regard to the burning of impure teruma oil is derived from what Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said. As Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot (Numbers 18:8)? From the amplification of the plural 鈥淢y terumot,鈥 it is derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot, one teruma that is ritually pure and one teruma that is ritually impure. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淚 have given you,鈥 i.e., it shall be yours, and you may derive benefit from it. Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating impure teruma, the benefit that is permitted is to burn it beneath your cooked dish. As the allowance to benefit from the burning of impure teruma is derived from here, the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 is available on both sides.

讜讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讝专注 讗讛专谉 讜讛讜讗 爪专讜注 讗讜 讝讘 讜讙讜壮 讗讬 讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖砖讜讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna that all those who are ritually impure with any type of ritual impurity may not eat teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: 鈥淎ny man 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). Now, what matter is the same

讘讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗讬谞讛 讘讞讜讝专转

for all the seed of Aaron, both sons and daughters? You must say it is teruma. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But say that perhaps the verse is referring to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, which also may be eaten by all the seed of Aaron, both male and female? The Gemara answers: The breast and thigh are not permitted to males and females in equal manner, as they are not permitted to the daughter of a priest who returns to the home of her father. If the daughter of a priest marries a non-priest, it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma or sacrificial food. If she is widowed or divorced and has no living descendants by her non-priest husband, it is once again permitted for her to eat teruma, but she may not partake of the breast and thigh of the offerings.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讞诇诇讛 讞诇诇讛 诇讗讜 讝专注讜 讚讗讛专谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, the same may be said about teruma as well, as it is not permitted to a 岣lala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, even though she is the daughter of a priest. The Gemara answers: A 岣lala is not considered the seed of Aaron.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛

The Gemara challenges the halakha recorded in the baraita that one who lacks atonement may eat teruma. And from where do you know that this verse: 鈥淎ny man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure,鈥 means that he may not eat of the holy things until sunset? Say that perhaps it means that he may not eat of them until he brings his atonement offering and is entirely pure.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讜讘诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讟诪讗 谞驻砖 诪讛 讟诪讗 谞驻砖 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse is speaking of a zav who experienced only two sightings of an emission, and of a quarantined leper, i.e., a suspected leper who has not yet been declared conclusively ritually impure by a priest. Both of these individuals are ritually impure, but they need not bring an offering as part of the purification process. When understood in this way, the leper and zav are similar to one who touches any object that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, mentioned later in the verse: Just as one who touches anything that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse does not require an atonement offering for his impurity, these too, the zav and leper referred to in this verse, do not require an atonement offering; rather, they achieve complete purification at sunset.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛

The Gemara raises a question: But say that this halakha that sunset alone suffices to permit the eating of teruma applies only to one who does not require an atonement offering but merely has to wait until sunset to achieve complete purification. However, with regard to one who does require an atonement offering, perhaps he may not eat teruma until he brings his atonement offering.

讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讗讜讻诇 讘诪注砖专 讛注专讬讘 砖诪砖讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讘讬讗 讻驻专讛 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞讗 诇谉

And furthermore, the Gemara raises a question with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:3): When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or a leper has been completed and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may immediately partake of second tithe; once the sun has set for him, he may partake of teruma; once he has brought his atonement offering, he may eat sacrificial food. From where do we derive these different halakhot?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 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 讛讗 专讞抓 讟讛讜专 讜讻转讬讘 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讜讟讛专 讜讗讞专 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 诇诪注砖专 讻讗谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讻讗谉 诇拽讚砖讬诐

Rava said that Rav 岣sda said: Three verses are written with regard to purity for eating sacred food. It is written: 鈥淎nd he shall not eat of the holy things, unless he has bathed his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 22:6); but if he has bathed, i.e., immersed, he is immediately pure and may partake of sacred food. And it is written: 鈥淎nd when the sun has set, he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things鈥 (Leviticus 22:7), which indicates that he must wait until sunset. And it is further written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offering. How so? How can the apparent discrepancy between these three verses be resolved? Here, in the first verse, it is referring to second tithe; there, in the second verse, it is referring to teruma; and here, in the third verse, it is referring to sacrificial food.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 转专讜诪讛 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝

The Gemara asks: But I can reverse this construct and apply the more stringent condition to tithe. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that teruma is subject to the more stringent condition, as it is already subject to many stringent elements represented by the acronym mem, 岣t, peh, zayin, which is a mnemonic for the following: One who is prohibited from eating teruma but ate it intentionally is liable to the punishment of death [mita] at the hand of Heaven; a non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth [岣mesh] of the sum; teruma does not have the possibility of redemption [pidyon]; and it is prohibited to non-priests [zarim]. These stringencies do not apply to second tithe.

讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻谉 讛讚住 讟讘

The Gemara counters: On the contrary, second tithe should be governed by the more stringent condition, as it has the stringencies represented by the acronym heh, dalet, samekh, tet, beit, which is a mnemonic for the following: Second tithe must be brought [hava鈥檃] to Jerusalem; it requires that a declaration [viddui] be made on the last day of Passover in the fourth and seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle, stating that one鈥檚 agricultural obligations with regard to tithes have been properly fulfilled; it is prohibited [asur] to be eaten by one in acute mourning; it may not be burned in a state of impurity [tuma]; and it must be removed [biur] from one鈥檚 house before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle, if one failed to do so beforehand.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬转讛 注讚讬驻讗

The Gemara responds: Even so, the punishment of death is a greater stringency, and therefore it is appropriate that teruma should be subject to the additional stringency of waiting until sunset.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 诪讬转讛 注讚讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞驻砖 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖砖讜讛 讘讻诇 谞驻砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪注砖专

Rava said: Even without the rationale that the punishment of death is a greater stringency, you still could not say that the first verse that speaks only of immersion is referring to teruma. As the verse states in the continuation: 鈥淭he soul that touches it鈥 (Leviticus 22:6). Now, what matter is the same for every soul? You must say it is tithe, as teruma may be eaten only by priests.

讜讗讻转讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the mishna: But still, say that this halakha that sunset alone is enough for the eating of teruma applies only to one who does not require an atonement offering but merely has to wait until sunset when he is completely purified. However, with regard to one who does require an atonement offering, such as a confirmed leper, perhaps he may not eat teruma until he brings his atonement offering.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讘讬讜诇讚转 讻转讬讘 注讚 诪诇讗转 讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖诪诇讗讜 讬诪讬讛 讟讛专讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讻讗谉 诇拽讚砖讬诐

Abaye said: Two verses are written with regard to a woman after childbirth: It is written: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), which suggests that once her days are completed and the sun has set on the last day, she is completely pure and requires nothing more. And elsewhere it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offerings. How so? Here, in the first verse, it is referring to teruma; there, in the second verse, it is referring to sacrificial food. A woman following childbirth falls into the category of one who lacks atonement, but nevertheless the verse teaches that if she has immersed, she may eat teruma after sunset. The same is true of a confirmed leper and all others who lack atonement.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 驻谞拽注讻住

The Gemara asks: But I can reverse this construct and apply the more stringent condition to teruma. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that sacrificial food is subject to the more stringent condition, as it is already subject to many stringent elements represented by the acronym, peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonic for the following stringencies that apply to sacrificial food and not to teruma: An offering is disqualified by improper intention during one of the rites involved in its sacrifice with regard to the time it will be eaten [piggul]; meat of an offering that remained beyond its allotted time [notar] may not be eaten and must be burned; it is an offering [korban] to God; one who unwittingly derives benefit from sacrificial food is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items [me鈥檌la]; the punishment of one who eats sacrificial food while ritually impure is excision [karet]; sacrificial food is prohibited [asur] to an acute mourner.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

The Gemara challenges this argument: On the contrary, teruma should be subject to the more stringent condition, as, with regard to teruma, there are many stringent elements represented by the acronym mem, 岣t, peh, zayin. The Gemara answers: Those stringencies that apply to sacrificial food are more numerous than those that apply to teruma.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专讜诪讛

Rava said: Even without the rationale that those stringencies that apply to sacrificial food are more numerous, you still could not say that the verse that renders a woman pure at sunset refers to sacrificial food, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure,鈥 which indicates by inference that she remains ritually impure to some degree until she has sacrificed her offerings. And if it enters your mind that she may eat sacrificial food immediately after sunset, you should apply here what is stated in a different verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), which indicates that one who is impure with any type of ritual impurity is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. Rather, learn from this that the verse is referring to teruma.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 转专讜诪讛 讻转讬讘讗 讛讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜讞专专转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 讘谞讜转 诪讬讻诇 转专讜诪讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, strongly objects to this argument: And how can you say that a halakha governing teruma is written here, in the verse: 鈥淯ntil the days of her purification are completed鈥 (Leviticus 12:4)? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The section dealing with a woman following childbirth opens with the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman delivers and bears a male, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her menstrual affliction shall she be unclean鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse I have derived only that the children of Israel are included in this halakha; from where do I derive that a convert and an emancipated maidservant are also included? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 woman,鈥 which includes other women. And if it enters your mind that the verse is speaking of teruma, are a convert and a maidservant eligible to eat teruma? It is prohibited for them to marry priests, so there can be no possibility of their eating teruma.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讗

Rava said: And is the verse not referring to teruma as well?

  • 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".

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 74: Becoming Pure

Resh Lakish's explication of the text, in providing the source for ma'aser sheni becoming impure and then available for use...
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...

Yevamot 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 74

讜谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘砖讗专 砖谞讬 砖讘讜注 讜讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Teruma and first fruits apply in all the years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, including the third and the sixth years, and they do not have the possibility of redemption, as once they are sanctified they may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. This is not the case with regard to second tithe, which applies only in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the cycle and which can be redeemed. The Gemara concludes: Learn from here that the tanna did not list all of the differences between second tithe and teruma.

转讗 砖诪注 谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘驻住讞 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 诇讗 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara resumes its discussion of whether or not an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe. Come and hear a proof with regard to this question from the following baraita: If shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision remain after the foreskin was removed, one may not eat teruma, nor the Paschal lamb, nor sacrificial food, nor tithe. What, is it not referring to tithe of produce, and so the dilemma is resolved? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, the tithe mentioned in this baraita is animal tithe. The baraita teaches that the meat of the animal tithe was forbidden to one who is uncircumcised.

诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 驻住讞 讜拽转谞讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara expresses surprise: Animal tithe is the same as sacrificial food, as it too is an offering the meat of which is eaten by the animal鈥檚 owner; why would the tanna single it out? The Gemara counters: And according to your reasoning that the baraita would not have singled out specific offerings, didn鈥檛 we learn in the baraita that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb, and yet it also teaches that the same halakha applies to sacrificial food?

讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讞 讜拽讚砖讬诐 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 驻住讞 诪砖讜诐 讚注专诇讜转 讘驻住讞 讻转讬讘讗 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 转谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽讚砖讬诐 驻住讞 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara rejects this argument: Granted, it is necessary to mention both the Paschal lamb and sacrificial food. As, if the baraita had taught only the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb, one might have said that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb because the disqualification resulting from lack of circumcision is written explicitly with regard to the Paschal lamb, but with regard to other sacrificial food, concerning which the Bible says nothing about circumcision, one might say that there is no such prohibition. And conversely, if the baraita had taught only the halakha with respect to sacrificial food, I would say: What is meant here by sacrificial food? This is referring specifically to the Paschal lamb, concerning which the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man is stated explicitly, but other sacrificial food is permitted to him. But why do I need animal tithe to be mentioned at all? It is no different than any other sacrificial food. In that case, the tithe mentioned in the baraita is referring to second tithe.

讗诇讗 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐

The Gemara suggests a different refutation of this proof: Rather, the tithe mentioned in the baraita is referring to first tithe, the one-tenth of the produce that is given to the Levites, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that first tithe is forbidden to common Israelites. Since first tithe is forbidden to an ordinary Israelite, it may similarly be forbidden to an uncircumcised man. However, there is no proof from here that second tithe is forbidden to one who is uncircumcised, as second tithe is permitted even to ordinary Israelites.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪讚驻转讬 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬 诪注砖专讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讞讚 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav of Difti taught in the following baraita: An uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating of two different tithes. What, is it not that one is the tithe of produce and one is animal tithe? The Gemara refutes this argument: Here, too, the baraita is referring to first tithe, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讜谞谉 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 讜诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘驻专讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讗住讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 讘驻专讛 讜讘诪注砖专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讘驻专讛 讜诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘诪注砖专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪讜转专 讘驻专讛 讜讘诪注砖专

Come and hear a proof from yet another baraita: It is prohibited for an acute mourner to eat second tithe, but it is permitted for him to eat teruma and to participate in the preparation of the red heifer. It is prohibited for one who immersed himself that day but does not become completely purified until nightfall to eat teruma, but it is permitted for him to participate in the preparation of the red heifer and to eat second tithe. It is prohibited for one who lacks atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, to participate in the preparation of the red heifer, but it is permitted for him to eat teruma and second tithe. And if it is so that an uncircumcised man may eat second tithe, let the baraita also teach: It is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to eat teruma, but it is permitted for him to participate in the preparation of the red heifer and to eat second tithe. The fact that the baraita omits this ruling proves that an uncircumcised man is in fact prohibited from eating second tithe.

讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 诇注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注专诇

The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be adduced from here, as this baraita was taught by a tanna from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes an uncircumcised man in the same halakha as that which governs one who is ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita, Rabbi Akiva says: The words 鈥渁ny man鈥 in the verse 鈥淎ny man 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) come to include one who is uncircumcised; he, too, is prohibited from partaking of consecrated food or participating in the preparation of the red heifer.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖专驻转 讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讻砖专讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 驻住讜诇讛

With regard to the issue itself, the Gemara inquires: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva? It is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian. As it is taught in a baraita: The burning of the red heifer by an acute mourner or by one who lacks atonement is valid. Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian says: If the burning is performed by an acute mourner, it is valid; but if it is performed by one who lacks atonement, it is invalid. The anonymous first tanna clearly disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as the previous baraita, which was attributed to Rabbi Akiva, states that one who lacks atonement is prohibited from participating in the preparation of the red heifer. It may be presumed that this tanna disagrees with Rabbi Akiva with respect to one who is un-circumcised as well.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 住讘专 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇注专诇 砖讗住讜专 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诪诪谞讜 讘诪注砖专 讜谞讗诪专 诪诪谞讜 讘驻住讞 诪讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻住讞 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜 讗祝 诪诪谞讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪注砖专 注专诇 讗住讜专 讘讜

The Gemara further comments on this issue. And Rabbi Yitz岣k, too, maintains that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe? It is stated: 鈥淎nd I did not consume of it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14) with regard to second tithe, and it is stated: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw鈥 (Exodus 12:9) with regard to the Paschal lamb. Just as in the case of the Paschal lamb, with regard to which 鈥渙f it鈥 is stated, an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, in the case of second tithe, with regard to which 鈥渙f it鈥 is stated, an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讬 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 诪讜驻谞讬

With regard to this verbal analogy, the Gemara comments: It must be that this phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 is available, i.e., it is superfluous in its own 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 it being piggul or notar, or due to him being ritually impure. It could therefore 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 man may not eat second tithe? The Gemara concludes: This is not so, as the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 is indeed available for establishing the verbal analogy.

诪讗讬 诪讜驻谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 转诇转讗 诪诪谞讜 讻转讬讘讬 讘驻住讞 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讞讚

The Gemara asks: Which of the phrases 鈥渙f it鈥 is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? Rava said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: 鈥淥f it鈥 is written three times with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw鈥 And you shall not leave any of it until morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9鈥10). The three instances of 鈥渙f it鈥 are expounded as follows: One for itself, to teach that the prohibition relates to the Paschal lamb; and one for the verbal analogy; and one for another purpose.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讱 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 谞讜转专 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 诪诪谞讜 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘拽专 砖谞讬 诇砖专讬驻转讜 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 讘拽专 讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 诪诪谞讜

According to the one who says that the verse comes to provide you with a positive mitzva to burn that which is left over after it has taught the prohibition against leaving it over until the morning, to teach that one is not flogged for violating the prohibition, because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes; since 鈥渢hat which remains [notar]鈥 is written, 鈥渙f it鈥 is also written. And according to the one who says that the verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning, i.e., to teach that the leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following morning, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival; since 鈥渦ntil morning鈥 is written, 鈥渙f it鈥 is also written.

转诇转讗 诪诪谞讜 讻转讬讘讬 讘诪注砖专 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讞讚 诇讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

Similarly, 鈥渙f it鈥 is written three times with regard to second tithe: 鈥淚 did not eat of it in my mourning, and I did not consume of it while impure, and I did not give of it for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14). The three instances of 鈥渙f it鈥 are expounded as follows: One for itself; and one for that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, that the verse comes to permit a priest to burn impure teruma oil and derive benefit from its light; and one for the following teaching of Reish Lakish.

讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 住诪讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 砖诪讜转专 诇住讜讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 谞转转讬 诪诪谞讜 诇诪转 诇诪转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 谞转转讬 讛讗 诇讞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪转 谞转转讬 讗讬讝讛 讚讘专 砖砖讜讛 讘讞讬讬诐 讜讘诪转讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 住讬讻讛

As Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Samya said: From where is it derived that if the second tithe became ritually impure, it is permitted for one to anoint one鈥檚 body with it? As it is stated: 鈥淣or did I give of it for the dead.鈥 It is for the dead that I did not give of it, but for the living in a manner similar to the way it is given for the dead, I gave of it. Now, what usage of tithe is the same for the living and the dead? You must say it is anointing.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讗专讜谉 讜转讻专讬讻讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪谞讜 诪讙讜驻讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗 谞转转讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讙讜驻讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讙讜驻讜

Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But say that the verse is referring not to anointing but to purchasing a coffin and shrouds for a one who is deceased with money received in exchange for the second tithe; this is prohibited, but buying clothing and the like for one who is living is permitted. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: 鈥淥f it鈥 indicates benefit derived from the tithe itself and not from the money acquired in exchange for the tithe. Rav Ashi said a different answer: 鈥淚 did not give鈥 must be similar to 鈥淚 did not eat鈥; just as there, eating is from the tithe itself, so too here, giving is from the tithe itself. In any event, the three instances of 鈥渙f it鈥 written with regard to second tithe are required for different expositions.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讜驻谞讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讬讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: And yet there is still a difficulty, as the verbal analogy is available only from one side, since only the verse with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its own context. Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that one can derive from a verbal analogy that is available only from one side and one cannot refute it logically, even if there are valid counterarguments. But according to the one who said that one can derive from such an analogy and one can also refute it logically, if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases, what can be said? As explained above, the analogy between the Paschal lamb and second tithe can be refuted.

讛讱 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗谞讬 讛谞讛 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 诪砖诪专转 转专讜诪转讬 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讱 砖诇讱 转讛讗 诇讛住拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讱

The Gemara answers: This halakha of Rabbi Abbahu with regard to the burning of impure teruma oil is derived from what Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said. As Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot (Numbers 18:8)? From the amplification of the plural 鈥淢y terumot,鈥 it is derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot, one teruma that is ritually pure and one teruma that is ritually impure. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淚 have given you,鈥 i.e., it shall be yours, and you may derive benefit from it. Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating impure teruma, the benefit that is permitted is to burn it beneath your cooked dish. As the allowance to benefit from the burning of impure teruma is derived from here, the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 is available on both sides.

讜讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讝专注 讗讛专谉 讜讛讜讗 爪专讜注 讗讜 讝讘 讜讙讜壮 讗讬 讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖砖讜讛

搂 It is taught in the mishna that all those who are ritually impure with any type of ritual impurity may not eat teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: 鈥淎ny man 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). Now, what matter is the same

讘讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗讬谞讛 讘讞讜讝专转

for all the seed of Aaron, both sons and daughters? You must say it is teruma. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But say that perhaps the verse is referring to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, which also may be eaten by all the seed of Aaron, both male and female? The Gemara answers: The breast and thigh are not permitted to males and females in equal manner, as they are not permitted to the daughter of a priest who returns to the home of her father. If the daughter of a priest marries a non-priest, it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma or sacrificial food. If she is widowed or divorced and has no living descendants by her non-priest husband, it is once again permitted for her to eat teruma, but she may not partake of the breast and thigh of the offerings.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 讘讞诇诇讛 讞诇诇讛 诇讗讜 讝专注讜 讚讗讛专谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, the same may be said about teruma as well, as it is not permitted to a 岣lala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, even though she is the daughter of a priest. The Gemara answers: A 岣lala is not considered the seed of Aaron.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛

The Gemara challenges the halakha recorded in the baraita that one who lacks atonement may eat teruma. And from where do you know that this verse: 鈥淎ny man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure,鈥 means that he may not eat of the holy things until sunset? Say that perhaps it means that he may not eat of them until he brings his atonement offering and is entirely pure.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讜讘诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讟诪讗 谞驻砖 诪讛 讟诪讗 谞驻砖 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse is speaking of a zav who experienced only two sightings of an emission, and of a quarantined leper, i.e., a suspected leper who has not yet been declared conclusively ritually impure by a priest. Both of these individuals are ritually impure, but they need not bring an offering as part of the purification process. When understood in this way, the leper and zav are similar to one who touches any object that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, mentioned later in the verse: Just as one who touches anything that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse does not require an atonement offering for his impurity, these too, the zav and leper referred to in this verse, do not require an atonement offering; rather, they achieve complete purification at sunset.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛

The Gemara raises a question: But say that this halakha that sunset alone suffices to permit the eating of teruma applies only to one who does not require an atonement offering but merely has to wait until sunset to achieve complete purification. However, with regard to one who does require an atonement offering, perhaps he may not eat teruma until he brings his atonement offering.

讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讗讜讻诇 讘诪注砖专 讛注专讬讘 砖诪砖讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讘讬讗 讻驻专讛 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞讗 诇谉

And furthermore, the Gemara raises a question with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:3): When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or a leper has been completed and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may immediately partake of second tithe; once the sun has set for him, he may partake of teruma; once he has brought his atonement offering, he may eat sacrificial food. From where do we derive these different halakhot?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 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 讛讗 专讞抓 讟讛讜专 讜讻转讬讘 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讜讟讛专 讜讗讞专 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 诇诪注砖专 讻讗谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讻讗谉 诇拽讚砖讬诐

Rava said that Rav 岣sda said: Three verses are written with regard to purity for eating sacred food. It is written: 鈥淎nd he shall not eat of the holy things, unless he has bathed his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 22:6); but if he has bathed, i.e., immersed, he is immediately pure and may partake of sacred food. And it is written: 鈥淎nd when the sun has set, he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things鈥 (Leviticus 22:7), which indicates that he must wait until sunset. And it is further written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offering. How so? How can the apparent discrepancy between these three verses be resolved? Here, in the first verse, it is referring to second tithe; there, in the second verse, it is referring to teruma; and here, in the third verse, it is referring to sacrificial food.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 转专讜诪讛 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝

The Gemara asks: But I can reverse this construct and apply the more stringent condition to tithe. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that teruma is subject to the more stringent condition, as it is already subject to many stringent elements represented by the acronym mem, 岣t, peh, zayin, which is a mnemonic for the following: One who is prohibited from eating teruma but ate it intentionally is liable to the punishment of death [mita] at the hand of Heaven; a non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth [岣mesh] of the sum; teruma does not have the possibility of redemption [pidyon]; and it is prohibited to non-priests [zarim]. These stringencies do not apply to second tithe.

讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 注讚讬驻讗 砖讻谉 讛讚住 讟讘

The Gemara counters: On the contrary, second tithe should be governed by the more stringent condition, as it has the stringencies represented by the acronym heh, dalet, samekh, tet, beit, which is a mnemonic for the following: Second tithe must be brought [hava鈥檃] to Jerusalem; it requires that a declaration [viddui] be made on the last day of Passover in the fourth and seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle, stating that one鈥檚 agricultural obligations with regard to tithes have been properly fulfilled; it is prohibited [asur] to be eaten by one in acute mourning; it may not be burned in a state of impurity [tuma]; and it must be removed [biur] from one鈥檚 house before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle, if one failed to do so beforehand.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬转讛 注讚讬驻讗

The Gemara responds: Even so, the punishment of death is a greater stringency, and therefore it is appropriate that teruma should be subject to the additional stringency of waiting until sunset.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 诪讬转讛 注讚讬驻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞驻砖 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖砖讜讛 讘讻诇 谞驻砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪注砖专

Rava said: Even without the rationale that the punishment of death is a greater stringency, you still could not say that the first verse that speaks only of immersion is referring to teruma. As the verse states in the continuation: 鈥淭he soul that touches it鈥 (Leviticus 22:6). Now, what matter is the same for every soul? You must say it is tithe, as teruma may be eaten only by priests.

讜讗讻转讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the mishna: But still, say that this halakha that sunset alone is enough for the eating of teruma applies only to one who does not require an atonement offering but merely has to wait until sunset when he is completely purified. However, with regard to one who does require an atonement offering, such as a confirmed leper, perhaps he may not eat teruma until he brings his atonement offering.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讘讬讜诇讚转 讻转讬讘 注讚 诪诇讗转 讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖诪诇讗讜 讬诪讬讛 讟讛专讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讻讗谉 诇拽讚砖讬诐

Abaye said: Two verses are written with regard to a woman after childbirth: It is written: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), which suggests that once her days are completed and the sun has set on the last day, she is completely pure and requires nothing more. And elsewhere it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offerings. How so? Here, in the first verse, it is referring to teruma; there, in the second verse, it is referring to sacrificial food. A woman following childbirth falls into the category of one who lacks atonement, but nevertheless the verse teaches that if she has immersed, she may eat teruma after sunset. The same is true of a confirmed leper and all others who lack atonement.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 驻谞拽注讻住

The Gemara asks: But I can reverse this construct and apply the more stringent condition to teruma. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that sacrificial food is subject to the more stringent condition, as it is already subject to many stringent elements represented by the acronym, peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonic for the following stringencies that apply to sacrificial food and not to teruma: An offering is disqualified by improper intention during one of the rites involved in its sacrifice with regard to the time it will be eaten [piggul]; meat of an offering that remained beyond its allotted time [notar] may not be eaten and must be burned; it is an offering [korban] to God; one who unwittingly derives benefit from sacrificial food is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items [me鈥檌la]; the punishment of one who eats sacrificial food while ritually impure is excision [karet]; sacrificial food is prohibited [asur] to an acute mourner.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 诪讞驻讝 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

The Gemara challenges this argument: On the contrary, teruma should be subject to the more stringent condition, as, with regard to teruma, there are many stringent elements represented by the acronym mem, 岣t, peh, zayin. The Gemara answers: Those stringencies that apply to sacrificial food are more numerous than those that apply to teruma.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讟讛专讛 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专讜诪讛

Rava said: Even without the rationale that those stringencies that apply to sacrificial food are more numerous, you still could not say that the verse that renders a woman pure at sunset refers to sacrificial food, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure,鈥 which indicates by inference that she remains ritually impure to some degree until she has sacrificed her offerings. And if it enters your mind that she may eat sacrificial food immediately after sunset, you should apply here what is stated in a different verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), which indicates that one who is impure with any type of ritual impurity is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. Rather, learn from this that the verse is referring to teruma.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 转专讜诪讛 讻转讬讘讗 讛讻讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 诪砖讜讞专专转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 讘谞讜转 诪讬讻诇 转专讜诪讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, strongly objects to this argument: And how can you say that a halakha governing teruma is written here, in the verse: 鈥淯ntil the days of her purification are completed鈥 (Leviticus 12:4)? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The section dealing with a woman following childbirth opens with the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman delivers and bears a male, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her menstrual affliction shall she be unclean鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse I have derived only that the children of Israel are included in this halakha; from where do I derive that a convert and an emancipated maidservant are also included? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 woman,鈥 which includes other women. And if it enters your mind that the verse is speaking of teruma, are a convert and a maidservant eligible to eat teruma? It is prohibited for them to marry priests, so there can be no possibility of their eating teruma.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讗

Rava said: And is the verse not referring to teruma as well?

Scroll To Top