יבמות ע

יבמות ע

אֲבָל דָּיְימָא מִנֵּיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא — בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּקָתָנֵי: יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּדָיְימָא מִנֵּיהּ וְלָא דָּיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא — צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּתֵיכוֹל?! אֶלָּא לָאו — דְּדָיְימָא נָמֵי מֵעָלְמָא,

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

וּמָה הָתָם, דִּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא וּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא — בָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, הָכָא, דִּלְהַאי אִיסּוּרָא וּלְהַאי הֶיתֵּירָא — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּדָיְימָא מֵעָלְמָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָיְימָא מִנֵּיהּ, אֲמַר רַב: הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּדְלָא דָּיְימָא כְּלָל.

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

הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה וְגוֹ׳״.

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

מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעָהּ, זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

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

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר, זֶרַע פָּסוּל מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״, עַיֵּין עָלֶיהָ.

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

וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְזֶרַע זַרְעָהּ! זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, בְּנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, לְזֶרַע פָּסוּל.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you already derive from that phrase that her child’s child disqualifies her? The Gemara answers: To derive the halakha with regard to her child’s child, no verse was necessary, as the children of children are considered like children. The verse was therefore necessary for deriving the halakha of an unfit child.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר מֵחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בְּגוֹי וְעֶבֶד מוֹדוּ, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

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

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, פְּעָמִים שֶׁפּוֹסֵל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵינִי כַּפָּרַת בֶּן בִּתִּי כּוּזָא — שֶׁמַּאֲכִילֵנִי בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאֵינִי כַּפָּרַת בֶּן בִּתִּי כַּדָּא — שֶׁפּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

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

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אַלְמָנָה

הֶעָרֵל וְכׇל הַטְּמֵאִים — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בִּתְרוּמָה. נְשֵׁיהֶן וְעַבְדֵיהֶן יֹאכְלוּ בִּתְרוּמָה.

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

פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה — הֵן וְעַבְדֵיהֶן יֹאכֵלוּ, וּנְשֵׁיהֶן לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעָה מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכֵלוּ.

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

וְאֵי זֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא — כׇּל שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן. וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה — כׇּל שֶׁנִּכְרַת הַגִּיד, וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵעֲטָרָה אֲפִילּוּ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה — כָּשֵׁר.

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

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לֶעָרֵל שֶׁאֵין אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה? נֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּתְּרוּמָה. מָה ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ, אַף ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּתְּרוּמָה — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ.

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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — לְרַבּוֹת הֶעָרֵל.

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

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ בַּתְּרוּמָה. מָה ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ, אַף ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ הָאָמוּר בַּתְּרוּמָה — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ.

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

מוּפְנֶה. דְּאִי לָאו מוּפְנֶה אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְפֶסַח, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. לָאיֵי, אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה.

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

הֵי מוּפְנֶה? אִי דִּתְרוּמָה — מִצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, ״שָׂכִיר״ — זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים.

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

וְיֵאָמֵר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ וְאַל יֵאָמֵר ״שָׂכִיר״, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל — קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

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

אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ — זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים, אֲבָל קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם — אוֹכֵל, בָּא שָׂכִיר וְלִימֵּד עַל תּוֹשָׁב, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם — אֵין אוֹכֵל.

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

אֶלָּא דְּפֶסַח מוּפְנֵי. הַאי ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּפֶסַח מַאי נִיהוּ? אִי נֵימָא תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר מַמָּשׁ, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר אִיפְּטַר לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח?! וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן גַּבֵּי תְּרוּמָה דְּלָא אָכֵיל!

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

אַלְמָא לָא קָנֵי לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

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

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא, וְשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר: מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד, לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין?

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

כֵּיוָן דִּלְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ — שְׁדִי חַד אַלָּמֵד וּשְׁדִי חַד אַמְּלַמֵּד, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.

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

אִי: מָה פֶּסַח אוֹנֵן אָסוּר בּוֹ — אַף תְּרוּמָה אוֹנֵן אָסוּר בָּהּ.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר קְרָא: (״זָר״) ״וְכׇל זָר״, זָרוּת אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא אֲנִינוּת. אֵימָא: וְלֹא עֲרֵלוּת! הָא כְּתִיב ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The verse states: “No foreigner may eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from foreignness I told you prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on acute mourning. The Gemara asks: Say that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on a priest’s lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: “A sojourner and a hired servant”? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to eat teruma.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲרֵלוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן (מַעֲשִׂים. כְּרוּתִים. בִּדְבַר. הָעֶבֶד.) מְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה, וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר, וּמִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת!

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

אַדְּרַבָּה: אֲנִינוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, וְנוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים, וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּן אֶת עַצְמוֹ! הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן.

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

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. שָׁבְקִינַן עֲרֵלוּת דִּכְתִיב בְּגוּפֵיהּ דְּפֶסַח, וְיָלְפִינַן אֲנִינוּת מִפֶּסַח?! דְּפֶסַח גּוּפֵיהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר גָּמְרִינַן.

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

אִי: מָה פֶּסַח מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת, אַף תְּרוּמָה מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת!

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

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמַלְתָּה אוֹתוֹ אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ״. מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בְּפֶסַח, וְאֵין מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת בִּתְרוּמָה.

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

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא: ״כׇּל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״, בּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בִּתְרוּמָה! הָא כְּתִיב ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the words “from it” come to exclude any other case, say a similar exposition with regard to the uncircumcised. As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: “No uncircumcised person shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48), indicating that “from it,” the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised man may not eat, but he may eat from teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: “A sojourner and a hired servant”? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲרֵלוּת דְּגוּפֵיהּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אַדְּרַבָּה: מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה!

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

הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּלָא [הָנָךְ] נְפִישָׁן נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּעֲרֵלוּת דְּגוּפֵיהּ לָא מְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ, עֲרֵלוּת דְּאַחֲרִינֵי מְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ?!

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

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״בּוֹ״ לִדְרָשָׁה הוּא דַּאֲתָא, ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ — לְמָה לִי? בּוֹ

The Gemara poses a question: Now that you have said that the phrase “from it” used in this context comes for an exposition and serves to exclude other cases, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse “No stranger shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:43), why do I need it? The Gemara answers: This, too, teaches that it is only from it, eating the Paschal lamb,