יבמות עד

יבמות עד

וְנוֹהֲגִין בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ, וְאֵין לָהֶם פִּדְיוֹן. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בּוֹ צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל לֹא בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא בַּפֶּסַח, וְלֹא בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, וְלֹא בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. מַאי לָאו מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, לָא — מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

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.

מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה הַיְינוּ קָדָשִׁים? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִי לָא תְּנַן פֶּסַח וְקָתָנֵי קָדָשִׁים!

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’s 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’t 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?

בִּשְׁלָמָא פֶּסַח וְקָדָשִׁים צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי תְּנָא פֶּסַח — מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲרֵלוּת בְּפֶסַח כְּתִיבָא, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי תְּנָא קָדָשִׁים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קָדָשִׁים — פֶּסַח. אֶלָּא מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמָה לִי?

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.

אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר לְזָרִים.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, מִדְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּפְתִּי: עָרֵל אָסוּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעַשְׂרוֹת. מַאי לָאו: אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה! הָכָא נָמֵי, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from that which Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: אוֹנֵן — אָסוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּמוּתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַפָּרָה. טְבוּל יוֹם — אָסוּר בִּתְרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּפָּרָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים — אָסוּר בַּפָּרָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם אִיתָא — נִיתְנֵי: עָרֵל אָסוּר בַּתְּרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּפָּרָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר!

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.

הַאי תַּנָּא — דְּבֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דִּמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ לְעָרֵל כְּטָמֵא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הֶעָרֵל.

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 “any man” in the verse “Any man 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) 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.

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תַּנָּא דְּ(רַבִּי) יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: שְׂרֵפַת אוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים — כְּשֵׁרָה. (רַבִּי) יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹנֵן — כְּשֵׁרָה, מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים — פְּסוּלָה.

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 uncircumcised as well.

וְאַף רַבִּי יִצְחָק סָבַר עָרֵל אָסוּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לֶעָרֵל שֶׁאָסוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר — נֶאֱמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר, וְנֶאֱמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ בַּפֶּסַח. מָה ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ, אַף ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ הָאָמוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ.

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

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

With regard to this verbal analogy, the Gemara comments: It must be that this phrase “of it” 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’s 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 “of it” is indeed available for establishing the verbal analogy.

מַאי מוּפְנֵי? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: תְּלָתָא ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ כְּתִיבִי בְּפֶסַח: חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וְחַד —

The Gemara asks: Which of the phrases “of it” is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? Rava said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “Of it” is written three times with regard to the Paschal lamb: “Do not eat of it raw… And you shall not leave any of it until morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:9–10). The three instances of “of it” 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.

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לְךָ עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״נוֹתָר״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״מִמֶּנּוּ״. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״מִמֶּנּוּ״.

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 “that which remains [notar]” is written, “of it” 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 “until morning” is written, “of it” is also written.

תְּלָתָא ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ כְּתִיבִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר: חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְחַד לִדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.

Similarly, “of it” is written three times with regard to second tithe: “I 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” (Deuteronomy 26:14). The three instances of “of it” are expounded as follows: One for itself; and one for that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר רַבִּי סִימַאי: מִנַּיִן לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְסוּכוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת״. לְמֵת הוּא דְּלֹא נָתַתִּי, הָא לְחַי דֻּומְיָא דְמֵת — נָתַתִּי. אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בַּחַיִּים וּבַמֵּתִים? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ סִיכָה.

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’s body with it? As it is stated: “Nor did I give of it for the dead.” 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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: וְאֵימָא לִיקַּח לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִים? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ — מִגּוּפוֹ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״לָא נָתַתִּי״ דֻּומְיָא דְּ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״: מָה לְהַלָּן מִגּוּפוֹ — אַף כָּאן מִגּוּפוֹ.

Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But say that the verse is referring not to anointing but to purchasing a coffin and shrouds for 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: “Of it” indicates benefit derived from the tithe itself and not from the money acquired in exchange for the tithe. Rav Ashi said a different answer: “I did not give” must be similar to “I did not eat”; 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 “of it” written with regard to second tithe are required for different expositions.

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמֵדִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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.

הָךְ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ — מִדְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ נָפְקָא. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי״ — בִּשְׁתֵּי תְרוּמוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר: אַחַת תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְאַחַת תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לְךָ״ — שֶׁלְּךָ תְּהֵא, לְהַסָּקָה תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילְךָ.

The Gemara answers: This halakha of Rabbi Abbahu with regard to the burning of impure teruma oil is derived from what Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said. As Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot” (Numbers 18:8)? From the amplification of the plural “My terumot,” 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: “I have given you,” 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 “of it” is available on both sides.

וְכׇל הַטְּמֵאִים כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב וְגוֹ׳״. אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה

§ 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 Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: “Any man 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). Now, what matter is the same

בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּרוּמָה. וְאֵימָא בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק? אֵינָהּ בְּחוֹזֶרֶת.

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.

תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, אֵינָהּ בַּחֲלָלָה! חֲלָלָה לָאו זַרְעוֹ דְּאַהֲרֹן הִיא.

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

וּמִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״, עַד דְּאִיכָּא הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ, אֵימָא: עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה?

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: “Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure,” 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.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּזָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת וּבִמְצוֹרָע מוּסְגָּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דּוּמְיָא דִּ״טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ״, מָה ״טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ״ דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה הוּא — הָנֵי נָמֵי דְּלָאו בְּנֵי כַּפָּרָה נִינְהוּ.

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.

וְאֵימָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל דְּבַר כַּפָּרָה, עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה?!

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.

וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: טָבַל וְעָלָה — אוֹכֵל בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר, הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ — אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה, הֵבִיא כַּפָּרָה — אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, מְנָא לַן?

And furthermore, the Gemara raises a question with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 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?

אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי. כְּתִיב: ״וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי אִם רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם״, הָא רָחַץ — טָהוֹר. וּכְתִיב: ״וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״. וּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן לְמַעֲשֵׂר, כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה, כָּאן לְקָדָשִׁים.

Rava said that Rav Ḥisda said: Three verses are written with regard to purity for eating sacred food. It is written: “And he shall not eat of the holy things, unless he has bathed his flesh in water” (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: “And when the sun has set, he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things” (Leviticus 22:7), which indicates that he must wait until sunset. And it is further written: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure” (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.

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא? מִסְתַּבְּרָא תְּרוּמָה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן מחפ״ז.

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, ḥet, 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 [ḥomesh] 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.

אַדְּרַבָּה: מֵעֶשֶׂר עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן הֲדַ״ס טָ״ב?

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’a] 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’s 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’s house before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle, if one failed to do so beforehand.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִיתָה עֲדִיפָא.

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.

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא מִיתָה עֲדִיפָא, נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״נֶפֶשׁ״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּכׇל נֶפֶשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר.

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: “The soul that touches it” (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.

וְאַכַּתִּי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּבַר כַּפָּרָה — עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה!

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי. בְּיוֹלֶדֶת כְּתִיב: ״עַד מְלֹאת יְמֵי טׇהֳרָהּ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּלְאוּ יָמֶיהָ — טָהֵרָה. וּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה, כָּאן לְקׇדָשִׁים.

Abaye said: Two verses are written with regard to a woman after childbirth: It is written: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (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: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure” (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.

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא קֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן פנקעכ״ס.

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’ila]; the punishment of one who eats sacrificial food while ritually impure is excision [karet]; sacrificial food is prohibited [asur] to an acute mourner.

אַדְּרַבָּה תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מחפ״ז? הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן!

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, ḥet, peh, zayin. The Gemara answers: Those stringencies that apply to sacrificial food are more numerous than those that apply to teruma.

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּקָדָשִׁים, אִיקְּרִי כָּאן: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה.

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: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure,” 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: “And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten” (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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ תְּרוּמָה כְּתִיבָא הָכָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — גִּיּוֹרֶת וְשִׁפְחָה מְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִשָּׁה״. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּתְרוּמָה, גִּיּוֹרֶת וְשִׁפְחָה בְּנוֹת מֵיכַל תְּרוּמָה נִינְהוּ?

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: “Until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4)? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: The section dealing with a woman following childbirth opens with the verse: “Speak 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” (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: “A woman,” 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְלָא?

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