Related for Sanhedrin 165:15

טהורה אין טמאה לא דאמר שמואל א"ר אליעזר מניין לכהן טמא שאכל תרומה טמאה שאינו במיתה שנאמר ומתו בו כי יחללוהו

But the performance of the service by an uncircumcised [priest], an onen.14 or by one who officiated whilst sitting is not liable to death, but merely prohibited. If a priest with a blemish [officiated], Rabbi said: He is liable to death; the Sages maintain: He is merely prohibited. If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass offering,15 Rabbi said: He is liable to death. and the Sages say: He transgressed a mere prohibition. Now, whence do we know it of one who eats tebel? — As Samuel said on the authority of R. Eliezer: Whence do we know that one who eats tebel is liable to death? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall offer to the Lord.16 Now, the verse refers to that which is yet to be offered;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verb [H] is imperfect ('which they shall offer') and hence refers to 'holy things' — i.e., terumah — which is yet to be separated from the produce, so that it is all tebel. ');">17 and then identity of law is learnt from the use of 'profanation' here and in the case of terumah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9: They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it. This refers to the eating of terumah by an unclean priest. ');">18 just as there the penalty is death, so here too. But let us rather learn [the penalty] from the use of profanation here and in the case of nothar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which is left over of the sacrifice after the time appointed for eating. Ibid. XIX, 6, 8: And if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in fire … Therefore every one that catch it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ');">19 just as there, the penalty is extinction. so here too? — It is logical to make the deduction from terumah, because they are equal in the following points: — [i] terumah, [ii] extra-territoriality, [iii] annulment, [iv] plural form, [v] land produce. [vi] piggul, and [vii] nothar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both deal with terumah, as tebel too is forbidden on account of the unseparated terumah which it contains. Neither terumah nor tebel operated outside Palestine, but nothar was forbidden in the wilderness too. Further, both of these prohibitions can be annulled: that of the unclean priest by a ritual bath; tebel, by separating its terumah: but under no circumstances can the prohibition of nothar be annulled. Profanation in both cases is stated in plural form: tebel: And they shall not profane etc. terumah: … if they profane it; but nothar has its use in the singular … because he hath profaned. Tebel and terumah apply to land produce (cereals and fruits); nothar to animals. Finally, the law of piggul (v. Glos) and nothar is inapplicable to tebel and terumah. ');">20 On the contrary, should not the deduction rather be made from nothar, since they are alike in the following points: [i] unfitness of food and [ii] no annulment of prohibition by a mikweh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of tebel and nothar the substance itself is forbidden; but the terumah is not forbidden, only that the priest is unclean. Also the prohibition of tebel and nothar cannot be annulled through a mikweh (ritual bath); but that of terumah ceases when the priest takes a ritual bath. ');">21 — Even so, those [tebel and terumah] have more points in common. Rabina answered: The use of the plural form is certainly a stronger link.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fourth point which tebel and terumah have in common is itself sufficient to justify the preference for terumah, as the basis for deduction, rather than nothar. ');">22 And whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate undefiled terumah [is liable to death]? — As Samuel said: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate undefiled terumah is punished by death at the hands of Heaven? From the verse, Therefore they shall keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it.23 This [however] applies only to undefiled, but not to polluted terumah: for Samuel said in R. Eliezer's name: Whence do we know that an unclean priest who ate unclean is not liable to death? — From the verse, and die therefore, if they profane it:

Tosefta Terumot

A seah of impure terumah that fell inside one hundred seahs of pure terumah: Beit Shammai prohibit it (i.e., the entire mixture) and Beit Hillel permit it (alt., per Ramban and Rashba, "Beit Hillel say that it is lifted up at [a proportion of] one hundred and one [to one]"). Said Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai, "[Since] pure [terumah] is forbidden to non-Kohanim, and impure [terumah] is forbidden to Kohanim, just as pure [terumah] is lifted up [from a mixture of chullin and the remainder may be eaten by a non-Kohen], so too is impure [terumah] lifted up [in this case, and the remainder eaten by a Kohen]." Beit Shammai said to them, "No! If you said that with [respect to] pure [terumah] it is lifted up from within [a mixture of] chullin that is fed to non-Kohanim, you must say that with [respect to] impure [terumah], it is not lifted up from within [a mixture of] chullin to be fed to Kohanim." Beit Hillel said to them, "Behold, [with respect to] impure [terumah] that fell inside chullin, [since] you would rule that there is no lifting up from within [a mixture of] chullin to feed to non-Kohanim, [you must concede that] behold, it may [nonetheless] be lifted up." Beit Shammai said to them, "If you state [a principle] with [respect to] chullin, as to which they (i.e., the Sages) were extremely lenient, would you state [the same principle] with [respect to] terumah, as to which they were much less lenient?" Beit Hillel said to them, "With what was the Torah stringent, with feeding terumah to non-Kohanim, or with feeding terumah to Kohanim? With feeding terumah to non-Kohanim. [Thus], a pure [non-Kohen] that ate pure [terumah], and a pure [non-Kohen] that ate impure [terumah], and a pure or impure [non-Kohen] that ate impure [terumah] -- all [are liable for] the death penalty. But [with respect to] feeding terumah to Kohanim, a pure [Kohen] that ate pure [terumah], he is acting as he was commanded. A pure [Kohen] that ate impure [terumah], he [has violated] a positive commandment. And an impure [Kohen] that ate pure [terumah] or an impure [Kohen] that ate impure [terumah], he [as violated] a negative commandment. And are not these things subject to a kol v'chomer (a logical deduction)? So that if in a situation where the Torah was stringent -- in feeding terumah to non-Kohanim, behold, it is lifted up from inside chullin to be eaten by non-Kohanim, ought we not rule that [terumah] is lifted up inside chullin (alt., per MS Erfurt, "inside terumah,") to feed to Kohanim?" After they agreed [and adopted Beit Hillel's position], Rabbi Eliezer says, [the lifted-out portion] is separated as terumah and then burned. And the Sages say, it is nullified due to its insignificance [in comparison with the rest of the mixture, Ter. 5:4].

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse