Shabbat 49

עשה והוה ליה יום טוב עשה ולא תעשה ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

is an affirmative precept:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it intimates, rest therein. ');">¹</span> thus there is an affirmative and a negative precept in respect of Festivals, and an affirmative precept cannot supersede a negative and an affirmative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The negative precept is 'no manner of work' etc.; while the affirmative precept to burn what is left over is in Ex. XII, 10, quoted supra. Thus unfit sacred food may not be burnt on Festivals, and the same applies to unclean terumah. ');">²</span>

ביום טוב הוא דאסיר הא בחול שפיר דמי מ"ט אמר רב כשם שמצוה לשרוף הקדשים שנטמאו כך מצוה לשרוף את התרומה שנטמאת ואמרה תורה בשעת ביעורה תיהני ממנה היכן אמרה תורה מדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (במדבר יח, ח) ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומותי בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומה טהורה ואחת תרומה טמאה ואמר רחמנא לך שלך תהא להסיקה תחת תבשילך

Thus it [the burning of defiled <i>terumah</i>] is forbidden only on Festivals, but on weekdays it is well.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may benefit from the burning, e.g., by using it as fuel. ');">³</span> What is the reason? Said Rab: Just as it is obligatory to burn defiled sacred food, so t is obligatory to burn defiled <i>terumah</i>, and the Torah said, When it is burnt, you may benefit therefrom. Where did the Torah say thus? — [It follows] from R. Nahman's [dictum]. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name, Scripture saith, And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave-offerings:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 8. Heb. terumothai, pl. of terumah with passage. ');">⁴</span>

ואיבעית אימא מדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו א"ר יוחנן (דברים כו, יד) ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של תרומה שנטמאת ואימא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של קדש שנטמא

the Writ refers to two terumoth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is in the plural. ');">⁵</span> viz., clean and unclean <i>terumah</i>, and the Divine Law said'[I have given] thee', [meaning], let it be thine for burning it under thy pot. Alternatively, [it follows] from R. Abbahu's [dictum]. For R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: 'Neither have I put away thereof, being unclean:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 14; v. whole passage. The reference is to the second tithe, and 'being unclean' is understood as meaning whether the person or the tithe was unclean. ');">⁶</span>

לאו קל וחומר הוא מה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא בערתי ממנו בטמא קדש חמור לא כ"ש

'thereof' you may not 'put away,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by using it as fuel. ');">⁷</span> but you may 'put away' [burn] defiled oil of <i>terumah</i>. Yet [perhaps] say: 'thereof' you may not 'put away', but you may 'put away undefiled oil of <i>kodesh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. E.g., that used in connection with the meal offerings; v. Lev. II, 1. ');">⁸</span>

א"ה תרומה נמי לימא ק"ו הוא הא כתיב ממנו

which is defiled? — Does it [the reverse] not follow <i>a fortiori</i>: if tithe, which is light,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its sanctity is less than that of sacrifices. ');">⁹</span> yet the Torah said, neither have I put away thereof, being unclean'; then how much more so <i>kodesh</i>, which is more stringent? If so, in the case of <i>terumah</i> too let us say, does it [the reverse] not follow a afortiori?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For its sanctity is higher than that of tithes. ');">¹⁰</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא קדש לא ממעיטנא שכן סימן פנ"ק עכ"ס פיגול נותר קרבן מעילה וכרת אסור לאונן

— Surely thereof' is written!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying a limitation as stated. ');">¹¹</span> And why do you prefer it thus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (reason) do you see?'- Why exclude terumah by exegesis and include kodesh a fortiori? Perhaps it should be the reverse? ');">¹²</span>

אדרבה תרומה לא ממעיטנא שכן מחפ"ז סימן מיתה חומש

— It is logical that I do not exclude <i>kodesh</i>, since it is [stringent] in respect of (Mnemonic: <i>Pa NaK'aKaS</i>):<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mnemonic is a word or phrase made up of the initial letters of a number of other words or phrases, as an aid to the memory. ');">¹³</span> [i] <i>Piggul</i>, [ii] <i>Nothar</i>, [iii] sacrifice [<i>Korban</i>], [iv] <i>Me'ilah</i>, [v] <i>Kareth</i>, and [vi] 'it is forbidden [<i>asur</i>] to an <i>onen</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. for these words. (i) Piggul, lit., 'abomination', is a sacrifice killed with the intention of eating it without the boundaries appointed for same; (ii) nothar, with the intention of eating it after its appointed time. These are the connotations of the words here, though elsewhere piggul has the meaning given here to nothar (Tosaf.). These unlawful intentions render the sacrifice an 'abomination', and it may then not be eaten even within its lawful boundaries and time on pain of kareth. (iii) It is designated a sacrifice (Korban). (iv) If one puts it to secular use he is liable to a trespass-offering (Me'ilah). (v) Kareth is incurred for eating it in an unclean bodily state. Kareth (lit., 'cutting off') is the Divine penalty of premature death and childlessness, which is severer than 'Death at the hand of Heaven', which does not include childlessness.-Since Kodesh is so strict in all these matters, it is logical that the limitation does not apply to it. ');">¹⁴</span> On the contrary, <i>terumah</i> is not to be excluded, since [it is stringent] in respect of its (mnemonic <i>Ma HPaZ</i>): [i] Death [<i>Mithah</i>], [ii] a fifth [<i>Homesh</i>],