Yevamot 140

אלמא לא קני ליה רביה הכא נמי לא קני ליה רביה אלא לאפנויי

which proves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a Canaanite slave, whose body is acquired by the master, may eat of his terumah. ');">¹</span> that his master does not acquire his person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew servant sells only his labour, while he himself remains a free man. ');">²</span> so that here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the Paschal lamb. ');">³</span>

ואכתי מופנה מצד אחד הוא ושמעינן ליה לר' אלעזר דאמר מופנה מצד אחד למדין ומשיבין

his master does not acquire his person!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he is thus a free man, it is obviously his duty to observe the commandment of the Paschal lamb. What need then was there for the specification of A sojourner and hired servant? ');">⁴</span> [The expression]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sojourner and a hired servant. Ex. XII, 45. ');">⁵</span> must consequently [have been written] for the purpose of the deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The verse would then be referring to a non-jew, 'a sojourner' denoting a resident alien and 'a hired servant' an idolater. This, however, would be included in uncircumcised' (Ex. Xli, 48) and 'alien' (verse 43). Consequently the verse must have been written for deduction (Tosaf.)]. ');">⁶</span>

כיון דלגופיה לא צריך שדי חד אלמד ושדי חד אמלמד והוה ליה גזירה שוה מופנה משני צדדין

But is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression. A sojourner and a hired servant. ');">⁷</span> not free in one direction only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the Paschal lamb. ');">⁸</span> while R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. 'Eleazar'. ');">⁹</span>

אי מה פסח אונן אסור בו אף תרומה אונן אסור בה

was heard to state [that an analogy between expressions of which only] one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from one side'. ');">¹⁰</span> is free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For interpretation or deduction. ');">¹¹</span> may be drawn, but may also be refuted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 104a. The analogy in the present instance might be refuted by the objection raised supra 70a. ');">¹²</span>

א"ר יוסי בר חנינא אמר קרא (זר) (ויקרא כב, י) וכל זר זרות אמרתי לך ולא אנינות אימא ולא ערלות הא כתיב (ויקרא כב, י) תושב ושכיר

— Since [the expressions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) sojourner and (b) hired servant. ');">¹³</span> are not required [for their own context]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both being superfluous and free for deduction. ');">¹⁴</span> one of them is allotted to the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of terumah. ');">¹⁵</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא ערלות הו"ל לרבויי שכן (מעשי"ם כרותי"ם בדב"ר העב"ד) מחוסר מעשה ומעשה בגופו וענוש כרת וישנו לפני הדבור ומילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת

in respect of which the inference is made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That terumah may not be eaten by the uncircumcised. ');">¹⁶</span> and the other is allotted to the law from which the inference is made,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Paschal lamb. ');">¹⁷</span> so that a word analogy is obtained which is free in both directions.

אדרבה אנינות הוה ליה לרבויי שכן ישנה בכל שעה ונוהגת באנשים ונשים ואין בידו לתקן את עצמו הנך נפישן

Might<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if (you say)'. ');">¹⁸</span> [not the deduction be made:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a word analogy has been established. ');">¹⁹</span> As the paschal lamb is forbidden to an onan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁰</span>

רבא אמר בלא הנך נפישן נמי לא מצית אמרת שבקינן ערלות דכתיב בגופיה דפסח וילפינן אנינות מפסח דפסח גופיה ממעשר גמרינן

so is <i>terumah</i> forbidden to an onan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the two are compared as regards the uncircumcised they should also be compared in respect of the onan! ');">²¹</span> — R. Jose son of R. Hanina replied: Scripture stated, 'There shall no common man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 10. ');">²²</span> I commanded you concerning its prohibition to the common man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The non-priest. ');">²³</span>

אי מה פסח מילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת אף תרומה מילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת

but not concerning that of the onan. But might it be suggested: But not the uncircumcised!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the uncircumcised might have been excluded by the text cited, not the onan. ');">²⁴</span> Surely 'A sojourner and a hired servant'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 45. ');">²⁵</span> was written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes the uncircumcised in the prohibition. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר קרא (שמות יב, מד) ומלתה אותו אז יאכל בו מילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת בו מלאכול בפסח ואין מילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת בתרומה

And what reason do you see?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For excluding onan and including the uncircumcised. ');">²⁷</span> — It is logical to infer that the case of the uncircumcised is to be included, since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis the following mnemonic as an aid to the recollection of the characteristics which distinguish the uncircumcised from the onan: Acts cut (kareth) in the Word (Revelation) of the servant. ');">²⁸</span> it involves the absence of an act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumcision. ');">²⁹</span>

אי הכי אימא (שמות יב, מח) כל ערל לא יאכל בו בו אינו אוכל אבל אוכל הוא בתרומה הא כתיב תושב ושכיר

and that act is one affecting the man's own body; [the uncircumcised] is punishable by <i>kareth</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he wilfully neglects the fulfilment of the precept. ');">³⁰</span> the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumcision. ');">²⁹</span> was in force before the Revelation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Sinai. Lit., 'and it is before (divine) speech'. The commandment concerning circumcision was given to Abraham. V. Gen. XVII, 9ff. ');">³¹</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא ערלות דגופיה הוה ליה לרבויי שכן מעשה בגופו וענוש כרת אדרבה מילת זכריו ועבדיו הוה ליה לרבויי שכן ישנה בכל שעה

and the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars [one from eating of the paschal lamb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man is forbidden to participate in the eating of the Paschal lamb if any of his sons or slaves who are liable to circumcision remain uncircumcised. Cf. Ex. XII, 44, 48. ');">³²</span> On the contrary; the case of the onan should have been included,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the prohibition to eat terumah. ');">³³</span> since mourning is an ever- present possibility,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is at all hours'; one may have more than one bereavement in his lifetime, but can be circumcised once only. ');">³⁴</span>

הנך נפישן ואב"א בלא [הנך] נפישן נמי לא מצית אמרת מי איכא מידי דערלות דגופיה לא מעכבא ביה ערלות דאחריני מעכבא ביה

is common to men as well as to women, and no man has the power to cure himself of it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cause of an onan's mourning is not controlled by human action. To make oneself fit by circumcision is within man's own power. ');">³⁵</span> — Those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions of circumcision. ');">³⁶</span> are more in number.

השתא דאמרת בו לדרשה הוא דאתא (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו למה לי בו

Raba said: Even if those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions of circumcision. ');">³⁶</span> were not more in number, you could not suggest that uncircumcision, which is actually mentioned in respect of the Paschal lamb, should be excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'leave out' from the prohibition. ');">³⁷</span> while the mourning of an onan, which in the case of the paschal lamb itself was deduced from that of the tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. infra 73a. ');">³⁸</span> should be deduced from it. Might<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if (you say)'. ');">³⁹</span> [it not be said:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a word analogy has been established. ');">⁴⁰</span> As the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating of the paschal lamb, so should the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debar one from the eating of <i>terumah</i>! — Scripture stated, When thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 44, emphasis on thereof. ');">⁴¹</span> the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating thereof, of the Paschal lamb only; the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves does not, however, debar one from the eating of <i>terumah</i>. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression 'thereof 'is made the basis of an exposition. ');">⁴²</span> [why not] say, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 48. ');">⁴³</span> [also implies:] He may not eat 'thereof' only but may eat <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, of course, would be contrary to the deduction supra. ');">⁴⁴</span> — Surely it was written A sojourner and a hired servant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which deduction was made that an uncircumcised person may not eat terumah. ');">⁴⁵</span> And what reason do you see?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For including in the prohibition one's own circumcision and excluding that of one's sons and slaves. ');">⁴⁶</span> — It is only logical to include a man's own circumcision, since the act is performed on his own person and its neglect is punishable by <i>kareth</i>. On the contrary; the circumcision of one's male children and slaves should have been excluded because it may occur at any time! — The former restrictions are more in number. And if you prefer I might say that even if those were not more in number your suggestion could not be entertained; for is there anything which is not debarred by his own state of uncircumcision but is debarred by that of the other! Now that it has been said that the expression. 'Thereof,' was introduced for expository purposes. what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BaH emends the following version by some transpositions and additions. ');">⁴⁷</span> was the purpose of the text, There shall no alien eat of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 43. emphasis on the last word, [H] of it (E.V. thereof). ');">⁴⁸</span> — Only with regard to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (cf. supra n. 2), the Paschal lamb. ');">⁴⁹</span>