Yevamot 146

ואוכלן בטומאת עצמן לוקה מה שאין כן בתרומה לא קתני אלמא תני ושייר:

and that the man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Himself levitically clean. ');">¹</span> who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">²</span> and that these laws do not apply to <i>terumah</i>, were not stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though, according to the first Tanna who compares bikkurim and tithe in all respects, these laws also should have been included in his statement. ');">³</span>

ואסורין לאונן ור"ש מתיר מנא להו דכתיב (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך וגו' ותרומת ידך ואמר מר תרומת ידך אלו בכורים ואיתקש בכורים למעשר מה מעשר אסור לאונן אף בכורים אסור לאונן

This proves clearly that only some were taught and others were omitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncircumcised among them. ');">⁴</span> The Master said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH. Cur. edd. omit. ');">⁵</span> 'And are forbidden to an onan, and R. Simeon permits [the bikkurim to an onan]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 73a. ');">⁶</span>

ור"ש תרומה קרינהו רחמנא מה תרומה מותרת לאונן אף בכורים מותר לאונן

Whence do they derive their views? — From the Scriptural text, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil or the firstlings of thy herd<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH. Cur. edd. omit. ');">⁵</span> etc. nor the offering of thy hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">²</span> and a Master said that 'the offering of thy hand' refers to bikkurim;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to which 'hand' was mentioned. V. Deut. XXVI. 4. (Tosaf. s.v. [H], a.l.). ');">⁷</span>

וחייבין בביעור ור"ש פוטר מר מקיש ומר לא מקיש

and bikkurim were compared to tithe: As tithe is forbidden to the onan so are bikkurim also forbidden to the onan. And R. Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he permit it? ');">⁸</span> — The All Merciful called them <i>terumah</i>: As <i>terumah</i> is permitted to the onan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As shewn supra 70a. ');">⁹</span> so are bikkurim permitted to the onan.

ואסור לבער מהן בטומאה ואוכלן בטומאת עצמן לוקה מנלן דתניא ר' שמעון אומר (דברים כו, יד) לא בערתי ממנו בטמא בין שאני טמא והוא טהור בין שאני טהור והוא טמא

'They are, furthermore, subject to removal; but R. Simeon permits them'. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">¹⁰</span> compares [bikkurim to tithe]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of which the prohibition was stated in Deut. XXVI. 13. Cf. supra p 494. n. 18. ');">¹¹</span> and the other Master does not.

והיכא מוזהר על אכילתו איני יודע טומאת הגוף בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כב, ו) נפש אשר תגע בו וטמאה עד הערב ולא יאכל מן הקדשים כי אם רחץ בשרו במים

'They may not be burned when levitically unclean, and the man who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged'. Whence is this derived? — From what was taught: R. Simeon said, Neither have I burned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'put away'. ');">¹²</span> thereof, being unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 14. ');">¹³</span> whether I was unclean and it was clean or I was clean and it was unclean. I do not know, however, where one was forbidden to eat it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition referring to burning only. The question is assumed to refer to the uncleanness of either the tithe or the one who eats it. ');">¹⁴</span>

הכי קמיבעיא ליה טומאת עצמו מנין ת"ל לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים טו, כב) בשעריך תאכלנו הטמא והטהור יחדו כצבי וכאיל ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אפי' טמא וטהור אוכלין על שולחן אחד בקערה אחת ואינן חוששין וקאמר רחמנא ההוא דאמרי לך התם בשעריך תאכלנו הכא לא תיכול:

(But, surely, in relation to it, the uncleanness of the body was specifically stated: The soul that touches any such shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, as shewn infra 74b, refers to tithe. ');">¹⁵</span> unless he bathe his flesh in waters — This is the question: Whence the prohibition [to eat it] where the thing itself is unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 6. ');">¹⁶</span> It was expressly stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the 'second tithe'. ');">¹⁷</span>

משא"כ בתרומה מנא לן אמר ר' אבהו א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא לא בערתי ממנו בטמא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של תרומה שנטמא

Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 17. ');">¹⁸</span> but further on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to dedicated animals which are permitted to a non-priest if they were redeemed after having become blemished. ');">¹⁹</span> it was stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates; the unclean and the clean may eat it alike as the gazelle, and as the hart,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 22. ');">²⁰</span>

ואימא ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של קדש שנטמא לאו קל וחומר הוא ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא בערתי ממנו בטמא קדש חמור לא כ"ש

and at the school of R. Ishmael it was taught that the unclean and the clean may eat together even on the same table, and the same plate, and no precautions need be taken. Thus the All Merciful stated, 'That, concerning which I told you there, Thou shalt eat it within thy gates,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 22. ');">²⁰</span> you may not eat here'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only there may the clean eat though the unclean had touched the plate and caused the defilement of the food, but not here in the case of the second tithe. ');">²¹</span> 'That these laws do not apply to terumah'. Whence do we derive this? — R. Abbahu replied in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture stated, Neither have I burnt thereof, being unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 24. ');">²²</span>

אי הכי תרומה נמי ק"ו הוא הא כתיב ממנו

you may not burn 'thereof', but you may burn the oil of <i>terumah</i> if it has become unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that no prohibition is attached to terumah. ');">²³</span> Might it not be suggested: You may not burn any 'thereof'. but you may burn holy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dedicated, for instance, as a meal-offering. ');">²⁴</span> oil that became unclean? — This, surely. may be inferred a minori ad majus: If in respect of the tithe, the sanctity of which is of a minor character, the Torah stated, Neither have I burnt thereof, being unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 24. ');">²²</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא קדש לא ממעיטנא שכן פנקעכ"ס

how much more so in respect of holy food the Sanctity of which is of a major character. If so, <i>terumah</i> also might be inferred a minori ad majus! — Surely 'thereof' was written. And what reason do you see?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For inferring holy food a minori ad majus, and for excluding terumah by the expression thereof? ');">²⁵</span> It is logical that holy food should not be excluded, since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mnemonic [H] represents the initials, or striking letters of Piggul. Nothar, Korban (sacrifice). me'ilah (the 'Ayin). Kareth. asur (forbidden). ');">²⁶</span> [the following restrictions also apply to it:] piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁷</span>

פגול נותר קרבן מעילה כרת ואסור לאונן

nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁷</span> sacrifice, <i>me'ilah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁷</span> <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁷</span>

אדרבה תרומה לא ממעיטנא שכן מחפ"ז מיתה וחומש ואין לה פדיון ואסורה לזרים

and it is also forbidden to an onan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁷</span> On the contrary; <i>terumah</i> should not be excluded since [to it apply the restrictions of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mnemonic [H] (cf. supra n. 1) represents the initials of [H] 'death', [H] fifth', [H] 'redemption', [H] 'non-priest'. ');">²⁸</span> death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the person who eats it while he is in a state of uncleanness. ');">²⁹</span>

הנך נפישן ואיבעית אימא כרת עדיפא:

a fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Payable by a non-priest who eats terumah unwittingly even at a time when it is permitted to priests. The fifth is not payable in respect of holy food when its consumption is permitted to priests. ');">³⁰</span> it cannot be redeemed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holy food, however, may be redeemed in certain circumstances. ');">³¹</span> and it is forbidden to non-priests!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holy food of the minor degree is permissible to non-priests. ');">³²</span>

ואוכלן בטומאת עצמן לוקה מה שאין כן בתרומה מילקא הוא דלא לקי הא איסורא איכא מנלן אמר קרא בשעריך תאכלנו לזה ולא לאחר ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

— Those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions in respect of terumah. ');">³³</span> are more in number. And if you prefer I might say: <i>Kareth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is incurred in connection with holy food and not in connection with terumah. ');">³⁴</span> is regarded as being of greater importance.

אמר רב אשי מרישא נמי שמעת מינה דתנא ושייר מדלא קתני

'The man that eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged, and that these laws do not apply to terumah'. He is apparently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since flogging was mentioned. ');">³⁵</span> exempt only from flogging, but a prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat unclean terumah. ');">³⁶</span> remains. Whence is this derived? — Scripture stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 22. ');">³⁷</span> only 'it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May be eaten. ');">³⁸</span> but not any other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah. ');">³⁹</span> and a negative precept that is derived from a positive one [has only the force of] a positive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Transgression of which is not punishable by flogging. ');">⁴⁰</span> R. Ashi said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the question supra p. 494. n. 14. ');">⁴¹</span> From the first clause also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only from the second. ');">⁴²</span> you may infer that the Tanna taught some<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the restrictions that do not apply to tithe. ');">⁴³</span> and omitted others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncircumcised among them. ');">⁴⁴</span> since he did not state