Yevamot 147

ונוהגין בשאר שני שבוע ואין להם פדיון מה שאין כן במעשר ש"מ

'And they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah and bikkurim. ');">¹</span> apply in all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'other', i.e., even in the third and sixth. V. next note. ');">²</span> the years of the septennial cycle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not only, like the second tithe, in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the cycle. ');">³</span>

ת"ש נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין את המילה הרי זה אינו אוכל לא בתרומה ולא בפסח ולא בקדשים ולא במעשר מאי לאו מעשר דגן לא מעשר בהמה

and cannot be redeemed', and that 'this does not apply to the [second] tithe'. This proves it. Come and hear: 'If shreds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the corona. ');">⁴</span> which render the circumcision invalid remain, he may not eat <i>terumah</i>, nor the paschal lamb, nor holy food, nor tithe'. Does not tithe refer to the tithe of the corn? — No; the tithe of cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the question put to R. Shesheth. ');">⁵</span>

מעשר בהמה היינו קדשים וליטעמיך מי לא תנן פסח וקתני קדשים

But is not the tithe of cattle the same as holy food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is already mentioned. ');">⁶</span> — Even on your view are we not told here of the paschal lamb and yet 'holy food' also is mentioned! — One can well understand why it was necessary to mention both the paschal lamb and holy food; for if the paschal lamb only had been stated it might have been assumed that it only is forbidden, because uncircumcision was written in Scripture in connection with the paschal lamb, but not holy food. And if holy food only had been stated it might have been assumed that what was meant by holy food was the paschal lamb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both were therefore necessary. ');">⁷</span> What need, however, was there for the mention here of the tithe of cattle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is included in 'holy food'. V. supra n. 2. Hence 'tithe' must mean second tithe, which solves the question put to R. Shesheth. ');">⁸</span>

בשלמא פסח וקדשים צריכי דאי תנא פסח משום דערלות בפסח כתיבא אבל קדשים אימא לא ואי תנא קדשים ה"א מאי קדשים פסח אלא מעשר בהמה למה לי

— [No, say,] rather, tithe refers to the first tithe; and this [teaching] is that of R. Meir who holds that the first tithe is forbidden to non-priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And owing to its sanctity it was also forbidden to the uncircumcised. ');">⁹</span> Come and hear: Since R. Hiyya b. Rab of Difti has learned, 'An uncircumcised is forbidden to eat of both tithes', is not one the tithe of the corn and the other the tithe of the cattle! — Here also the first tithe was meant and the ruling is that of R. Meir. Come and hear: 'An onan is forbidden to eat of tithe but is permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>, and [to engage] in the [preparation of] the red heifer;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not offered on the altar, its sanctity is of a lesser degree. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא מעשר ראשון ור' מאיר היא דאמר מעשר ראשון אסור לזרים

a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹¹</span> is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>, but is permitted [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer, and to eat tithe; and he who was still short of atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unclean person the requirements of whose purification have, with the exception of the sacrifice prescribed for the unclean, been satisfied. ');">¹²</span> is forbidden [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer, but is permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> and tithe'. Now, if it were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the uncircumcised is permitted to eat second tithe. ');">¹³</span>

ת"ש מדתני ר' חייא בר רב מדפתי ערל אסור בשתי מעשרות מאי לאו אחד מעשר דגן ואחד מעשר בהמה הכא נמי מעשר ראשון ור' מאיר

it should have been stated, 'The uncircumcised is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i> but is permitted [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 72b. ');">¹⁴</span> and to eat tithe'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this, however, was omitted it must be assumed that the omission was due to the fact that tithe is permitted to the uncircumcised! ');">¹⁵</span> — This represents the view of a Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who includes the uncircumcised, like the unclean, in the prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To engage even in the preparation of the red heifer (supra 72b). ');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ש אונן אסור במעשר ומותר בתרומה ובפרה טבול יום אסור בתרומה ומותר בפרה ובמעשר מחוסר כפורים אסור בפרה ומותר בתרומה ובמעשר ואם איתא ניתני ערל אסור בתרומה ומותר בפרה ובמעשר

As it was taught: Any man soever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4; lit., 'man man'. ');">¹⁷</span> includes the uncircumcised. Who is the Tanna who differs from R. Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And maintains (v. supra 72b) that the uncircumcised may deal with the red heifer. ');">¹⁸</span>

האי תנא דבי רבי עקיבא היא דמרבי ליה לערל כטמא דתניא רבי עקיבא אומר (ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש לרבות את הערל

— It is the Tanna who [is in disagreement with] R. Joseph the Babylonian. For it was taught: The burning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the red heifer. V. Num. XIX, 5. ');">¹⁹</span> by an onan or by one who is still short of atonement is valid; but R. Joseph the Babylonian said: That of the onan is valid but that of him who is short of atonement is not valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the first Tanna differs from R. Joseph in respect of the man who was short of atonement, he presumably differs also in respect of the uncircumcised. ');">²⁰</span> R. Isaac also is of the opinion that the uncircumcised is forbidden to eat [second] tithe. For R. Isaac stated: Whence is it deduced that the uncircumcised is forbidden to eat [second] tithe? 'Thereof' was stated in respect of [the] tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra for further explanation. ');">²¹</span>

ומאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי עקיבא תנא דרבי יוסף הבבלי היא דתניא שרפת אונן ומחוסר כפורים כשרה רבי יוסף הבבלי אומר אונן כשרה מחוסר כפורים פסולה

and 'thereof' was also stated in respect of the paschal lamb;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra for further explanation. ');">²¹</span> as the paschal lamb, in respect of which 'thereof' was used, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so is [the] tithe, in respect of which 'thereof' was used, forbidden to the uncircumcised. Is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'thereof' used in the analogy. ');">²²</span> free for deduction? For if it is not free, it could be objected: The Paschal lamb is rightly subject to the restriction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its prohibition to the uncircumcised. ');">²³</span>

ואף ר' יצחק סבר ערל אסור במעשר דא"ר יצחק מנין לערל שאסור במעשר נאמר ממנו במעשר ונאמר ממנו בפסח מה ממנו האמור בפסח ערל אסור בו אף ממנו האמור במעשר ערל אסור בו

since one may incur in respect of it the penalties for piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁴</span> nothar'' and levitical uncleanness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no analogy between it and tithe would be justified. ');">²⁵</span> — It is indeed free for the deduction. Which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the expressions, 'thereof'. ');">²⁶</span>

מופני דאי לא מופני איכא למיפרך מה לפסח שכן חייבין עליו משום פיגול ונותר וטמא לאיי אפנויי מופני

is free? Raba replied in the name of R. Isaac: 'Thereof' is written three times in connection with the paschal lamb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 9, 10. ');">²⁷</span> One is required for the paschal lamb itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In 'Ye shall not eat thereof raw' (verse 9) 'thereof' is required as otherwise it might have been assumed to refer to the unleavened bread and bitter herbs mentioned in the preceding verse (Tosaf)]. ');">²⁸</span> one for the analogy;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With second tithe. ');">²⁹</span>

מאי מופני אמר רבא א"ר יצחק תלתא (שמות יב, ט) ממנו כתיבי בפסח חד לגופיה וחד לגזירה שוה וחד

and as to the third, according to him who maintains that Scripture intended<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the text, Ye shall burn (that which remains) with fire (Ex. Xli, 10). ');">³⁰</span> a positive precept to follow a negative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ye shall let nothing thereof remain (ibid.). ');">³¹</span> one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to exempt the transgressor from the penalty of flogging. v. Mak. 4b. ');">³²</span>

למאן דאמר בא הכתוב ליתן לך עשה אחר לא תעשה איידי דכתיב נותר כתיב נמי ממנו ולמאן דאמר ליתן לו בקר שני לשריפתו איידי דכתיב עד בקר כתיב נמי ממנו

'thereof' was written [a second time],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XII, 20., cf. previous note. ');">³³</span> because nothar was written [a second time];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XII, 20., cf. previous note. ');">³³</span> and according to him who maintains [that the repetition of until the morning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Earlier in the text it was already stated, And ye shall let nothing thereof remain until the morning. ');">³⁴</span>

תלתא ממנו כתיבי במעשר חד לגופיה וחד לדרבי אבהו א"ר יוחנן וחד לדריש לקיש

was intended] to allow a second morning for its burning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The morning after the first day of the Passover. V. Pes. 83b. ');">³⁵</span> 'thereof' was written [a second time],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XII. 10. ');">³⁶</span> because until the morning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Earlier in the text it was already stated, And ye shall let nothing thereof remain until the morning. ');">³⁴</span>

דאמר ריש לקיש א"ר סמיא מנין למעשר שני שנטמא שמותר לסוכו שנאמר (דברים כו, יד) ולא נתתי ממנו למת למת הוא דלא נתתי הא לחי דומיא דמת נתתי איזה דבר ששוה בחיים ובמתים הוי אומר זו סיכה

had to be written [a second time]. Also, in connection with tithe, 'thereof' was written three times. One is required for its own purpose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The first 'thereof' to exclude the first tithe from the restriction in regard to onan (v. Glos) [H]. ');">³⁷</span> one is required for the deduction which R. Abbahu made in the name of R. Johanan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting the burning of unclean oil of terumah for lighting purposes. V. supra 73b. ');">³⁸</span> and the third is required for the exposition made by Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated in the name of R. Simya: Whence is it deduced that second tithe which has become levitically unclean may be used for anointing? It is said, Nor have I given thereof for the dead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 24. ');">³⁹</span>

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ואימא ליקח לו ארון ותכריכים אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ממנו מגופו רב אשי אמר לא נתתי דומיא דלא אכלתי מה להלן מגופו אף כאן מגופו

only for a dead man have I not given, but I have given for a living man in the same manner as for the dead. Now, what is it that may be equally applied to the living and to the dead? You must say that it is anointing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot refer to eating which is, of course, inapplicable to the dead. ');">⁴⁰</span> Mar Zutra demurred: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 24. ');">³⁹</span> might be suggested to refer to the purchase for the dead of a coffin and shrouds!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not to anointing. The deduction, consequently, would be that though unclean tithe may not be exchanged for money wherewith to buy the requirements of the dead, it being unfit as food, it may be exchanged for the purpose of buying anything for the living. ');">⁴¹</span>

ואכתי מופנה מצד אחד הוא הניחא למאן דאמר למדין ואין משיבין אלא למ"ד למדין ומשיבין מאי איכא למימר

— R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: 'Thereof' means of the tithe itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not with the money for which it was exchanged. ');">⁴²</span> R. Ashi replied: Nor have I given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 24. ');">³⁹</span> must be analogous to I have not eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 24. ');">³⁹</span>

הך דרבי אבהו מדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה נפקא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מאי דכתיב (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 להסקה תחת תבשילך:

as there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of eating. ');">⁴³</span> it refers to the tithe itself so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'giving'. ');">⁴⁴</span> it must refer to the tithe itself. But still it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression. 'Thereof'. ');">⁴⁵</span>

וכל הטמאים כו': מנא הני מילי א"ר יוחנן משום ר' ישמעאל אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב וגו' אי זהו דבר ששוה

is free, however, in one direction only!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that of the Paschal lamb; those occurring in the section of tithe being required for other deductions. ');">⁴⁶</span> [The analogy is] quite satisfactory according to him who maintains that deduction may be made [even in such a case]. and may not be refuted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 22b. ');">⁴⁷</span> According to him, however, who is of the opinion that deduction may be made but also refuted, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of the objection that the Paschal lamb is subject to restrictions which are inapplicable to the second tithe. ');">⁴⁸</span> — R. Abbahu's deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one of the expressions of 'thereof'. ');">⁴⁹</span> may be inferred from the text cited in the statement which R. Nahman made in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha. For R. Nahman stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: What was meant by the Scriptural text, And I, behold, I have given thee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">⁵⁰</span> the charge of My heave-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 8. ');">⁵¹</span> Scripture speaks of two kinds of <i>terumah</i>. One, clean <i>terumah</i>, and the other, unclean <i>terumah</i>; and concerning these the All Merciful said, 'It shall be thine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">⁵⁰</span> even for burning under your dish.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Abbahu's deduction may be made from this text, one of the expressions of 'thereof' remains free for the purpose of the analogy. ');">⁵²</span> AND ALL LEVITICALLY UNCLEAN PERSONS etc. Whence is this deduced? — R. Johanan replied in the name of R. Ishmael: Scripture stated, What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath an issue etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁵³</span> Now, what is it that is equally