Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 73 (original) (raw)

Folio 73a

And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean,1 [since] clean [was mentioned]2 the implication must be that he is [somewhat unclean.3 Thus it was taught that a tebul yom4 is permitted to prepare the red heifer.

R. Shesheth was asked: Is an uncircumcised person permitted to eat tithe:5 Is tithe deduced from the paschal lamb in the case of circumcision6 as the paschal lamb is deduced from tithe in the case of the mourning of an onan,7 or may only the major [sanctity] be deduced from the minor but not the minor from the major [sanctity]? He replied. You have learned this: In respect of terumah and the first ripe fruits8 one may incur the penalties of death9 and a fifth;10 these furthermore are forbidden to non-priests, they are the [undisputed] property of the priest,11 they are neutralized12 in one hundred and one,13 and they require washing of the hands,14 and sunset,15 All these restrictions apply to terumah and bikkurim only but not to tithe.16 Now, if that were so,17 it should have been stated here, 'The uncircumcised is forbidden to eat of them, which prohibition is not applicable to tithe'18 — He might have taught some19 and omitted others.20

What else did he omit that he should have omitted this?21 — He omitted the following. In the final clause while it was stated: 'Some restrictions apply to tithe and the first ripe fruits, but not to terumah, since tithe and the first ripe fruits must be brought to the appointed place,22 they require confession23 and are forbidden to an onan, and R. Simeon permits [the bikkurim to an onan]; they are,24 furthermore, subject to removal;25 but R. Simeon exempts them',26 [the laws that] they may not be burned27 even when levitically unclean,28

Original footnotes renumbered.

  1. Num. XIX. 19.
  2. Which was unnecessary. it being self-evident that the rite of purification should be performed by a clean person.
  3. The object of the text being to indicate that though he is not clean in all respects he may nevertheless perform the rite of sprinkling.
  4. V. Glos. The tebul yom is in one respect regarded as clean, since he has already performed his ritual ablution (v. Lev. XIV. 9), while in another respect (the eating of holy food), he is still regarded as unclean until sunset.
  5. The 'second tithe' which is permitted to Israelites under certain restrictions. V. Deut. XIV, 22-27.
  6. As the Paschal lamb is forbidden to the uncircumcised so is also the second tithe.
  7. V. Glos. The prohibition of the second tithe to the onan is specifically referred to in Deut. XXVI, 14, while the prohibition to him of the Paschal lamb is arrived at by deduction from the former.
  8. Bikkurim v. Glos.
  9. For unlawfully eating of them (v. Lev. XXII, 9 and Mak. 17a).
  10. Of the value of the food, in addition to its actual cost, which a non-priest must pay if he consumed unwittingly any quantity of terumah or bikkurim. V. Lev. XXII. 24.
  11. He may purchase with them any objects and may also use them as a token of betrothal.
  12. Lit., 'go up'. i.e., lose their sanctity.
  13. If the ratio of the ordinary food to that of the terumah of bikkurim is that or a hundred to one. The priest is then given 1/101 of the mixed quantity and the rest is permitted to be eaten by any person.
  14. On the part of the man who wishes to eat of them, even if they consist of fruit only, which, unlike bread, if not consecrated requires no washing of the hands.
  15. Before an unclean person, though he has performed his ablution, is permitted to eat of them.
  16. Bik. II. 1; B.M. 52b.
  17. That the uncircumcised is permitted to eat the second tithe.
  18. Since, however, this was omitted, it follows that tithe also is forbidden to the uncircumcised.
  19. Of the restrictions that do not apply to tithe.
  20. The uncircumcised among them.
  21. If nothing else was omitted it is unlikely that one single case only should have been omitted.
  22. Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 22ff and XXVI, 2ff.
  23. V. Deut. XXVI, 10 (bikkurim); ibid. 13 (tithe).
  24. Cf. Pes. 36b.
  25. From the house, by the third, and the sixth year of the Septennial cycle. Cf. I have put away the hallowed things out of my house (Deut. XXVI, 13) and v. Maas. V, 6.
  26. From the law of removal. Bik. II, 2.
  27. Oil, for instance, for lighting purposes.
  28. And not fit to be eaten.

Yebamoth 73b

and that the man1 who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged,2 and that these laws do not apply to terumah, were not stated.3 This proves clearly that only some were taught and others were omitted.4

The Master said,5 'And are forbidden to an onan, and R. Simeon permits [the bikkurim to an onan]'.6 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 herd5 etc. nor the offering of thy hand,2 and a Master said that 'the offering of thy hand' refers to bikkurim;7 and bikkurim were compared to tithe: As tithe is forbidden to the onan so are bikkurim also forbidden to the onan. And R. Simeon?8 — The All Merciful called them terumah: As terumah is permitted to the onan9 so are bikkurim permitted to the onan.

'They are, furthermore, subject to removal; but R. Simeon permits them'. One Master10 compares [bikkurim to tithe]11 and the other Master does not.

'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 burned12 thereof, being unclean,13 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'.14 (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,15 unless he bathe his flesh in waters — This is the question: Whence the prohibition [to eat it] where the thing itself is unclean?16 It was expressly stated,17 Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn18 but further on19 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,20 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,20 you may not eat here'.21

'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,22 you may not burn 'thereof', but you may burn the oil of terumah if it has become unclean.23 Might it not be suggested: You may not burn any 'thereof'. but you may burn holy24 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,22 how much more so in respect of holy food the Sanctity of which is of a major character. If so, terumah also might be inferred a minori ad majus! — Surely 'thereof' was written. And what reason do you see?25 It is logical that holy food should not be excluded, since26 [the following restrictions also apply to it:] piggul,27 nothar,27 sacrifice, me'ilah,27 kareth,27 and it is also forbidden to an onan.27 On the contrary; terumah should not be excluded since [to it apply the restrictions of]28 death.29 a fifth,30 it cannot be redeemed31 and it is forbidden to non-priests32 — Those33 are more in number. And if you prefer I might say: Kareth34 is regarded as being of greater importance.

'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 apparently35 exempt only from flogging, but a prohibition36 remains. Whence is this derived? — Scripture stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates.37 only 'it'38 but not any other;39 and a negative precept that is derived from a positive one [has only the force of] a positive.40

R. Ashi said:41 From the first clause also42 you may infer that the Tanna taught some43 and omitted others,44 since he did not state

Original footnotes renumbered.

  1. Himself levitically clean.
  2. V. infra.
  3. Though, according to the first Tanna who compares bikkurim and tithe in all respects, these laws also should have been included in his statement.
  4. The uncircumcised among them.
  5. V. BaH. Cur. edd. omit.
  6. Supra 73a.
  7. In reference to which 'hand' was mentioned. V. Deut. XXVI. 4. (Tosaf. s.v. [H], a.l.).
  8. Why does he permit it?
  9. As shewn supra 70a.
  10. The first Tanna.
  11. In respect of which the prohibition was stated in Deut. XXVI. 13. Cf. supra p 494. n. 18.
  12. E.V. 'put away'.
  13. Deut. XXVI, 14.
  14. 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.
  15. Which, as shewn infra 74b, refers to tithe.
  16. Lev. XXII, 6.
  17. In respect of the 'second tithe'.
  18. Deut. XII, 17.
  19. In reference to dedicated animals which are permitted to a non-priest if they were redeemed after having become blemished.
  20. Deut. XV, 22.
  21. 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.
  22. Deut. XXVI, 24.
  23. Which proves that no prohibition is attached to terumah.
  24. Dedicated, for instance, as a meal-offering.
  25. For inferring holy food a minori ad majus, and for excluding terumah by the expression thereof?
  26. The mnemonic [H] represents the initials, or striking letters of Piggul. Nothar, Korban (sacrifice). me'ilah (the 'Ayin). Kareth. asur (forbidden).
  27. V. Glos.
  28. The mnemonic [H] (cf. supra n. 1) represents the initials of [H] 'death', [H] fifth', [H] 'redemption', [H] 'non-priest'.
  29. For the person who eats it while he is in a state of uncleanness.
  30. 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.
  31. Holy food, however, may be redeemed in certain circumstances.
  32. Holy food of the minor degree is permissible to non-priests.
  33. The restrictions in respect of terumah.
  34. Which is incurred in connection with holy food and not in connection with terumah.
  35. Since flogging was mentioned.
  36. To eat unclean terumah.
  37. Deut. XV, 22.
  38. May be eaten.
  39. Terumah.
  40. Transgression of which is not punishable by flogging.
  41. With reference to the question supra p. 494. n. 14.
  42. Not only from the second.
  43. Of the restrictions that do not apply to tithe.
  44. The uncircumcised among them.