|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 74a 'And they1 apply in all2 the years of the septennial cycle3 and cannot be redeemed', and that 'this does not apply to the [second] tithe'. This proves it. Come and hear: 'If shreds4 which render the circumcision invalid remain, he may not eat terumah, nor the paschal lamb, nor holy food, nor tithe'. Does not tithe refer to the tithe of the corn? — No; the tithe of cattle.5 But is not the tithe of cattle the same as holy food?6 — 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.7 What need, however, was there for the mention here of the tithe of cattle!8 — [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.9 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 terumah, and [to engage] in the [preparation of] the red heifer;10 a tebul yom11 is forbidden to eat terumah, but is permitted [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer, and to eat tithe; and he who was still short of atonement12 is forbidden [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer, but is permitted to eat terumah and tithe'. Now, if it were so,13 it should have been stated, 'The uncircumcised is forbidden to eat terumah but is permitted [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer14 and to eat tithe'!15 — This represents the view of a Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who includes the uncircumcised, like the unclean, in the prohibition.16 As it was taught: Any man soever17 includes the uncircumcised. Who is the Tanna who differs from R. Akiba?18 — It is the Tanna who [is in disagreement with] R. Joseph the Babylonian. For it was taught: The burning19 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.20 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,21 and 'thereof' was also stated in respect of the paschal lamb;21 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 it22 free for deduction? For if it is not free, it could be objected: The Paschal lamb is rightly subject to the restriction23 since one may incur in respect of it the penalties for piggul,24 nothar'' and levitical uncleanness!25 — It is indeed free for the deduction. Which26 is free? Raba replied in the name of R. Isaac: 'Thereof' is written three times in connection with the paschal lamb.27 One is required for the paschal lamb itself;28 one for the analogy;29 and as to the third, according to him who maintains that Scripture intended30 a positive precept to follow a negative31 one,32 'thereof' was written [a second time],33 because nothar was written [a second time];33 and according to him who maintains [that the repetition of until the morning34 was intended] to allow a second morning for its burning,35 'thereof' was written [a second time],36 because until the morning34 had to be written [a second time]. Also, in connection with tithe, 'thereof' was written three times. One is required for its own purpose;37 one is required for the deduction which R. Abbahu made in the name of R. Johanan;38 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,39 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.40 Mar Zutra demurred: It39 might be suggested to refer to the purchase for the dead of a coffin and shrouds!41 — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: 'Thereof' means of the tithe itself.42 R. Ashi replied: Nor have I given39 must be analogous to I have not eaten,39 as there43 it refers to the tithe itself so here also44 it must refer to the tithe itself. But still it45 is free, however, in one direction only!46 [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.47 According to him, however, who is of the opinion that deduction may be made but also refuted, what can be said?48 — R. Abbahu's deduction49 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 thee50 the charge of My heave-offerings?51 Scripture speaks of two kinds of terumah. One, clean terumah, and the other, unclean terumah; and concerning these the All Merciful said, 'It shall be thine,50 even for burning under your dish.'52 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.53 Now, what is it that is equally To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Terumah and bikkurim. Lit., 'other', i.e., even in the third and sixth. V. next note. And not only, like the second tithe, in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the cycle. Of the corona. Which solves the question put to R. Shesheth. Which is already mentioned. Both were therefore necessary. Which is included in 'holy food'. V. supra n. 2. Hence 'tithe' must mean second tithe, which solves the question put to R. Shesheth. And owing to its sanctity it was also forbidden to the uncircumcised. Since it is not offered on the altar, its sanctity is of a lesser degree. V. Glos. An unclean person the requirements of whose purification have, with the exception of the sacrifice prescribed for the unclean, been satisfied. That the uncircumcised is permitted to eat second tithe. As stated supra 72b. Since this, however, was omitted it must be assumed that the omission was due to the fact that tithe is permitted to the uncircumcised! To engage even in the preparation of the red heifer (supra 72b). Lev. XXII, 4; lit., 'man man'. And maintains (v. supra 72b) that the uncircumcised may deal with the red heifer. Of the red heifer. V. Num. XIX, 5. 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. V. infra for further explanation. The expression 'thereof' used in the analogy. Its prohibition to the uncircumcised. V. Glos. Hence no analogy between it and tithe would be justified. Of the expressions, 'thereof'. Ex. XII, 9, 10. [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)]. With second tithe. By the text, Ye shall burn (that which remains) with fire (Ex. Xli, 10). Ye shall let nothing thereof remain (ibid.). In order to exempt the transgressor from the penalty of flogging. v. Mak. 4b. In Ex. XII, 20., cf. previous note. Ibid. Earlier in the text it was already stated, And ye shall let nothing thereof remain until the morning. The morning after the first day of the Passover. V. Pes. 83b. In Ex. XII. 10. [The first 'thereof' to exclude the first tithe from the restriction in regard to onan (v. Glos) [H]. Permitting the burning of unclean oil of terumah for lighting purposes. V. supra 73b. Deut. XXVI, 24. It cannot refer to eating which is, of course, inapplicable to the dead. 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. Not with the money for which it was exchanged. In respect of eating. The 'giving'. The expression. 'Thereof'. In that of the Paschal lamb; those occurring in the section of tithe being required for other deductions. Nid. 22b. In view of the objection that the Paschal lamb is subject to restrictions which are inapplicable to the second tithe. From one of the expressions of 'thereof'. [H]. Num. XVIII, 8. 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. Lev. XXII, 4. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 74b applicable to all the seed1 of Aaron? You must say that it is terumah.2 But might it not be assumed to refer to the breast and the shoulder?3 — [These are] not [permitted] to [a woman] who returns.4 But terumah also is not permitted to a halalah!5 — A halalah is not regarded as of the seed of Aaron.6 And whence is it inferred that until he be clean7 means 'until sunset',8 perhaps it means, 'until the atonement is brought'? — This cannot be entertained. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael [taught] that Scripture7 speaks of a zab 9 who noticed only two issues, and of a leper while under observation,10 both being cases similar to that of one who is unclean by the dead;7 as he who is unclean by the dead7 is not liable to bring an atonement so are these11 such as are not liable to bring an atonement.12 Let it be said, then, that this13 applies only to those who are not liable to bring an atonement, but that for those who are liable to an atonement,14 purification is incomplete until the atonement has been brought! Furthermore, in respect of what we learned, 'If he performed the prescribed ablution and came up from his bathing he may eat of the [second] tithe; after sunset he may eat terumah; and after he has brought his atonement he may also eat of the holy food';15 whence, it may also be asked, are these laws derived? — Raba replied in the name of R. Hisda: Three Scriptural texts are recorded: It is written, And shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water,16 implying if he bathed, however, he is clean. It is also written, And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and afterwards he may eat of the holy things.17 And finally, it s written, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.18 How, [then, are these contradictory conditions19 to be reconciled]?20 The first refers to [second] tithe; the second to terumah, and the third to holy food. Might not these be reversed?21 It is reasonable that terumah should be subject to the greater restriction, since22 it is also subject to the restrictions of the death penalty,23 the fifth,24 it cannot be redeemed,25 and is also forbidden to the non-priest.26 On the contrary; [second] tithe might be regarded as subject to the greater restriction, since it27 has to be brought to the appointed place,28 requires confession,29 is forbidden to an onan, must not be burned30 [even] when unclean, the penalty of flogging is incurred for eating it when it is unclean,31 and it is also subject to the law of removal!32 — The penalty of death, nevertheless, is of the greatest severity. Raba said: Apart from the fact that the death penalty is of the greatest severity it could not be said so;33 for Scripture stated, soul.34 Now, what is it that is equally [permitted] to every soul? You must admit that it is tithe.35 Still, this36 might apply only to one who is not liable to bring an atonement;37 but where a man is liable to an atonement it might be said that [purification is not complete] until he has brought the atonement! — Abaye replied: Two Scriptural texts are recorded in the case of a woman in childbirth.38 It is written, Until the days of her purification be fulfilled,39 as soon as her days are fulfilled she is clean; and it is also written, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean,'40 how, [then, are the two to be reconciled]?41 The former applies to terumah, the latter to holy food.42 But might not these be reversed?43 — It stands to reason that holy food should be subject to the greater restriction,44 since it is also subject to the restrictions of45 piggul46 nothar,46 sacrifice, me'ilah,46 kareth,46 and is also forbidden to an onan.46 On the contrary, terumah should be subject to the greater restriction,47 since it is also subject to the restrictions48 of45 the death penalty,49 the fifth,50 it cannot be redeemed,51 and is also forbidden to the non-priest!52 — Those53 are more in number. Raba said: Apart from the fact that those53 are more in number this54 could not be maintained. For Scripture stated, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean,55 which implies that [until that moment] she was unclean. Now, were it to be assumed that this text56 speaks of holy food,57 the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten58 should apply to it!59 It must, therefore, be concluded that the text60 speaks of terumah. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: How could it be said that the law of terumah was prescribed in this text?60 Surely it was taught: [From the text]. Speak unto the children of Israel.61 one would only learn [that these laws62 are applicable to] the children of Israel; whence, however, is one to infer that they also apply to a proselyte or an emancipated slave? Scripture consequently stated,63 Woman.64 Now, if it were to be assumed that the text speaks of terumah, are a proselyte and an emancipated slave, [it may be asked,] permitted to eat terumah!65 Said Raba: But does it66 not?67 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Males and females. It cannot refer to holy food of the higher degree of sanctity which is permitted to male priests only. Of the peace-offerings which belong to the class of holy food of a minor degree of sanctity, and are permitted to the priestly males and females. (V. Lev. X, 14). From the home of her husband who was an Israelite and died without issue, to that of her father who is a priest (v. supra 68b). Terumah, however, is permitted in such a case. V. Glos., though she is the daughter of a priest. Having been born of a forbidden marriage. Lev. XXII, 4. And on the basis of this interpretation the unclean is permitted to eat terumah even before he has brought his atonement. V. Glos. Lit., 'a locked-up leper'. V. Lev. XIII, 4ff. The zab and leper spoken of in this text. Only a confirmed leper, and a zab who has had three attacks of gonorrhoea are, on recovery and purification, liable to bring sacrifices. Cf. Meg. 8a. That sunset alone, though no sacrifice had yet been brought, completes the purification of the unclean as far as the consumption of terumah is concerned. The confirmed leper, and a zab who had three attacks. Neg. XIV, 3, Pes. 35a, Nid. 71b. Lev. XXII, 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. XII, 8. Bathing, sunset and sacrifice. Each text obviously pointing to a different condition as the essential, or completion of purification! For terumah bathing alone should suffice; while for tithe, waiting until sunset should be required. V. supra p 497. n. 3. V. supra p. 497. n. 4 V. supra p. 497 n. 5. While tithe may be redeemed. Tithe is not. The mnemonic [H] lit., 'a good myrtle', represents distinctive letters occurring in prominent words describing the following restrictions [H] = [H] bringing, sc. to the appointed place; [H] = [H] confession; [H] = [H] prohibition sc. to an onan; [H] = [H] uncleanness; [H] = [H] removal. Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 22ff. V. Deut. XXVI, 13. For lighting purposes, if, for instance, it consisted of oil. While the man is clean. V. supra p. 494, n. 18. V. supra p. 502, n. 15. Lev. XXII, 6. This verse then must refer to tithe, and it requires ablution only and no waiting for sunset. That purification in respect of terumah is complete even before the sacrifice had been brought. As, for instance, the case of the leper under observation, and that of the zab who had no more than two attacks, of whom the text mentioned speaks. Who is liable to bring a sacrifice. Lev. XII, 4. Ibid. 8. According to the former text, cleanness is complete at the conclusion of the prescribed period, while according to the latter the woman cannot be clean before her sacrifices are offered. Thus it follows that even when a sacrifice has been prescribed (cf. p. 505, n. 17) terumah may be eaten before that sacrifice has been brought. The first text applying to holy food, and the second to terumah. That its consumption be not permitted before the prescribed sacrifice had been offered. For explanation of the mnemonics v. supra p. 497 nn. 1 and 3. V. Glos. V. supra note 2. V. supra p. 497, n. 3. V. supra p. 497 n. 4. V. supra p. 497 n. 5. Holy food may be redeemed. Holy food is not. The restrictions in connection with holy food. That the first text, Lev. XII, 4. which permits consumption before the sacrifice is brought, should refer to holy food. Lev. XII. 8. V. supra note 12. Which would accordingly be permitted to be eaten even before the prescribed sacrifice had been offered. Lev. VII, 29. Since the person who has not brought the prescribed sacrifice is still regarded as unclean. How then could the consumption of holy food be permitted to him? Lev. XII. 4. Ibid. 2. Relating to uncleanness after childbirth. V. Lev. XII, 2ff. Lev. XII, 2. Cf. Ker. 7b. Certainly not. The text must consequently refer not to terumah but to holy food! The text cited. Speak of terumah? Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |