Yevamot 73aיבמות ע״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Yevamot 73a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
73aע״ג א

(במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא טהור מכלל שהוא טמא לימד על טבול יום שכשר בפרה

It is further stated: “And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure” (Numbers 19:19). The verse states “pure”; this indicates by inference that he is in some way ritually impure. In other words, the verse speaks of one who is pure only in relation to one who is impure. Were this not the case, there would have been no need at all to mention his purity, as it would have been understood that since the red heifer is called a sin-offering, with regard to which purity is paramount, the one performing the ritual must be pure. Of necessity, then, this “pure” individual is not completely pure in all regards. This teaches that one who immersed himself that day is fit to perform the rites connected to the red heifer.

בעו מיניה מרב ששת ערל מהו במעשר כי היכי דיליף פסח ממעשר לענין אנינות יליף נמי מעשר מפסח לענין ערלות

The Gemara returns to the previous discussion. They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In the case of an uncircumcised man, what is the halakha with regard to his eating second tithe? Can one claim that just as the halakha governing the Paschal lamb is derived from the halakha governing second tithe with regard to acute mourning, in that an acute mourner, who may not eat second tithe, is likewise prohibited from partaking of the Paschal lamb, so too, the halakha concerning second tithe is derived from the halakha concerning the Paschal lamb with regard to lack of circumcision, in that an uncircumcised man, who may not partake of the Paschal lamb, is likewise prohibited from eating second tithe?

או דלמא חמור מקל יליף קל מחמור לא יליף

Or perhaps the halakha governing the stringent case of the Paschal lamb is derived from the halakha governing the lenient case of second tithe, but the halakha concerning the lenient case of second tithe is not derived from the halakha concerning the stringent case of the Paschal lamb, and therefore it is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to partake of the Paschal lamb, but he may eat second tithe.

אמר להו תניתוה התרומה והבכורים חייבים עליהן מיתה וחומש ואסורין לזרים

Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): The following halakhot apply to both teruma and the first fruits of the new harvest, which must be given to the priests: If a priest ate of them while in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable to the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven; and if a non-priest ate of them unintentionally, he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding one-fifth of its value as a fine; and they are both forbidden to non-priests.

והן נכסי כהן ועולין באחד ומאה וטעונין רחיצת ידים והערב שמש הרי אלו בתרומה ובבכורים מה שאין כן במעשר

The mishna continues: And they are considered in all regards the private property of the priest to whom they were given; and they are nullified, i.e., rendered permitted for consumption by non-priests, in a mixture of one hundred and one, when there are at least one hundred parts of permitted food for each part of teruma or first fruits; and they both require washing of the hands before they may be eaten; and if a priest is ritually impure, he may not eat of teruma or first fruits, even after immersion, until after sunset on the day of his immersion. All of these halakhot apply to teruma and first fruits, which is not the case with regard to second tithe.

ואם איתא ניתני ערל אסור בהן מה שאין כן במעשר

Rav Sheshet resumes his argument: And if it is so that one who is uncircumcised may eat second tithe, let the tanna also teach: It is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to eat of teruma and first fruits, which is not the case with regard to second tithe.

תנא ושייר ומאי שייר דהאי שייר

The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as the tanna of the mishna taught only some of the differences between teruma and first fruits on the one hand and second tithe on the other, and he omitted others. The Gemara asks: The mishna is sometimes not exhaustive, but it never omits only one case. What other difference did he omit that you say that he also omitted this difference?

שייר דקא תני סיפא יש במעשר ובבכורים מה שאין כן בתרומה שהמעשר והבכורים טעונין הבאת מקום וטעונין וידוי ואסור לאונן ורבי שמעון מתיר וחייבין בביעור ור"ש פוטר

The Gemara answers: He omitted the following, as he teaches in the latter clause of the mishna: There are halakhot that apply to second tithe and first fruits, which is not the case with regard to teruma. As second tithe and first fruits require that they be brought to a particular place, Jerusalem, where they must be eaten, whereas teruma may be consumed in all places; and they both require a declaration, as a declaration must be made on the last day of Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle, stating that one’s agricultural obligations with regard to tithes have been fulfilled properly, and so too a declaration must be made when first fruits are brought to the Temple; and they are forbidden to an acute mourner; and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to partake of first fruits. And they both require eradication before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle if one failed to bring them beforehand; and Rabbi Shimon exempts first fruits from the obligation of eradication.

ואילו אסור לבער מהן בטומאה

And yet second tithe and first fruits differ from teruma in that it is prohibited to burn the former and benefit from the burning, even when the produce is in a state of ritual impurity and therefore unfit to be eaten, e.g., one may not burn impure oil for light;