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
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 zab9 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 -