## Yevamot Daf 70b

###### Yevamot 70b:1
[Yevamot 70b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:1)

אַלְמָא לָא קָנֵי לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently his master does not acquire his** body and thereby effect a change in his personal status; rather, he remains a Jew in every sense. **Here too,** then, with regard to the Paschal lamb, **his master does not acquire his** body as a slave, and so he is obviously obligated in the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. **Rather,** the phrase is superfluous and was written only **to be available** to teach a different matter.


###### Yevamot 70b:2
[Yevamot 70b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:2)

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא, וְשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר: מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד, לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **And** yet there is **still** a difficulty: The verbal analogy **is available from** only **one side,** as only the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its context, **and we heard Rabbi Elazar, who said** with regard to a verbal analogy **available from** only **one side** that **one** can **derive** from it, **and one** can also **refute** it logically if there is reason to distinguish between the two cases. Since there are grounds here for differentiating between the two *halakhot* in this case, why is the verbal analogy upheld?


###### Yevamot 70b:3
[Yevamot 70b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:3)

כֵּיוָן דִּלְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ — שְׁדִי חַד אַלָּמֵד וּשְׁדִי חַד אַמְּלַמֵּד, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Since** the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” is **not needed for its own** matter, there are two superfluous terms, and one may **cast one** superfluous term **on** the *halakha* with regard to which **it is learned** that *teruma* may not be eaten by one who is uncircumcised, **and** one may **cast** the other **one on** the *halakha* with regard to the Paschal lamb that **teaches** this, **and** in this manner **it is** like **a verbal analogy** that is **available from both sides,** which cannot be refuted.


###### Yevamot 70b:4
[Yevamot 70b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:4)

אִי: מָה פֶּסַח אוֹנֵן אָסוּר בּוֹ — אַף תְּרוּמָה אוֹנֵן אָסוּר בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question: There is a principle that there cannot be half a verbal analogy. Consequently, **if** this verbal analogy is accepted, the following *halakha* that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: **Just as** with regard to **the Paschal lamb,** one who is **an acute mourner,** i.e., whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, **is prohibited** from eating **it, so too,** with regard to ***teruma*, an acute mourner** should be **prohibited** from eating **it,** but in fact this is not the case.


###### Yevamot 70b:5
[Yevamot 70b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר קְרָא: (״זָר״) ״וְכׇל זָר״, זָרוּת אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא אֲנִינוּת. אֵימָא: וְלֹא עֲרֵלוּת! הָא כְּתִיב ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The verse states: “No foreigner** may eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from **foreignness I told you** prevents one from eating *teruma*, **but not** a disqualification based on **acute mourning.** The Gemara asks: **Say** that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating *teruma*, **but not** a disqualification based on a priest’s **lack of circumcision,** and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of *teruma*. The Gemara answers: **Isn’t it written** with regard to both *teruma* and the Paschal lamb: **“A sojourner and a hired servant”?** From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to eat *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 70b:6
[Yevamot 70b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:6)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲרֵלוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן (מַעֲשִׂים. כְּרוּתִים. בִּדְבַר. הָעֶבֶד.) מְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה, וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר, וּמִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating *teruma* and exclude an acute mourner? Perhaps just the opposite is true. The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that **lack of circumcision should be included** and should prevent a priest from eating *teruma*, **as** the *halakhot* governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: **Acts; *karetim*; the** divine **word; the slave.** The Gemara spells out these stringencies: An uncircumcised man **lacks** the **act** of circumcision, **and** this **act** is performed **on his body;** the failure to perform circumcision is **punishable by *karet*;** circumcision **existed before the** divine **word** was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; **and the** lack of **circumcision of one’s male** children **and slaves precludes** one’s eating the Paschal lamb, as is explicitly stated in the Torah (Exodus 12:48).


###### Yevamot 70b:7
[Yevamot 70b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:7)

אַדְּרַבָּה: אֲנִינוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, וְנוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים, וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּן אֶת עַצְמוֹ! הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **On the contrary, acute mourning should be included** and should prevent a priest from eating *teruma*, **as** acute mourning is also subject to several stringencies: **It is** relevant **at any time** after the death of a close relative, unlike circumcision, which is performed only once in a lifetime; **it applies to** both **men and women,** unlike circumcision, which is restricted to men; **and it is not in** the mourner’s **power to render himself fit** until after the deceased is buried, unlike an uncircumcised man, who can render himself fit at any time by undergoing circumcision. The Gemara responds: Even so, **these** arguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition **are** more **numerous.**


###### Yevamot 70b:8
[Yevamot 70b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:8)

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. שָׁבְקִינַן עֲרֵלוּת דִּכְתִיב בְּגוּפֵיהּ דְּפֶסַח, וְיָלְפִינַן אֲנִינוּת מִפֶּסַח?! דְּפֶסַח גּוּפֵיהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר גָּמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Even **without** the rationale that **these** arguments **are** more **numerous, you still could not say** that the verbal analogy renders it prohibited for an acute mourner to eat *teruma*. As, is it possible to say that **we** should **leave out the lack of circumcision** from the prohibition against eating *teruma* even though **it is written** explicitly **with regard to the Paschal lamb itself, and learn** the *halakha* that **acute mourning** is included in the prohibition by way of a verbal analogy **from the Paschal lamb** when this *halakha* that an acute mourner is barred from bringing the Paschal lamb is never stated explicitly? **As** the prohibition against acute mourning with respect to **the Paschal lamb itself we learn** only **from** the *halakha* governing **tithes.**


###### Yevamot 70b:9
[Yevamot 70b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:9)

אִי: מָה פֶּסַח מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת, אַף תְּרוּמָה מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another question: **If** the verbal analogy is valid, then the following *halakha* that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: **Just as** with regard to the **Paschal lamb, the** lack of **circumcision of one’s male** children **and slaves prevents** one from eating of the offering until he ensures that all of the male members of his household have been circumcised, **so too,** with regard to *teruma*, **the** lack of **circumcision of one’s male** children **and slaves** should **prevent** one from partaking of *teruma*. However, in reality this is not the *halakha*.


###### Yevamot 70b:10
[Yevamot 70b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:10)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמַלְתָּה אוֹתוֹ אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ״. מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בְּפֶסַח, וְאֵין מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **The verse states** with regard to the Paschal lamb: **“When you have circumcised him, then he shall eat from it”** (Exodus 12:44). The words “from it” teach that **the** lack of **circumcision of one’s male** children **and slaves prevents one from eating the Paschal lamb,** but **the** lack of **circumcision of one’s male** children **and slaves does not prevent one from** eating ***teruma*,** if he himself is eligible to eat it.


###### Yevamot 70b:11
[Yevamot 70b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:11)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא: ״כׇּל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״, בּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בִּתְרוּמָה! הָא כְּתִיב ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** that the words “from it” come to exclude any other case, **say** a similar exposition with regard to the uncircumcised. As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: **“No uncircumcised person shall eat from it”** (Exodus 12:48), indicating that **“from it,”** the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised man **may not eat, but he may eat from *teruma*.** The Gemara answers: **Isn’t it written** with regard to both *teruma* and the Paschal lamb: **“A sojourner and a hired servant”?** From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 70b:12
[Yevamot 70b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:12)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲרֵלוּת דְּגוּפֵיהּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אַדְּרַבָּה: מִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating *teruma*, and not one whose male children and slaves have not been circumcised? The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that **one’s own lack of circumcision should be included** and should preclude his eating *teruma*, **as** an uncircumcised man lacks an **act** that is performed **on his** own **body, and** the failure to perform circumcision **is punishable by *karet*.** The Gemara counters: **On the contrary, the** lack of **circumcision of one’s male** children **and slaves should be included** and should preclude a priest’s eating *teruma*, **as it is** relevant **at any time,** since whenever one has a male child or slave under his authority he is commanded to circumcise him.


###### Yevamot 70b:13
[Yevamot 70b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:13)

הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּלָא [הָנָךְ] נְפִישָׁן נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּעֲרֵלוּת דְּגוּפֵיהּ לָא מְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ, עֲרֵלוּת דְּאַחֲרִינֵי מְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **These** arguments for including one’s own circumcision in the prohibition **are** more **numerous. And if you wish, say:** Even **without** the rationale that **these** arguments **are** more **numerous, you still could not say** that the verbal analogy comes to include in the prohibition against eating *teruma* one whose male children or slaves have not been circumcised. As, **is there anything that his own lack of circumcision does not preclude him** from doing but **the lack of circumcision of others does preclude him** from doing? Rather, it must be that the verbal analogy comes to teach that the priest’s own lack of circumcision precludes his eating *teruma*, while that of his male children and slaves does not.


###### Yevamot 70b:14
[Yevamot 70b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/70b:14)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״בּוֹ״ לִדְרָשָׁה הוּא דַּאֲתָא, ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ — לְמָה לִי? בּוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **Now that you have said** that the phrase **“from it”** used in this context **comes for an exposition** and serves to exclude other cases, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse **“No stranger shall eat from it”** (Exodus 12:43), **why do I** need it? The Gemara answers: This, too, teaches that it is only **from it,** eating the Paschal lamb,