## Yevamot Daf 74a

###### Yevamot 74a:1
[Yevamot 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:1)

וְנוֹהֲגִין בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ, וְאֵין לָהֶם פִּדְיוֹן. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
*Teruma* and first fruits **apply in all the years of the seven-year** Sabbatical cycle, including the third and the sixth years, **and they do not have** the possibility of **redemption,** as once they are sanctified they may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. **This is not** the case **with** regard to **second tithe,** which applies only in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the cycle and which can be redeemed. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from here** that the *tanna* did not list all of the differences between second tithe and *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 74a:2
[Yevamot 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בּוֹ צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל לֹא בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא בַּפֶּסַח, וְלֹא בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, וְלֹא בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. מַאי לָאו מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, לָא — מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes its discussion of whether or not an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe. **Come** and **hear** a proof with regard to this question from the following *baraita*: If **shreds** of flesh **that invalidate the circumcision** remain after the foreskin was removed, **one may not eat *teruma*, nor the Paschal lamb, nor sacrificial food, nor tithe. What, is it not** referring to **tithe of produce,** and so the dilemma is resolved? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **No,** the tithe mentioned in this *baraita* is **animal tithe.** The *baraita* teaches that the meat of the animal tithe was forbidden to one who is uncircumcised.


###### Yevamot 74a:3
[Yevamot 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:3)

מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה הַיְינוּ קָדָשִׁים? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִי לָא תְּנַן פֶּסַח וְקָתָנֵי קָדָשִׁים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **Animal tithe is** the same as **sacrificial food,** as it too is an offering the meat of which is eaten by the animal’s owner; why would the *tanna* single it out? The Gemara counters: **And according to your reasoning** that the *baraita* would not have singled out specific offerings, **didn’t we learn** in the *baraita* that an uncircumcised man may not eat the **Paschal lamb, and** yet **it** also **teaches** that the same *halakha* applies to **sacrificial food?**


###### Yevamot 74a:4
[Yevamot 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:4)

בִּשְׁלָמָא פֶּסַח וְקָדָשִׁים צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי תְּנָא פֶּסַח — מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲרֵלוּת בְּפֶסַח כְּתִיבָא, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי תְּנָא קָדָשִׁים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קָדָשִׁים — פֶּסַח. אֶלָּא מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **Granted,** it is **necessary** to mention both **the Paschal lamb and sacrificial food. As, if** the *baraita* had **taught** only the *halakha* in the case of **the Paschal lamb,** one might have said that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb **because** the disqualification resulting from **lack of circumcision** is **written** explicitly **with regard to the Paschal lamb, but** with regard to other **sacrificial food,** concerning which the Bible says nothing about circumcision, one might **say** that there is **no** such prohibition. **And** conversely, **if** the *baraita* had **taught** only the *halakha* with respect to **sacrificial food, I would say: What** is meant here by **sacrificial food?** This is referring specifically to **the Paschal lamb,** concerning which the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man is stated explicitly, but other sacrificial food is permitted to him. **But why do I** need **animal tithe** to be mentioned at all? It is no different than any other sacrificial food. In that case, the tithe mentioned in the *baraita* is referring to second tithe.


###### Yevamot 74a:5
[Yevamot 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:5)

אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר לְזָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a different refutation of this proof: **Rather,** the tithe mentioned in the *baraita* is referring to **first tithe,** the one-tenth of the produce that is given to the Levites, **and** the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said** that **first tithe is forbidden to common** Israelites. Since first tithe is forbidden to an ordinary Israelite, it may similarly be forbidden to an uncircumcised man. However, there is no proof from here that second tithe is forbidden to one who is uncircumcised, as second tithe is permitted even to ordinary Israelites.


###### Yevamot 74a:6
[Yevamot 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, מִדְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִדִּפְתִּי: עָרֵל אָסוּר בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעַשְׂרוֹת. מַאי לָאו: אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה! הָכָא נָמֵי, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a different proof **from** that which **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught** in the following *baraita*: **An uncircumcised** man **is prohibited** from eating **of two** different **tithes. What, is it not** that **one** is the **tithe of produce and one** is **animal tithe?** The Gemara refutes this argument: **Here, too,** the *baraita* is referring to **first tithe, and** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.**


###### Yevamot 74a:7
[Yevamot 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אוֹנֵן — אָסוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּמוּתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַפָּרָה. טְבוּל יוֹם — אָסוּר בִּתְרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּפָּרָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים — אָסוּר בַּפָּרָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם אִיתָא — נִיתְנֵי: עָרֵל אָסוּר בַּתְּרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּפָּרָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof from yet another *baraita*: **It is prohibited for an acute mourner** to eat second **tithe, but** it is **permitted** for him to eat ***teruma* and** to participate in the preparation of the red **heifer. It is prohibited for one who immersed himself that day** but does not become completely purified until nightfall to eat ***teruma*, but** it is **permitted** for him to participate in the preparation of the red **heifer and** to eat second **tithe. It is prohibited for** one who **lacks atonement,** e.g., a *zav* or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, to participate in the preparation of the red **heifer, but** it is **permitted** for him to eat ***teruma* and** second **tithe. And if it is so** that an uncircumcised man may eat second tithe, **let** the *baraita* also **teach: It is prohibited for an uncircumcised** man to eat ***teruma*, but** it is **permitted** for him to participate in the preparation of the red **heifer and** to eat second **tithe.** The fact that the *baraita* omits this ruling proves that an uncircumcised man is in fact prohibited from eating second tithe.


###### Yevamot 74a:8
[Yevamot 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:8)

הַאי תַּנָּא — דְּבֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דִּמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ לְעָרֵל כְּטָמֵא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הֶעָרֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be adduced from here, as **this** *baraita* was **taught** by a *tanna* **from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes an uncircumcised** man in the same *halakha* **as** that which governs one who is **ritually impure. As it is taught** in a *baraita*, **Rabbi Akiva says:** The words “any man” in the verse **“Any man** from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a *zav* shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4) come **to include** one who is **uncircumcised;** he, too, is prohibited from partaking of consecrated food or participating in the preparation of the red heifer.


###### Yevamot 74a:9
[Yevamot 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:9)

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תַּנָּא דְּ(רַבִּי) יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: שְׂרֵפַת אוֹנֵן וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים — כְּשֵׁרָה. (רַבִּי) יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹנֵן — כְּשֵׁרָה, מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים — פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the issue itself, the Gemara inquires: **And who** is the ***tanna* who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva? It is** the ***tanna*** who disagrees with **Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The burning** of the red heifer **by an acute mourner or by** one who **lacks atonement is valid. Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian says:** If the burning is performed by **an acute mourner,** it is **valid;** but if it is performed by one who **lacks atonement,** it is **invalid.** The anonymous first *tanna* clearly disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as the previous *baraita*, which was attributed to Rabbi Akiva, states that one who lacks atonement is prohibited from participating in the preparation of the red heifer. It may be presumed that this *tanna* disagrees with Rabbi Akiva with respect to one who is uncircumcised as well.


###### Yevamot 74a:10
[Yevamot 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:10)

וְאַף רַבִּי יִצְחָק סָבַר עָרֵל אָסוּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לֶעָרֵל שֶׁאָסוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר — נֶאֱמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר, וְנֶאֱמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ בַּפֶּסַח. מָה ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ, אַף ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ הָאָמוּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר — עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further comments on this issue. **And Rabbi Yitzḥak, too, maintains** that **an uncircumcised** man is **prohibited from** eating second **tithe, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where** is it derived that **an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited from** eating second **tithe? It is stated:** “And I did not consume **of it** while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14) **with regard to** second **tithe, and it is stated:** “Do not eat **of it** raw” (Exodus 12:9) **with regard to the Paschal lamb. Just as** in the case of **the Paschal lamb,** with regard to which **“of it” is stated, an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited from** eating **it, so too,** in the case of second **tithe,** with regard to which **“of it” is stated, an uncircumcised** man **is prohibited from** eating **it.**


###### Yevamot 74a:11
[Yevamot 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:11)

מוּפְנֵי. דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְפֶסַח, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. לָאיֵי אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this verbal analogy, the Gemara comments: It must be that this phrase “of it” **is available,** i.e., it is superfluous in its own context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. **As, if it is not available,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted** logically, as it is possible to say: **What** is unique **to the Paschal lamb?** It is **that one is liable** to receive *karet* **for** eating **it due to** it being ***piggul* or *notar*, or** due to him being **ritually impure.** It could therefore be argued that it is owing to the Paschal lamb’s special sanctity and severity that an uncircumcised man may not partake of it. But from where is it derived that an uncircumcised man may not eat second tithe? The Gemara concludes: This is **not so,** as the phrase “of it” **is** indeed **available** for establishing the verbal analogy.


###### Yevamot 74a:12
[Yevamot 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:12)

מַאי מוּפְנֵי? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: תְּלָתָא ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ כְּתִיבִי בְּפֶסַח: חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וְחַד —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** of the phrases “of it” is not needed in its own context and **is** therefore **available** for establishing a verbal analogy? **Rava said** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “Of it” is written three** times **with** regard to **the Paschal lamb:** “Do not eat of it raw… And you shall not leave any of it until morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:9–10). The three instances of “of it” are expounded as follows: **One for itself,** to teach that the prohibition relates to the Paschal lamb; **and one for the verbal analogy; and one for** another purpose.


###### Yevamot 74a:13
[Yevamot 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:13)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לְךָ עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״נוֹתָר״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״מִמֶּנּוּ״. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ — אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתִיב ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״מִמֶּנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to the one who says** that **the verse comes to provide you with a positive** mitzva to burn that which is left over **after** it has taught **the prohibition** against leaving it over until the morning, to teach that one is not flogged for violating the prohibition, because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes; **since “that which remains [*notar*]” is written, “of it” is also written. And according to the one who says** that the verse comes **to provide him with the second morning for burning,** i.e., to teach that the leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following morning, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival; **since “until morning” is written, “of it” is also written.**


###### Yevamot 74a:14
[Yevamot 74a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:14)

תְּלָתָא ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ כְּתִיבִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר: חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְחַד לִדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **“of it” is written three** times **with** regard to second **tithe:** “I did not eat of it in my mourning, and I did not consume of it while impure, and I did not give of it for the dead” (Deuteronomy 26:14). The three instances of “of it” are expounded as follows: **One for itself; and one for** that which **Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said, that the verse comes to permit a priest to burn impure *teruma* oil and derive benefit from its light; **and one for** the following teaching of **Reish Lakish.**


###### Yevamot 74a:15
[Yevamot 74a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:15)

דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר רַבִּי סִימַאי: מִנַּיִן לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְסוּכוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת״. לְמֵת הוּא דְּלֹא נָתַתִּי, הָא לְחַי דֻּומְיָא דְמֵת — נָתַתִּי. אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בַּחַיִּים וּבַמֵּתִים? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ סִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Reish Lakish said** that **Rabbi Samya said: From where** is it derived that if the **second tithe became ritually impure, it is permitted for one to anoint** one’s body **with it? As it is stated: “Nor did I give of it for the dead.”** It is **for the dead that I did not give** of it, **but for the living** in a manner **similar** to the way it is given for **the dead, I gave** of it. Now, **what usage** of tithe **is the same for the living and the dead? You must say it is anointing.**


###### Yevamot 74a:16
[Yevamot 74a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: וְאֵימָא לִיקַּח לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִים? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ — מִגּוּפוֹ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״לָא נָתַתִּי״ דֻּומְיָא דְּ״לֹא אָכַלְתִּי״: מָה לְהַלָּן מִגּוּפוֹ — אַף כָּאן מִגּוּפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But say** that the verse is referring not to anointing but to **purchasing a coffin and shrouds for** one who is deceased with money received in exchange for the second tithe; this is prohibited, but buying clothing and the like for one who is living is permitted. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: “Of it”** indicates benefit derived **from** the tithe **itself** and not from the money acquired in exchange for the tithe. **Rav Ashi said** a different answer: **“I did not give”** must be **similar to “I did not eat”; just as there,** eating is **from** the tithe **itself, so too here,** giving is **from** the tithe **itself.** In any event, the three instances of “of it” written with regard to second tithe are required for different expositions.


###### Yevamot 74a:17
[Yevamot 74a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:17)

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמֵדִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** yet there is **still** a difficulty, as the verbal analogy **is available** only **from one side,** since only the verse with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its own context. Granted, **this** works out **well according to the one who says** that **one can derive from** a verbal analogy that is available only from one side **and one cannot refute it** logically, even if there are valid counterarguments. **But according to the one who said** that **one can derive from** such an analogy and **one can** also **refute it** logically, if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases, **what can be said?** As explained above, the analogy between the Paschal lamb and second tithe can be refuted.


###### Yevamot 74a:18
[Yevamot 74a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:18)

הָךְ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ — מִדְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ נָפְקָא. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי״ — בִּשְׁתֵּי תְרוּמוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר: אַחַת תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְאַחַת תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לְךָ״ — שֶׁלְּךָ תְּהֵא, לְהַסָּקָה תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילְךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** *halakha* **of Rabbi Abbahu** with regard to the burning of impure *teruma* oil **is derived from what Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh** said. **As Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: What is** the meaning of that **which is written: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My *terumot*”** (Numbers 18:8)? From the amplification of the plural “My *terumot*,” it is derived that **the verse is speaking of two *terumot*, one *teruma* that is ritually pure and one *teruma* that is ritually impure. And the Merciful One states:** “I have given **you,”** i.e., **it shall be yours,** and you may derive benefit from it. Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating impure *teruma*, the benefit that is permitted is **to burn it beneath your cooked dish.** As the allowance to benefit from the burning of impure *teruma* is derived from here, the phrase “of it” is available on both sides.


###### Yevamot 74a:19
[Yevamot 74a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74a:19)

וְכׇל הַטְּמֵאִים כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב וְגוֹ׳״. אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna that **all** those **who are ritually impure** with any type of ritual impurity may not eat *teruma*. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: “Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a *zav*** shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4). Now, **what matter is the same**