Daf Yomi- Yevamos 70 - Highlights

The Mishna states: One who is uncircumcised and all those that are tamei (ritually impure) may not eat terumah. Their wives and their slaves may eat terumah. One who has wounded or crushed testicles and one whose member is severed, they and their slaves are permitted to eat terumah. Their wives, however, are not permitted to eat terumah. If they did not have relations with their wife after becoming one with wounded or crushed testicles or one whose member is severed, their wives are permitted to eat terumah.

What is a petzuah dakah? Any man whose testicles were wounded, and even if only one of them was wounded. What is a kerus shafchah? Any man whose member was cut off; however, if a hairsbreadth of the corona remained, he is permitted to marry into the congregation. (70a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Eliezer said: How do we know that an uncircumcised Kohen may not eat terumah? The words “toshav v’sachir” are mentioned in connection with the Pesach offering, and the words “toshav v’sachir” are mentioned in respect to terumah. Just as the “toshav v’sachir,” in connection with the Pesach offering, an uncircumcised person is forbidden to partake in it, so too, in respect to the “toshav v’sachir” mentioned by terumah, an uncircumcised person is forbidden to eat it. Rabbi Akiva stated: This deduction is unnecessary. Since it was stated [Vayikra 22:4]: A man, a man from the offspring of Aaron who is a metzora, or a zav shall not eat of the holies. The extra words, “A man, a man” teaches us that the uncircumcised also is included. (70a)

The Gemora cites the first opinion mentioned in the braisa. Rabbi Eliezer said: The words “toshav v’sachir” are mentioned in connection with the Pesach offering, and the words “toshav v’sachir” are mentioned in respect to terumah. Just as the “toshav v’sachir,” in connection with the Pesach offering, an uncircumcised person is forbidden to partake in it, so too, in respect to the “toshav v’sachir” mentioned by terumah, an uncircumcised person is forbidden to eat it.

The Gemora states: This gezeirah shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics; it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) must consist of free words (the words in the Torah are extra), for if they would not be free, we could ask on this gezeirah shavah as follows: How can we compare the Pesach offering to terumah? The Pesach offering has stringencies that one will be liable for eating piggul (literally translated as rejected; an offering that is rendered invalid because of an improper intent), nossar (part of a sacrifice that is left over after the time to eat it has passed), and tamei (whereas terumah does not have any of these stringencies). (Since the words are extra, the rule is that we cannot refute the gezeirah shavah by asking questions on the comparison.)

The Gemora states: The words indeed are extra.

The Gemora asks: Which words are extra? It cannot be the “toshav v’sachir” mentioned in respect to terumah because these are surely necessary for a teaching that we learned in the following braisa: “Toshav” is referring to a Jewish servant who is acquired as an everlasting acquisition, and “sachir” is referring to a Jewish servant who is acquired for an acquisition of (six) years. The Torah teaches us that both of these servants cannot eat terumah.

The braisa continues by asking the following question: Let the Torah write “toshav,” and not “sachir,” and I would say: If a Jewish servant who is acquired as an everlasting acquisition cannot eat terumah, certainly a Jewish servant who is acquired for an acquisition of years may not eat terumah?

The braisa answers: If that were the case, I would have said that “toshav” is a Jewish servant who is acquired for an acquisition of years, and he may not eat terumah, but a servant who is acquired as an everlasting acquisition may eat terumah. The Torah writes “sachir” to teach us that “toshav” is a servant who is acquired as an everlasting acquisition, and nevertheless, he cannot eat terumah.

The Gemora concludes that the “toshav v’sachir” mentioned in respect to the Pesach offering are extra. What does “toshav v’sachir” mean when it is written here? It cannot be referring to the two types of Jewish servants because for what reason should they be exempt from eating the Pesach offering? We have previously established that they cannot eat terumah because their master, the Kohen, has not acquired them as a “monetary acquisition.” They are obviously included in the obligation of bringing and eating a Pesach offering.

It is evident that the words are extra for the purpose of teaching us the gezeirah shavah, and it cannot be refuted. (70a – 70b)

The Gemora asks: Once we have the gezeirah shavah between terumah and Pesach, let us learn the following halacha: Just as an onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet) is prohibited from participating in the Pesach offering, so too, in respect to terumah, he should be prohibited to eat it?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Chanina stated: And any strange man implies that the Torah has imposed a prohibition concerning a non-Kohen from eating terumah, but not concerning an onein.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps we should derive from that verse that the Torah has imposed a prohibition concerning a non-Kohen from eating terumah, but not concerning an uncircumcised Kohen?

The Gemora answers: The words “toshav v’sachir” teaches us that an uncircumcised Kohen may not eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: What did you see that compelled you to expound the gezeirah shavah in that manner? Perhaps it should be exactly the opposite? (Let us learn as follows: And any strange man should imply that the Torah has imposed a prohibition concerning a non-Kohen from eating terumah, but not concerning an uncircumcised Kohen; and “toshav v’sachir” will teach us that an onein may not eat terumah?)

The Gemora answers: It is logical that we should include an uncircumcised Kohen in the prohibition of eating terumah because the following stringencies are applicable to him: He is missing a positive action to make him fit; an action must be performed on his body to make him fit; if he remains uncircumcised, he is subject to the penalty of kares; circumcision is a mitzvah that was given prior to the Giving of the Torah; the lack of circumcision by his male sons and servants prevents him from bringing the Pesach offering.

The Gemora asks: On the contrary. It is logical that we should include an onein in the prohibition of eating terumah because the following stringencies are applicable to him: It is a prohibition that is applicable at all times (in contrast to circumcision, where after he is circumcised, the prohibition is not applicable any longer); it applies to men and women; he is not able to remedy the situation himself.

The Gemora answers: The stringencies pertaining to an uncircumcised Kohen are more numerous than those relevant to an onein; therefore, we include an uncircumcised Kohen in the prohibition of eating terumah, and an onein is permitted to eat terumah. (70b)

The Gemora cites the Scriptural source which teaches us that an uncircumcised Kohen may not eat terumah, but a Kohen may eat terumah even though his sons or servants remain uncircumcised. (70b)

[END]