שבת 25:1 — Soncino English Talmud

is an affirmative precept: thus there is an affirmative and a negative precept in respect of Festivals, and an affirmative precept cannot supersede a negative and an affirmative precept. Thus it [the burning of defiled terumah] is forbidden only on Festivals, but on weekdays it is well. What is the reason? Said Rab: Just as it is obligatory to burn defiled sacred food, so t is obligatory to burn defiled terumah, and the Torah said, When it is burnt, you may benefit therefrom. Where did the Torah say thus? — [It follows] from R. Nahman's [dictum]. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name, Scripture saith, And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave-offerings: the Writ refers to two terumoth, viz., clean and unclean terumah, and the Divine Law said'[I have given] thee', [meaning], let it be thine for burning it under thy pot. Alternatively, [it follows] from R. Abbahu's [dictum]. For R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: 'Neither have I put away thereof, being unclean:' 'thereof' you may not 'put away,' but you may 'put away' [burn] defiled oil of terumah. Yet [perhaps] say: 'thereof' you may not 'put away', but you may 'put away undefiled oil of kodesh which is defiled? — Does it [the reverse] not follow a fortiori: if tithe, which is light, yet the Torah said, neither have I put away thereof, being unclean'; then how much more so kodesh, which is more stringent? If so, in the case of terumah too let us say, does it [the reverse] not follow a afortiori? — Surely thereof' is written! And why do you prefer it thus? — It is logical that I do not exclude kodesh, since it is [stringent] in respect of (Mnemonic: Pa NaK'aKaS): [i] Piggul, [ii] Nothar, [iii] sacrifice [Korban], [iv] Me'ilah, [v] Kareth, and [vi] 'it is forbidden [asur] to an onen. On the contrary, terumah is not to be excluded, since [it is stringent] in respect of its (mnemonic Ma HPaZ): [i] Death [Mithah], [ii] a fifth [Homesh],^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:For it intimates, rest therein.
^ᵇnote:The negative precept is 'no manner of work' etc.; while the affirmative precept to burn what is left over is in Ex. XII, 10, quoted supra. Thus unfit sacred food may not be burnt on Festivals, and the same applies to unclean terumah.
^ᶜnote:One may benefit from the burning, e.g., by using it as fuel.
^ᵈnote:Num. XVIII, 8. Heb. terumothai, pl. of terumah with passage.
^ᵉnote:Since it is in the plural.
^ᶠnote:Deut. XXVI, 14; v. whole passage. The reference is to the second tithe, and 'being unclean' is understood as meaning whether the person or the tithe was unclean.
^ᵍnote:I.e., by using it as fuel.
^ʰnote:V. Glos. E.g., that used in connection with the meal offerings; v. Lev. II, 1.
^ⁱnote:I.e., its sanctity is less than that of sacrifices.
^ʲnote:For its sanctity is higher than that of tithes.
^ᵏnote:Implying a limitation as stated.
^ˡnote:Lit., 'what (reason) do you see?'- Why exclude terumah by exegesis and include kodesh a fortiori? Perhaps it should be the reverse?
^ᵐnote:A mnemonic is a word or phrase made up of the initial letters of a number of other words or phrases, as an aid to the memory.
^ⁿnote:V. Glos. for these words. (i) Piggul, lit., 'abomination', is a sacrifice killed with the intention of eating it without the boundaries appointed for same; (ii) nothar, with the intention of eating it after its appointed time. These are the connotations of the words here, though elsewhere piggul has the meaning given here to nothar (Tosaf.). These unlawful intentions render the sacrifice an 'abomination', and it may then not be eaten even within its lawful boundaries and time on pain of kareth. (iii) It is designated a sacrifice (Korban). (iv) If one puts it to secular use he is liable to a trespass-offering (Me'ilah). (v) Kareth is incurred for eating it in an unclean bodily state. Kareth (lit., 'cutting off') is the Divine penalty of premature death and childlessness, which is severer than 'Death at the hand of Heaven', which does not include childlessness.-Since Kodesh is so strict in all these matters, it is logical that the limitation does not apply to it.