1 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, [since] clean [was mentioned] the implication must be that he is [somewhat unclean. Thus it was taught that a tebul yom is permitted to prepare the red heifer. R. Shesheth was asked: Is an uncircumcised person permitted to eat tithe: Is tithe deduced from the paschal lamb in the case of circumcision as the paschal lamb is deduced from tithe in the case of the mourning of an onan, or may only the major [sanctity] be deduced from the minor but not the minor from the major [sanctity]? He replied. You have learned this: In respect of terumah and the first ripe fruits one may incur the penalties of death and a fifth; these furthermore are forbidden to non-priests, they are the [undisputed] property of the priest, they are neutralized in one hundred and one, and they require washing of the hands, and sunset, All these restrictions apply to terumah and bikkurim only but not to tithe. Now, if that were so, it should have been stated here, 'The uncircumcised is forbidden to eat of them, which prohibition is not applicable to tithe'! — He might have taught some and omitted others. What else did he omit that he should have omitted this? — He omitted the following. In the final clause while it was stated: 'Some restrictions apply to tithe and the first ripe fruits, but not to terumah, since tithe and the first ripe fruits must be brought to the appointed place, they require confession and are forbidden to an onan, and R. Simeon permits [the bikkurim to an onan]; they are, furthermore, subject to removal; but R. Simeon exempts them', [the laws that] they may not be burned even when levitically unclean,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇ
2 and that the man who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged, and that these laws do not apply to terumah, were not stated. This proves clearly that only some were taught and others were omitted. The Master said, 'And are forbidden to an onan, and R. Simeon permits [the bikkurim to an onan]'. Whence do they derive their views? — From the Scriptural text, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil or the firstlings of thy herd etc. nor the offering of thy hand, and a Master said that 'the offering of thy hand' refers to bikkurim; and bikkurim were compared to tithe: As tithe is forbidden to the onan so are bikkurim also forbidden to the onan. And R. Simeon? — The All Merciful called them terumah: As terumah is permitted to the onan so are bikkurim permitted to the onan. 'They are, furthermore, subject to removal; but R. Simeon permits them'. One Master compares [bikkurim to tithe] and the other Master does not. 'They may not be burned when levitically unclean, and the man who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged'. Whence is this derived? — From what was taught: R. Simeon said, Neither have I burned thereof, being unclean, whether I was unclean and it was clean or I was clean and it was unclean. I do not know, however, where one was forbidden to eat it'. (But, surely, in relation to it, the uncleanness of the body was specifically stated: The soul that touches any such shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in waters — This is the question: Whence the prohibition [to eat it] where the thing itself is unclean? It was expressly stated, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn but further on it was stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates; the unclean and the clean may eat it alike as the gazelle, and as the hart, and at the school of R. Ishmael it was taught that the unclean and the clean may eat together even on the same table, and the same plate, and no precautions need be taken. Thus the All Merciful stated, 'That, concerning which I told you there, Thou shalt eat it within thy gates, you may not eat here'. 'That these laws do not apply to terumah'. Whence do we derive this? — R. Abbahu replied in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture stated, Neither have I burnt thereof, being unclean, you may not burn 'thereof', but you may burn the oil of terumah if it has become unclean. Might it not be suggested: You may not burn any 'thereof'. but you may burn holy oil that became unclean? — This, surely. may be inferred a minori ad majus: If in respect of the tithe, the sanctity of which is of a minor character, the Torah stated, Neither have I burnt thereof, being unclean, how much more so in respect of holy food the Sanctity of which is of a major character. If so, terumah also might be inferred a minori ad majus! — Surely 'thereof' was written. And what reason do you see? It is logical that holy food should not be excluded, since [the following restrictions also apply to it:] piggul, nothar, sacrifice, me'ilah, kareth, and it is also forbidden to an onan. On the contrary; terumah should not be excluded since [to it apply the restrictions of] death. a fifth, it cannot be redeemed and it is forbidden to non-priests! — Those are more in number. And if you prefer I might say: Kareth is regarded as being of greater importance. 'The man that eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged, and that these laws do not apply to terumah'. He is apparently exempt only from flogging, but a prohibition remains. Whence is this derived? — Scripture stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates. only 'it' but not any other; and a negative precept that is derived from a positive one [has only the force of] a positive. R. Ashi said: From the first clause also you may infer that the Tanna taught some and omitted others, since he did not state ᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗ