Why the Uncircumcised May Not Eat the Second Tithe

Rabbi Yitzchak said: From where do we know that an uncircumcised man is forbidden to eat the second tithe? It is stated "of it" (mimenu) regarding the Pesach, and it is stated "of it" regarding the tithe. Just as the "of it" stated regarding the Pesach means an uncircumcised man is forbidden it, so too the "of it" stated regarding the tithe means an uncircumcised man is forbidden it. This comparison must be free [for exposition], for if it were not free, one could refute it: what is unique about the Pesach is that one is liable concerning it for the laws of piggul [improper intent], notar [leftover], and impurity. But it is indeed free for exposition. What makes it free? Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak: "of it" is written three times regarding the Pesach, and "of it" is written three times regarding the tithe. Regarding the Pesach, one instance is for its own plain meaning, one is for the verbal analogy, and the other, according to the one who says Scripture comes to place a positive command after a negative command, since it wrote "leftover" it also wrote "of it"; and according to the one who says it is to grant a second morning for its burning, since it wrote "until morning" it also wrote "of it." "Of it" is written three times regarding the tithe: one for its own plain meaning, one for the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and one for the teaching of Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Simai, who said: From where do we know that second tithe which became impure may be used for anointing? As it is stated, "and I did not give of it for the dead" (Deuteronomy 26:14): for the dead I did not give it, but for the living, in a manner resembling the dead, I did give it. What is a use shared by the dead and the living? You must say this is anointing. Mar Zutra objected: say it refers to buying a coffin and shrouds. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: "of it" means from its own substance [and a coffin is external to the body]. Rav Ashi said: we require "I did not give" to resemble "I did not eat"; just as there it means from its own substance, so here it means from its own substance. And still this is free for exposition from only one side. This works according to the one who holds that we learn and do not refute, but according to the one who holds that we learn and do refute, what is there to say? The teaching of Rabbi Abbahu derives from what Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, as it is written, "And behold, I have given you the charge of My terumah-offerings" (Numbers 18:8): Scripture speaks of two terumah-offerings, one pure terumah and one impure terumah, and the Merciful One said "to you," meaning it shall be yours, to kindle it under your cooked food.