Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 135th prohibition is that an uncircumcised [Kohen] is forbidden from eating terumah. He is also forbidden from eating any other sanctified foods.

This prohibition is not explicitly stated, but learned through a gezera shava (the principle that, when handed down by tradition, two laws can be compared because they share an identical word). In passing this law down, our Sages explained that it counts as a Biblical commandment rather than of Rabbinic origin.1

In the words of tractate Yevamos:2 "What is the source for the law that an uncircumcised [Kohen] may not eat terumah? Since the words toshav v'sachir are written both by the Pesach offering and by terumah, we can compare them — just as by the Pesach sacrifice, the uncircumcised man is prohibited just like the toshav v'sachir, so too regarding terumah, the uncircumcised man is prohibited just like the toshav v'sachir." This applies [not only to terumah, but] to other sanctified things.

The above passage is repeated in Sifra.3

There [in the Sifra], Rabbi Akiva explains that the phrase, "Any man" comes to include one who is uncircumcised.

In Yevamos4 it is explained that a mashuch [i.e., one whose remaining foreskin was pulled down after circumcision, making it appear as if he was not circumcised] is allowed to eat terumah by Biblical law. He is forbidden only by Rabbinic law because he has the appearance of one who is uncircumcised.

It has therefore been explained that it is a Biblical prohibition for an uncircumcised man to eat terumah, and it is the mashuch who is forbidden by Rabbinic law. You should understand this.

It is also explained there that a mashuch must be circumcised [a second time] by Rabbinic law.5

Footnotes

1.

In the 2nd Principle, the Rambam explained that a law learned through a gezera shava does not count among the 613 — unless the Sages say explicitly that it does (as is the case here).

2.

70a.

3.

Lev. 22:10.

4.

72a.

5.

Evidently, the Rambam brings this as a further proof that this is a Biblical commandment. We see from this passage that the reason a mashuch is forbidden from eating terumah is only Rabbinic is because he is considered uncircumcised only by Rabbinic law. Therefore, one who is uncircumcised by Biblical law is forbidden by Biblical law.

The 136th prohibition is that a Kohen who is tameh (ritually impure) is forbidden from eating terumah.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Any descendant of Aharon who has a leprous mark or a discharge may not eat any sacred offering until he has purified himself."

In tractate Makkos,2 our Sages say, "What is the source for the prohibition of [a Kohen who is tameh] eating terumah? From the verse, 'Any descendant...' The only thing equal to all of Aharon's descendants is terumah."

The meaning of this phrase "equal to all of Aharon's descendants" is that the verse refers to something all his descendants — male and female — are allowed to eat.3

This prohibition is repeated in the verse,4 "They [i.e., the Kohanim] shall keep My charge [and not profane the sacred offering]."

One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by misah bidei shamayim.

In the 9th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin,5 our Sages enumerate those who receive misa bidei shamayim, and include among them the Kohen who eats terumah t'hora (which is ritually pure) when he is tameh. They prove this from the verse "They [i.e., the Kohanim] shall keep My charge [and not profane the sacred offering], which is a sin that can cause them to die."

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 25:10.

2.

14b.

3.

This must mean terumah, because only males may eat from the sacrifices.

4.

Lev. 22:9.

5.

83a.