Hello,
The Gemoro on 14b has a discussion as to what R'Yochanon and Reish Lokish learn from different pesukim.
The Gemoro says that Reish Lokinsh learns "Terumah" from "Ish Ish...", but R' Yochanan has two pesukim, one for Achilas Terumah and one for Megiah. What about Reish Lokish - does he disagree about Achilas Terumah, or does he learn Achilas Terumah from somewhere else (or include it in touching Terumah) ?
Kol Tuv
Meir Eliezer Bergman, Manchester UK
Reish Lakish learns that Achilas Terumah is included in touching Terumah. My sources for saying this are as follows:
(1) In the Gemara Yevamos 75a, according to one of the Beraisos there, we learn out from "Bekol Kodesh Lo Tigah" that the Torah warns us here that one may not eat Terumah. The Gemara states that the posuk cannot be telling us explicitly that one may not touch Terumah because the posuk must be referring to something for which one is culpable of the death penalty, which does not apply to someone who merely touches Terumah (this is the same Beraisa that our Gemara here in Makos at the end of 14b brings as a support for Reish Lakish). The Gemara concludes that the reason the Torah used the word "touch" is in order to teach us that touching is the same as eating. Rashi DH Negiah writes that anything which it is forbidden to touch is also forbidden to eat.
(2) In other words, even though we explain the posuk "You must not touch Kodesh" to mean that one may not eat Terumah, nevertheless because the literal meaning of Tigah is "touch" this teaches that a Tamei person must not touch Terumah either, because whatever one may not eat, one also may not touch.
(3) Therefore Reish Lakish learns from Ish Ish that a Tamei may not eat Terumah and it automatically follows that he may not touch it either.
(4) This is also stated by Tosfos Zevochim 33b DH Tanya who writes that we learn from this Beraisa in Yevamos that for Kodesh, touching is equvalent to eating, and this rule applies to Terumah also.
Yeysher Koach for such a thoughtful question
KOL TUV and Chodesh Tov
Dovid Bloom