Yevamot 74b — the Talmud in English

For

what is a matter that is equal ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

among the descendants of Aaron—

that is, all the descendants of Aaron, both sons and daughters, are included in it—

you must say: this is teruma,

for Scripture made daughters equal to sons with regard to it, but not with regard to the most-sacred offerings, for they may be eaten only by males of the priesthood.

You have therefore learned: an impure person is forbidden to eat teruma.

And we challenge this:

But say,

say that since Scripture stated “among the sacred offerings” he shall not eat, Scripture comes only to forbid an impure person

with regard to the breast and thigh

of offerings—which are given to priests—and Scripture made daughters equal to sons with regard to them?!

And we answer: The breast and thigh are not equal for all the descendants of Aaron. For

it does not apply to the “returning woman”

a priest’s daughter who married an Israelite and was widowed or divorced and returned to her father’s house does not return and eat the breast and thigh, for she ceased eating them when she became betrothed to an Israelite; as was explained in the Gemara above, on 68b, and therefore we interpret the verse as referring to teruma, which also applies to the “returning woman.”

And we challenge this:

Teruma also

is not equal for all the descendants of Aaron. For

it does not apply to a woman disqualified from the priesthood

who was born to a priest who had relations with women disqualified from the priesthood, or a priest’s daughter who had relations with one forbidden to her and was disqualified from teruma [Ritva]?!

And we answer:

A woman disqualified from the priesthood—

she is not the seed of Aaron—

she is considered merely like a non-priestess!

And we challenge this:

And from where

is it established that this verse—“Any man of the seed of Aaron, being a leper or a person with a discharge, shall not eat of the sacred things

until he is pure”—

which teaches the prohibition against eating while one’s body is impure—means

until there is sunset

only, whereas one lacking atonement is permitted to eat teruma [as was explained in the beraita brought above on the first side]—

Say: “Until he is pure” means

until

he brings his atonement offering, and one lacking atonement will be forbidden to eat teruma; and this would refute the beraita above, which permits one lacking atonement to eat teruma?! And we answer:

It does not enter your mind

to say

this!

For the school of Rabbi Ishmael’s tanntay

interpreted “being a leper or a person with a discharge,” namely:

a man with a discharge who saw two sightings

and a quarantined leper —

Scripture is speaking of those who do not need to bring atonement.

And its reason is because it is written: “Being a leper or a person with a discharge shall not eat of the sacred things until he is pure, and one who touches any person impure by a corpse.”

You have therefore learned: the law of “a leper or a person with a discharge” is

analogous to that of “one impure by a corpse”

a person impure through contact with a corpse.

Just as “one impure by a corpse” has no possibility of atonement,

so too

these

leper or person with a discharge

also have no possibility of atonement.

And we still challenge this:

But say that this applies—

that it is sufficient for the impure person to wait until sunset—regarding impurity

that has no possibility of atonement,

such as a man with a discharge who saw two sightings and a quarantined leper.

But

regarding impurity

that has a possibility of atonement,

such as a man with a discharge who saw three sightings and a confirmed leper, and the like, say that he may not eat teruma

until he brings his atonement offering?!

Furthermore,

there is another question to ask:

That which we learned: “A tevul yom”

an impure person who must bring atonement when he becomes pure

and ascended

from the water, he

eats the second tithe,

even though the sun has not yet set for him, for a tevul yom is permitted to eat second tithe. But he may not eat teruma while he is a tevul yom.

And when

the sun has set,

he

eats

even

teruma,

even though he has not yet brought his atonement offering, for one lacking atonement eats teruma, but he may still not eat sacred offerings.

And when he

brings his atonement offering,

he

eats

even

sacred offerings—

From where

do we know that one lacking atonement is forbidden to eat sacred offerings?

Rava said that Rav Hisda said,

to explain the source that one lacking atonement does not eat sacred offerings:

Three verses are written

three scriptural passages:

a. It is written in the passage concerning “Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper”:

“He shall not eat of the sacred things, unless he has washed his flesh in water.”

And it implies:

Once he has washed

in water, he

is pure,

even though the sun has not yet set for him.

b.

And it is written

in that passage:

“And the sun shall set and he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred things.”

And it implies: when he is a tevul yom he does not eat, but once the sun has set, he eats, even though he has not yet brought his atonement offering.

c.

And it is written

concerning a woman after childbirth: “And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb.”

“And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be

then

pure.”

You have therefore learned that her purification is not completed until she brings her atonement offering.

How

are these three verses to be fulfilled?

Here—

the first verse—is stated

with

regard to

second tithe,

to teach you: even when he is a tevul yom, he eats second tithe.

Here—

the second verse—is stated

with

regard to

teruma,

to teach you: when he is a tevul yom, he does not eat teruma, but once the sun has set, he eats, even though he has not yet brought his atonement offering.

Here—

the third verse—is stated

with

regard to

sacred offerings,

to teach you: anyone who requires atonement may not eat sacred offerings until he brings his atonement offering.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps I should reverse

the interpretation of the first and second verses, and say: the first verse concerns teruma, to teach you that a tevul yom eats teruma, while the second verse concerns second tithe, to teach you that a tevul yom does not eat second tithe until the sun has set?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable that

teruma

is superior

to tithe in being more stringent in its law,

since

it has stringencies whose mnemonic is

mem-het-peh-zayin.

One is liable for

death for it when he eats it in bodily impurity; and a non-priest who eats it unwittingly and pays its value adds a

fifth

homesh to the principal; and it has no

redemption; and it is forbidden to

zers

—

zers.

Say regarding tithe, that there is no death for eating it in bodily impurity, but only violation of a prohibition; there is no fifth, for it is permitted to non-priests; and it has redemption and is permitted to non-priests.

And we challenge it:

On the contrary, tithe is superior, since

it has stringencies whose mnemonic is

:

heh-dalet-samekh tet-bet:

Tithe requires

bringing

to its place, Jerusalem, whereas teruma is eaten outside Jerusalem.

Tithe requires

confession, whereas teruma requires confession only incidentally to tithe [Tosafot above, 73a, s.v. “and they require”].

Tithe is

forbidden to an acute mourner, whereas teruma is permitted to him.

One does not burn

the tithe in impurity, whereas impurity permits teruma to be destroyed by burning.

Tithe requires

destruction from the world, whereas teruma does not require destruction.

And we answer:

Even so,

the stringency of

death that applies to one who eats teruma in bodily impurity

is superior

to all the stringencies that apply to tithe.

death

Rava said

[he answered]: even

without

the reasoning that “death is superior,” you still cannot say

that the verse “And he shall not eat of the sacred things unless he has washed his flesh in water” [which implies: once he has immersed, he eats] speaks of tithe—

For

the verse says: “A person

who

touches it shall be impure until evening, and he shall not eat of the sacred things unless he has washed his flesh in water.”

And what is a matter that is equal to every person, both priests and non-priests? You must say: this is second tithe, which is permitted to non-priests, and not teruma, which is forbidden to non-priests.

“The person

who touches it shall be impure until evening, and he may not eat of the sacred offerings until he has washed his flesh in water.”

And still,

the first question remains difficult, which we raised above: since we learned the law of teruma only from the verse “And the sun shall set and he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred things,” stated concerning a leper or a person with a discharge, who do not require atonement [as the tanntay of the school of Rabbi Ishmael interpreted it], if so, let us say:

This applies only where he has no possibility of atonement

for it.

But where he has a possibility of atonement,

let us say that he does not eat teruma

until he brings his atonement offering,

as we challenged above?!

but

He said,

he answered,

Abaye: Two verses are written concerning a woman after childbirth,

who requires atonement:

It is written: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her menstruation, she shall be impure. [And once the seven days have passed, she immerses for her purification.] And for thirty days and three days she shall remain in the blood of purification [even if she sees blood, she does not become a menstruant, and during these days she is called a tevul yom of extended duration, until the sun sets at the end of her pure days]. She shall touch no sacred thing, and she shall not enter the Sanctuary”—

until the days of her purification are completed .

Abaye: Two verses are written concerning a woman who gave birth,

You have therefore learned:

once her days have been completed

the sun has set at the end of her pure days—

she is pure,

even though she has not yet brought her atonement offering.

And it is written

further concerning a woman after childbirth: “And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb as an elevation-offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering.

And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure”—

and it implies that until she brings her atonement offering, she is not pure.

How

are these two verses to be fulfilled?

Here—

until the days of her purification are completed—

for

the eating of

teruma.

And to teach you: even though she has not brought her atonement offering, she eats teruma.

until the days of her purification are complete—

Here—

“And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure”—

for

the eating of

sacred offerings. And to teach you: before she brings her atonement offering, she may not eat sacred offerings.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps I should reverse this!

Let us say: she may not eat teruma until she brings her atonement offering, whereas she may eat sacred offerings when her days of purification are completed?!

And we explain:

It is reasonable that sacred offerings are stringent, since

they have stringencies whose mnemonic is

peh-nun-kuf-ayin-kaf-samekh , and it is fitting to be stringent concerning them, that one lacking atonement should not eat them.

And we still challenge this:

On the contrary, teruma is stringent, since

it has stringencies whose mnemonic is

mem-het-peh-zayin

[as explained in the Gemara there].

And we explain:

These

the stringencies that sacred offerings have over teruma

are more numerous

[they are many] than the stringencies that teruma has over sacred offerings.

as explained in the Gemara there.

Rava said:

even

without

the reasoning of

“these are more numerous,”

you also cannot say

that the verse comes to teach us that one lacking atonement eats sacred offerings—

For

the verse says, “And the priest shall make atonement for her—

and she shall be pure.”

From this

you learn

that she is impure

until she brings her atonement offering.

And if it enters your mind that the verse speaks of sacred offerings,

and that “until the days of her purification are completed” teaches us that one lacking atonement eats sacred offerings, this cannot be so!

For

here applies:

“And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten.”

That is, since Scripture calls a woman lacking atonement “impure,” the flesh becomes impure through her contact if she eats it before bringing her atonement offering; so how could she eat sacred offerings?!

And if it should enter your mind that the verse is speaking of sacred offerings,

and that “until the days of her purification are complete” teaches that one who lacks atonement may eat sacred offerings, this cannot be so!

Rather, infer from it: the verse speaks of teruma,

and permits her to eat teruma even before she brings her atonement offering.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, challenged him: And can you say

that teruma is written here?! Is it possible that the Torah speaks in the passage concerning a woman after childbirth about teruma, as you said: “until the days of her purification are completed” comes to teach concerning teruma?!

But it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning a woman after childbirth:

“Speak to the children of Israel

and say to them: When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure.”

I have only

women from

“the children of Israel”

who have the impurity of childbirth.

and say to them: When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure.”

A female convert and an emancipated maidservant—

from where

do we know that they too have the impurity of childbirth?

The verse says: “A woman”—

when she conceives. And if it enters your mind

that

teruma

is what the verse speaks of, raise the difficulty: Are

a female convert and an emancipated maidservant

women entitled to eat teruma?

For even through marriage to a priest they cannot eat it, since they are forbidden to a priest!

teruma

is the subject of the verse, this would be difficult: Are

a convert and

an

He said,

he answered,

Rava: And because we do not find in the passage concerning a woman after childbirth any matter of eating teruma—which does not apply to a female convert and a maidservant—included in the passage concerning a woman after childbirth?!

in answer,

Rava: And

because

we do not

find in the passage concerning a woman who gave birth any matter concerning eating teruma, which does not apply to a convert and an emancipated maidservant, are they not nevertheless included in the passage concerning a woman who gives birth?!