Yevamot 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

For

what is the matter that applies equally

to the offspring of Aaron—

that is, all the offspring of Aaron, both sons and daughters, are included—

you must say: This is teruma,

for regarding it the verse equated daughters with sons, but not regarding sacrificial offerings of the highest sanctity, which may be eaten only by male kohanim.

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

And we challenge this:

But say: The verse states, “among the sacred offerings he shall not eat”; perhaps the verse comes to prohibit a ritually impure person

say that since the verse states, “among the sacred offerings he may not eat,” the verse comes to prohibit an impure person only

from the breast and thigh

of sacrificial offerings—that are given to the kohanim—and regarding them the verse equated daughters with sons?!

And we answer: The breast and thigh do not apply equally to all the offspring of Aaron, since

it does not include the one who returns

A daughter of a kohen who married an Israelite and was subsequently widowed or divorced and returned to her father’s home does not return to eating the breast and thigh, for she ceased eating them when she became betrothed to an Israelite, as explained in the Gemara above, on 68b. Therefore, we interpret the verse as referring to teruma, which also applies to the one who returns.

And we challenge this: But

teruma too

does not apply equally to all the offspring of Aaron, since

it does not include a ḥalala,

one born to a kohen who had relations with a woman disqualified from marrying a kohen, or a daughter of a kohen who had relations with one forbidden to her and was thereby disqualified from teruma [Ritba]?!

And we answer:

A ḥalala—

is not the offspring of Aaron

but is considered like a non-kohen woman!

And we challenge this:

And from where do you know that this

verse—“Any man of the offspring of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the sacred offerings

until he becomes pure”—

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

until sunset has passed

only, whereas one who lacks atonement is permitted to eat teruma [as explained in the beraita cited above on this page]?

Say: “Until he becomes pure” means

“until he becomes pure” means

until he brings his atonement offering,

and one who lacks atonement is forbidden to eat teruma; and this would contradict the beraita above, which permits one who lacks atonement to eat teruma?! And we answer:

It does not enter your mind

to say so!

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

interprets the phrase “who is a leper or a zav” as follows: It is referring

to a zav who has seen two sightings

and to a quarantined leper—

the verse speaks of those who do not need to bring an atonement offering.

And the reason is that it is written: “Who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes pure, and one who touches anyone impure by contact with a dead person.”

You have therefore learned that the status of “a leper or a zav” is

analogous to that of “one impure by contact with a dead person”

a person impure due to contact with a corpse.

Just as one impure by contact with a dead person is not subject to an atonement offering,

so too

these

leper or zav

are likewise not subject to an atonement offering.

But we still challenge this:

And say that this applies only—

that it is sufficient for him to wait until sunset—for impurity

that is not subject to an atonement offering,

such as that of a zav who saw two sightings or a quarantined leper.

But

with regard to impurity

that is subject to an atonement offering,

such as that of a zav who saw three sightings or a confirmed leper, and the like, say that he may not eat teruma

until he brings his atonement offering?!

Furthermore,

there is another question:

For we learned: “He immersed”—

a ritually impure person who must bring an atonement offering once he becomes pure—

and emerged

from the water, he

may eat second tithe,

even though sunset has not yet passed, since one who has immersed that day is permitted to eat second tithe. But he may not eat teruma while he is still one who has immersed that day.

And when

sunset has passed,

he

may eat

even

teruma,

although he has not yet brought his atonement offering, since one who lacks atonement may eat teruma, but may not yet eat sacrificial offerings.

And when he

brings his atonement offering,

he

may eat

even

sacrificial offerings—

From where do we derive

that one who lacks atonement is forbidden to eat sacrificial offerings?

Rava said that Rav Ḥisda said,

to explain the source that one who lacks atonement may not eat sacrificial offerings:

Three verses are written

three biblical verses:

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

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

And this implies:

Once he has bathed

in water, he is

pure,

even though sunset has not yet passed.

b.

And it is written

in that passage:

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

This implies that while he is one who has immersed that day he may not eat, but once sunset has passed he may eat, even though he has not yet brought his atonement offering.

c.

And it is written

with regard to a woman who gave birth: “And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year.

And the kohen shall atone for her, and

then

she shall be pure.”

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

How

are these three verses to be reconciled?

Here,

the first verse, it is stated

with regard

to

second tithe,

to teach you that even while he is one who has immersed that day, he may eat second tithe.

Here,

the second verse, it is stated

with regard

to

teruma,

to teach you that while he is one who has immersed that day he may not eat teruma, but once sunset has passed he may eat, even though he has not yet brought his atonement offering.

Here,

the third verse, it is stated

with regard

the matter of

sacrificial offerings,

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

And we challenge this:

But perhaps I should reverse

the interpretations of the first and second verses and say: The first verse refers to teruma, to teach you that one who has immersed that day may eat teruma, while the second verse refers to second tithe, to teach you that one who has immersed that day may not eat second tithe until sunset has passed?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that

teruma is more stringent

than second tithe,

as

it has stringencies symbolized by

mem-het-peh-zayin.

One who eats it while impure through bodily impurity is liable

to

death; a non-kohen who eats it unwittingly and repays its value adds a

fifth

to the principal; it has no

redemption; and it is forbidden to

non-

non-kohanim

.

Now, can you say this of second tithe, which does not involve death when one eats it while impure through bodily impurity, but only violation of a prohibition; which has no additional fifth, since it is permitted to non-kohanim; and which can be redeemed and is permitted to non-kohanim?

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, second tithe is more stringent, as

it has stringencies symbolized by

heh-dalet-samekh-tet-bet:

Second tithe requires

h

bringing it to Jerusalem, whereas teruma may be eaten outside Jerusalem.

Second tithe requires a confession,

d

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

Second tithe is

f

orbidden to an onen, whereas teruma is permitted to him.

One does not remove second tithe from the world by

b

urning it on account of impurity, whereas impurity permits teruma to be destroyed by burning.

Second tithe requires

d

estruction from the world, whereas teruma does not require destruction. And we answer:

Even so, the stringency of

death

death

involved in teruma for one who eats it while impure through bodily impurity

is greater

than all the stringencies involved in second tithe.

Rava said

in response: Even

without

the reasoning that

“death is greater,” you still cannot say

that the verse, “He shall not eat of the sacred offerings, unless he has bathed his flesh in water” [which implies that once he immerses he may eat], is speaking of second tithe—

For

the verse says: “A person

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

And what is

the matter that applies equally to every person,

both kohanim and non-kohanim?

You must say: This is second tithe,

which is permitted to non-kohanim, unlike teruma, which is forbidden to non-kohanim.

But still,

the original question raised above remains difficult: Since we learned about teruma only from the verse, “And when the sun has set, he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred offerings,” which is stated with regard to a leper or zav who do not require an atonement offering [as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael interpreted it], let us say:

This applies only where he is not subject to an atonement offering,

but

where he is subject to an atonement offering,

let us say that he may not eat teruma

until he brings his atonement offering,

as we challenged above?!

He said

in response,

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

who is required to bring an atonement offering:

It is written:

“When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days; as during the days of the impurity of her menstruation, she shall be impure. [Once the seven days have passed, she immerses for her purification.] And for thirty-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 one who has immersed for an extended day, until sunset at the end of her days of purity]. She shall touch no sacred thing, nor enter the Sanctuary

until the days of her purification are completed.”

even though she has not yet brought her atonement offering.

You have therefore learned:

Once her days have been completed

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

she is pure,

even though she has not yet brought her atonement offering.

And it is further written

with regard to a woman who gave birth: “And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.

And the kohen shall atone for her, and she shall be pure”—

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

How

are these two verses to be reconciled?

Here—

until the days of her purification are completed—

with regard

to eating

teruma.

And this teaches you that even though she has not brought her atonement offering, she may eat teruma.

Here—

“And the kohen shall atone for her, and she shall be pure”—

with regard

to eating

sacrificial offerings.

And this teaches you that before she brings her atonement offering, she may not eat sacrificial offerings.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps I should reverse this!

Let us say that she may not eat teruma until she brings her atonement offering, whereas she may eat sacrificial offerings once her days of purification are completed?!

And we explain:

It is reasonable that sacrificial offerings are more stringent, as

they have stringencies symbolized by

peh-nun-kuf-ayin-kaf-samekh

[as explained above, on 73b], and it is appropriate to be stringent regarding them, so that one who lacks atonement may not eat them.

But we still challenge this:

On the contrary, teruma is more stringent, as

it has stringencies symbolized by

mem-het-peh-zayin

[as explained in the Gemara there].

And we explain:

Those—

the stringencies that sacrificial offerings have over teruma—

are more numerous

[than the stringencies that teruma has over sacrificial offerings].

Rava said:

Even

without

the reasoning of

“those are more numerous,”

also

you cannot say

that the verse comes to teach us that one who lacks atonement may eat sacrificial offerings—

For

the verse says, “And the kohen shall atone for her—

and she shall be pure.”

By inference,

you learn

that she is impure

until she brings her atonement offering.

And if it enters your mind that the verse is speaking of sacrificial offerings,

when it says, “until the days of her purification are completed,” to teach us that one who lacks atonement may eat sacrificial offerings, this cannot be the law!

For

the verse “And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten” applies here.

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

Rather, conclude from this: The verse is speaking of teruma,

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

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, raised an objection to this: And can you say

that

teruma is written here?!

Is it possible that the Torah is speaking about teruma in the passage concerning a woman who gave birth, as you said—that “until the days of her purification are completed” comes to teach a law concerning teruma?!

And it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning a woman who gave birth:

“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 derived only

women from among

“the Children of Israel”

who become impure through childbirth.

A female convert and an emancipated maidservant—

from where

do we know that they too become impure through childbirth?

The verse states: “A woman

when she conceives.”

And if it enters your mind

that

the verse is speaking of teruma,

this is difficult: Does a

female convert and an

emancipated

maidservant have the status of women who may eat teruma?

After all, even through marriage to a kohen they cannot eat it, since they are forbidden to a kohen!

He said,

in response,

Rava: And

because

we do not

find in the passage concerning a woman who gave birth any matter relating to eating teruma, which does not apply to a female convert and a maidservant, does that mean that they are not included in the passage concerning a woman who gave birth?!