Yevamot 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

And it is written

in the passage concerning a woman who has given birth, during her days of purity:

“She shall not touch any sacred offering”

[meaning, she may not eat it, as will be explained below], and we learned in tractate Makkot [14b]: Therefore the verse said “any,” in order

to include

the

teruma.

You can also raise this difficulty for yourself: Since the verse is speaking even of a female convert and an emancipated maidservant, are the daughters of Michal themselves recipients of teruma?

Rather,

certainly

the verse enumerates separate matters:

the passage is not written as one unified matter. Rather, within the passage are laws with regard to which the Torah included even a female convert and an emancipated maidservant, while there are other laws in that same passage with regard to which the Torah did not include them, since those laws are not applicable to them.

We further explain:

And three verses are stated with regard to teruma,

namely:

a. “Any man of the offspring of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the sacred offerings” [of teruma, which is equally applicable to all the offspring of Aaron] “until he becomes pure.”

b. “And when the sun sets, he shall become pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred offerings” [as was explained above, the verse is speaking of teruma].

c. “Until the completion of the days of her purity” [as was explained above, the verse is speaking of teruma]—

Why do I need

all three?

They are necessary!

For if from

“he shall not eat of the sacred offerings”

“until he becomes pure” —

I would not have known by what

he becomes pure for teruma, whether through immersion or through sunset—

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote:

“He shall not eat of the sacred offerings unless he has washed his flesh in water [immersion in a ritual bath].

And when the sun sets, he shall become pure,

and afterward he may eat of the sacred offerings.”

Therefore, the verse juxtaposed sunset with immersion, in order to reveal the meaning of what the Torah said: “He shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes pure”—namely, purification through both immersion and sunset [Tosafot].

And if the Merciful One had written

only, “He shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes pure,” as well as the verse

“And when the sun sets

and he becomes pure,” stated in the passage concerning “a leper or a zav,” who do not lack atonement [as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael explained]—

I would have said:

This matter—

that sunset is sufficient—applies

where he is not subject to an atonement offering

.

But

where

he is subject to an atonement offering

,

I might say that he does not eat until he brings his atonement offering,

and he may not eat teruma.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote—

with regard to a woman who has given birth and requires atonement—

“Until the completion

of the days of her purity”: once her days have been completed and the sun has set, she is pure, even before she has brought her atonement offering.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“Until the completion

of the days of her purity,”

I would have said

that a woman who has given birth becomes pure for teruma once her days of purity have ended [that is, at sunset],

even without immersion

[at the end of her days of impurity, before her days of purity began ], since immersion is not mentioned anywhere in that passage [Tosafot]. 387.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “until he becomes pure,”

which implies immersion and sunset together, as was explained from the meaning of the verses [Tosafot].

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to that tanna who disagrees with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

—who interprets “and he is a leper or a zav” as referring to leprosy and gonorrhea that do not require atonement—

who says

that this tanna:

“And he is a leper or a zav” refers

to a zav who has seen three emissions and to a confirmed leper,

and this “until he becomes pure,”

stated in that passage, according to his view, is

until he brings his atonement offering.

It must be that the verse is speaking of sacred offerings, for teruma does not require bringing an atonement offering, as we derive from “until the completion of the days of her purity”—

If so:

Why do I need two verses concerning sacred offerings

[a. “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure,” written concerning a woman who has given birth; b. “And he is a leper or a zav; he shall not eat of the sacred offerings until he becomes pure”], teaching that one who lacks atonement is prohibited from partaking of sacred offerings—

why do I need them?

And we answer:

They are both necessary

for the two cases!

For if the Merciful One had written

only

with regard to a woman who has given birth,

who may not partake of sacred offerings until she brings her atonement offering, I would have said that she may not eat

because

she is especially severe in this respect,

as her impurity is more extensive,

for she is prohibited from eating teruma and sacred offerings for eighty days [when she gives birth to a female], something not found with other forms of impurity.

But with regard to a zav,

who is impure for only seven days,

I might say no:

he should not be subject to the stringency of being prohibited from eating sacred offerings until he brings his atonement offering.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

with regard to a zav

[or a leper], I would have said that he has a stringency

that is not relaxed in any respect,

for as long as he has not ceased seeing emissions, he remains impure.

But in the case of a woman who has given birth,

whose prohibition is relaxed in one respect during her days of purity, since the blood of her menstruation does not render her impure to her husband,

I might say no:

the verse did not impose upon her the stringency of prohibiting her from eating sacred offerings until she brings her atonement offering.

Therefore:

Both are necessary

for the two cases.

The Gemara further explains the verse elsewhere: “And anything upon which any of them [of the creeping creatures] falls when they are dead shall become impure, whether it is any vessel of wood or a garment”—

“It shall be placed in water, and it shall be impure until the evening

and become pure”—

Why do I need

this verse as well?

He

explained,

Rabbi Zeira: For touching.

For without this verse, we would have learned only that eating teruma requires sunset, since all the verses cited above deal with this matter. But this verse—which speaks of vessels—comes to teach us that an impure vessel or an impure person may not touch teruma before sunset.

As it was taught:

On the one hand, it is written: “And anything upon which any of them falls—It shall be placed in water,

and it shall be impure.”

This implies that even after contact with water [immersion], the person or vessel remains impure until evening.

One might have thought that this applies to everything

—both second tithe and teruma—and that he remains impure until sunset.

The verse states,

on the other hand: “Until the evening,

and he shall become pure.”

Since the verse did not say “and he shall become pure,” it implies that it refers to the statement above: “and he shall become pure,” even before sunset—

If “until the evening

and he shall become pure,”

one might have thought

that he becomes pure without sunset

for every

matter

?

The verse states,

on the other hand: “It shall be placed in water,

and it shall be impure.”

How, then,

are these two verses to be fulfilled?

It must be said:

Here, where it says,

“Until the evening, and he shall become pure,” it refers

to second tithe,

for the person who immersed for his purification [or the vessel] does not require sunset even with regard to touching it.

Here, where it says,

“It shall be placed in water, and it shall remain impure,” it refers

to teruma.

This teaches you that even touching teruma is prohibited before sunset.

And we refute this:

But why should I not reverse them?!

I could say as follows: It is second tithe that is prohibited to touch until sunset, whereas teruma is permitted to touch before sunset?! And we answer:

It is reasonable: Just as

the eating of

teruma is more stringent than eating of second tithe

with regard to one who has immersed but awaits sunset,

so too, touching teruma is more stringent than touching second tithe

with regard to one who has immersed but awaits sunset.

Alternatively: The prohibition against touching teruma

which applies to one who has immersed but awaits sunset

is derived from here—

from “She shall not touch any sacred offering,” stated concerning a woman who has given birth, who is “one with an extended day of immersion,”

it is derived

[and the Gemara proceeds to explain it].

As it was taught:

It is written concerning a woman who has given birth, during her days of purity, when she is one with an extended day of immersion:

“She shall not touch any sacred offering.”

And the beraita explains:

It is a warning

for

to one who eats,

that a woman who has given birth may not eat teruma until sunset, when her days of purity are complete—

Or perhaps

the verse comes to say

only

a warning

to one who touches?

The verse states: “She shall not touch any sacred offering, nor shall she enter the Sanctuary.”

The verse juxtaposes

the impurity of

sacred offerings with the impurity of

the

Sanctuary,

in order to teach you:

Just as

the impurity of

the

Sanctuary—when a person enters the Sanctuary while impure in body—is

a matter that entails

the punishment of

karet [excision]—

[karet],

so too,

eating

sacred offerings

while impure in body is

a matter that entails

the punishment of

karet [death at the hands of Heaven].

And it is thereby demonstrated that the verse is speaking of eating while impure in body, since

It is thus proven that the verse speaks of eating while impure in body, since

with regard to touching,

which renders sacred matter impure,

there is no punishment of karet!

For there is no punishment of karet for an impure vessel or an impure person who touches sacred matter!

The Gemara now explains from where we learned the prohibition against one who has immersed but awaits sunset touching teruma:

And since the Torah expressed

eating

in the language of touching,

it follows that

this is what it says:

Touching

is

like eating!

This teaches you: Anything that is prohibited to eat while impure is also prohibited to touch while impure.

And it is thereby demonstrated that one who has immersed but awaits sunset, who is prohibited from eating teruma, is likewise prohibited from touching teruma.

We learned in our Mishna:

A man with crushed testicles

or one whose member is severed—their slaves may eat, but their wives may not eat; and if she did not know that he had become a man with crushed testicles or one whose member was severed, these women may eat.

a. It is explained in the Mishna and in the sugya above, on 56b, that Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree concerning a woman who is “awaiting a forbidden union,” as to whether she may eat teruma. That is, if she is waiting and preparing [as in “a woman awaiting levirate marriage,” and as in “his father kept the matter in mind”] to engage in a union that disqualifies her from teruma, she is disqualified, according to Rabbi Meir, from eating teruma as long as she is awaiting this union. Therefore, we learned above [and this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir]:

“A widow betrothed to a High Priest, and a divorcee or a ḥalutza betrothed to an ordinary priest, may not eat [the women] teruma,” since they are awaiting a forbidden union, one that makes the woman a Torah-level ḥalala.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem a woman awaiting a forbidden union fit to eat teruma; she is not disqualified until she actually engages in the union and becomes a ḥalala.

b. Our Mishna deals with Israelite women who married priests and whose husbands became men with crushed testicles or men whose members were severed, but whose husbands had not engaged in intercourse with them after becoming disqualified. Nevertheless, they are “awaiting a forbidden union,” since if their husbands engage in intercourse with them, they will disqualify them, as we learned: “Their wives [after their husbands had engaged in intercourse with them] and their slaves may not eat.”

The Gemara explains the view of the tanna who taught our Mishna:

We inquire concerning this:

Who is the tanna

of our Mishna, who holds that

a woman awaiting a Torah-level forbidden union

[a union that disqualifies her by Torah law, such as with a man with crushed testicles]

may eat,

meaning that she is permitted to eat teruma? Accordingly, the tanna taught: “And if she did not know that he had become a man with crushed testicles or one whose member was severed”—and she was not disqualified—“these women may eat,” even though they are nevertheless awaiting union with their husbands, who would disqualify them.

Rabbi Elazar said:

This halakha

is a dispute

among the tanna’im; it was

taught

and

our Mishna follows the method of

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon,

who deem a “woman awaiting a Torah-level forbidden union” fit to eat teruma.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who disqualifies a widow who married a High Priest or a divorcee who married an ordinary priest from eating teruma, since they are awaiting a forbidden union, here too their wives may not eat teruma from the moment their husbands became disqualified, and if they engage in intercourse with them, their wives will be disqualified.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You may even say that it is Rabbi Meir

who holds this view—he who disqualifies a widow married to a High Priest or a divorcee married to an ordinary priest from eating teruma—because Rabbi Meir said this only with regard to women who, from the beginning of their marriages, are awaiting a forbidden union.

But

here it is different,

in our Mishna: their husbands became disqualified only after they married them. Since

she had already eaten

her husband’s teruma before he became a man with crushed testicles or one whose member was severed, they continue to eat by virtue of him, as long as they have not been rendered ḥalalot through intercourse with him.

And

if

Rabbi Elazar

had said: It is impossible to establish it according to Rabbi Meir; it must follow Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, because the rationale

“she had already eaten”

we do not say

is a reason to allow her to continue eating teruma.

For if you do not say this,

but rather we do say “she had already eaten” as a reason to allow her to eat teruma, you can raise the following difficulty: Does

an Israelite woman who married a priest, and her husband died,

then

eat

teruma because

“she had already eaten”

before her husband died?

And Rabbi Yohanan

who holds that we say, “since she already ate,” would say to you that the case is not analogous to the proof:

There—

in the case of an Israelite woman who married a kohen and her husband died—

her acquisition by him ceased [

the husband’s acquisition of his wife ceased].

But

here—

where her husband became a petzu'a daka—

her acquisition by him did not cease

the husband’s acquisition of his wife.

We learned in the Mishna:

What is a petzu'a daka

? Anyone whose testicles were injured, even one of them:

The Sages taught:

What is a petzu'a daka?

Anyone whose testicles were injured

by a sword blow or a knife,

even one of them

alone was injured, he is a petzu'a daka.

And even if they were perforated

his testicles,

and even if they shriveled [

became smaller] as a result of an injury,

and even if they were diminished

by any amount.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, said: I heard from the Sages

who were

in the vineyard at Yavneh: Anyone who has only one testicle is merely a natural eunuch, and is fit.

And we raise a difficulty: Is

a natural eunuch—

could it enter your mind?!

Could it enter your mind that this is a natural eunuch? A natural eunuch is one who became a eunuch due to illness, whereas this is not an illness?!

Rather,

say as follows:

he is like a natural eunuch, and is fit

to enter the congregation.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the statement of the beraita that we learned, “and even if they were perforated”:

And

when

the testicle is perforated,

is it

not capable of producing children?

But he is capable of producing children—as the Gemara demonstrates—and if so, he is not a “petzu'a daka”?!