Yevamot 75a — the Talmud in English

And it is written

in the section of the woman who gave birth, during her days of purity:

“Of every” sacred thing she shall not touch

[that is, she shall not eat, as will be explained below], and we learned in tractate Makkot [14b]: Therefore Scripture said “of every,” in order

to include

the

teruma.

And you should likewise raise this difficulty: Since Scripture also speaks of a female convert and a maidservant—are the daughters of Michal teruma?

Rather,

certainly,

the verse counts matters separately,

for the section is not written as one matter alone. Rather, within the section there are laws with respect to which the Torah also included the female convert and the freedwoman, and there are laws in that same section with respect to which the Torah did not include the female convert and the freedwoman, since they are not subject to them.

We further explain:

And three verses are needed concerning teruma,

which are:

a. “Any man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or has a discharge shall not eat of the sacred things” [of teruma, which is equal among the seed of Aaron] “until he becomes pure.”

b. “And the sun shall set, and he shall become pure, and afterward he may eat of the sacred things” [and it was explained above that Scripture speaks of teruma].

c. “Until the completion of the days of her purity” [and it was explained above that Scripture speaks of teruma]—

Why do I need

all three?

They are necessary!

For if from

“of the sacred things he shall not eat”

“until he becomes pure” —

we would not know by what

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

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“and he shall not eat of the sacred things, except that he wash his flesh in water” [immersion in a ritual bath].

“And the sun shall set, and he shall become pure,

and afterward he may eat of the sacred things.”

And therefore Scripture juxtaposed sunset with immersion, in order to reveal with respect to what the Torah said: “He shall not eat of the sacred things until he becomes pure”—that is, purity through immersion and sunset together [Tosafot ].

And if the Merciful One had written

only “and he shall not eat of the sacred things until he becomes pure,” and likewise the verse

“and the sun shall set

and he shall become pure,” stated in the section of “a leper or one with a discharge,” which do not lack atonement [as the student of the house of Rabbi Ishmael explained]—

we would have said:

These words—

that sunset suffices—where

he is not subject to atonement

.

But

where

he is subject to atonement

,

say: Until he brings his atonement-offering,

he may not eat teruma.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote—

in the case of a woman who gave birth, who requires atonement—

“until the completion

of the days of her purity”: Once her days have been completed and her 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,”

we would have said

that a woman who gave birth becomes pure for teruma once her days of purity are completed [that is, sunset],

even without immersion

[at the end of her days of impurity, before the beginning of her days of purity ], since immersion is not mentioned in that section at all [Tosafot].

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “until he becomes pure,”

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

And we raise an objection:

And according to that tanna who disputes the student of the house of Rabbi Ishmael

—who interprets “and he is a leper or one with a discharge” as leprosy and a discharge that do not require atonement—

who says,

this tanna:

“And he is a leper or one with a discharge”—

Scripture speaks of one with a discharge who has seen three sightings, and of a confirmed leper,

and this “until he becomes pure

stated in that section, according to him, is

until he brings his atonement-offering.

And necessarily Scripture speaks of sacred things, for teruma does not require bringing an atonement-offering, as we derive from “until the completion of the days of her purity”—

And if so:

Two verses concerning sacred things

[a. “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall become pure,” written concerning a woman who gave birth; b. “And he is a leper or one with a discharge; he shall not eat of the sacred things until he becomes pure”], which teach that one lacking atonement is forbidden with sacred things—

why do I need them?

And we answer:

They are necessary

for both!

For if the Merciful One had written

only

concerning a woman who gave birth,

who does not eat of sacred things until she brings her atonement-offering, I would have said: The reason she does not eat is

because

she is more severe in this respect,

for her impurity is greater,

as she is forbidden for eighty days [when she gives birth to a female] to eat teruma and sacred things, something we do not find with other impurities.

But in the case of one with a discharge,

who is impure only for seven days,

say: No,

he should not be so severe as to forbid him from eating sacred things until he brings his atonement-offering.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

in the case of one with a discharge

[or a leper], I would have said: There is a stringency in his case,

that it is not permitted in any respect,

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

But a woman who gave birth,

for whom an exception was made in her days of purity, since the blood of her menstruation does not render her impure to her husband,

say: No,

Scripture did not impose the stringency upon her of forbidding her to eat sacred things until she brings her atonement-offering.

Therefore:

Both are necessary

for the two cases.

The Gemara further explains the verse elsewhere: “And everything upon which any of them [of the creeping creatures] falls in their death shall become impure, of any wooden vessel or garment”—

“It shall be brought into water and shall be impure until evening

and shall become pure”—

Why do I need

this verse as well?

He

explained,

Rabbi Zeira: For touching.

For without this verse we have learned only about eating teruma, which requires sunset, since all the verses brought 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.

For it was taught:

On the one hand it is written: “And everything upon which any of them falls— it shall be brought into water,

and it shall be impure.”

And it implies that even after immersion in water [the immersion], the person or the vessel continues to be impure until evening.

One might have thought for everything

—whether for second tithe or for teruma—he should be impure until sunset?

The verse states

on the other hand: “Until evening,

and he shall become pure.”

From the fact that Scripture did not say “and he shall become pure,” it implies that it refers to what was said above: “and he shall become pure,” even before sunset—

If

“until evening

and he shall become pure,”

one might have thought

that he becomes pure without sunset

for everything

?

The verse states

on the other hand: “It shall be brought into water

and shall be impure.”

How then

are these two verses to be fulfilled?

It must say:

Here—“until evening, and he shall become pure”—

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

for second tithe,

for the person immersing for his purity [or the vessel] does not require this even with regard to touching.

Here—“it shall be brought into water and shall be impure”—

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

for teruma.

To teach you that even touching is not permitted with teruma before sunset.

And we refute this:

But let me reverse it!?

And say as follows: It is second tithe that is forbidden to touch until sunset, whereas teruma is permitted to touch before his sun has set?! And we answer:

It is reasonable: Just as the eating of

teruma is more stringent than the eating of

tithe

with regard to one who immersed that day,

so too the touching of teruma is more stringent than the touching of tithe

with regard to one who immersed that day.

And if you wish, say: The touching of teruma

which is forbidden to one who immersed that day

is derived from here—from “of every sacred thing you shall not touch,” stated concerning a woman who gave birth, who is “one immersed for a long day,”

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 he proceeds to explain it].

For it was taught:

It is written concerning a woman who gave birth, during her days of purity, who is one immersed for a long day:

“Of every sacred thing you shall not touch.”

And the beraita explains:

It is a warning

for

one who eats,

that the woman who gave birth may not eat teruma until her sun sets, when her days of purity are completed—

Or perhaps it is not

that Scripture comes to say

but

a warning

for one who touches?

The verse states: “Of every sacred thing you shall not touch, and you shall not enter the Sanctuary.”

Scripture compares

the impurity of

sacred things to

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 his body, is

a matter that involves

the punishment of

taking of the soul

[karet]—

so too

eating

sacred things

in a state of bodily impurity is

a matter that involves

the punishment of

taking of the soul

[death at the hands of Heaven].

And it is proven that Scripture speaks of eating in a state of bodily impurity, for

with touching,

which renders a sacred object impure—

there is no taking of the soul!

For there is no punishment of taking of the soul for the touching of a sacred object by an impure vessel or an impure person!

And here the Gemara explains from where we learned the prohibition against touching teruma for one who immersed that day:

And since it expressed

eating

in the language of touching,

then

this is what it says:

Touching

is

like eating!

To teach you: Everything that is forbidden to eat in impurity is also forbidden to touch.

And it is proven that one who immersed that day, who is forbidden to eat teruma, is also forbidden to touch teruma.

We learned in our Mishna:

One with crushed testicles

and one with severed organ—themselves and their slaves shall eat, but their wives shall not eat; and if she did not know from the time he became one with crushed testicles or one with severed organ, these may eat:

a. It is explained in the Mishna and in the sugya above, 56b, that Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree concerning a woman who is “kept for a forbidden intercourse,” whether she eats teruma. That is, one who awaits and waits [as in “the woman awaiting levirate marriage,” and as in “and his father kept the matter”] to have intercourse that disqualifies her from teruma is disqualified, according to Rabbi Meir, from eating teruma so long as she is kept for this intercourse, and therefore we learned above [and this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir]:

“A widow betrothed to a High Priest, a divorcée and a woman released from levirate marriage to an ordinary priest may not eat [the women] teruma,” for they are kept for forbidden intercourse, which makes the woman a ḥalala by Torah law.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem fit the woman who is kept for forbidden intercourse to eat teruma, and she is not disqualified until she has intercourse and becomes a ḥalala.

b. Our Mishna deals with Israelite women who married priests and whose husbands became men with crushed testicles or men with severed organs, except that their husbands did not have intercourse with them after becoming disqualified. Nevertheless, they are “kept for forbidden intercourse,” for if their husbands have intercourse with them, they disqualify them, as we learned: “Their wives [after their husbands had intercourse with them] and their slaves may not eat.”

And the Gemara explains the opinion of the tanna who taught our Mishna:

And we considered it:

Who is the tanna,

who is the tanna of our Mishna, who holds:

A woman kept for forbidden intercourse by Torah law

[for intercourse that disqualifies her by Torah law, such as with one with crushed testicles]

eats,

she is permitted to eat teruma, and therefore the tanna taught: “And if she did not know from the time he became one with crushed testicles or one with severed organ”—and he did not disqualify her—“these may eat,” even though, in any event, they are kept for intercourse with their husbands, who disqualify them?

Rabbi Elazar said:

This law

is in a dispute

of tannaim

that was taught.

And

our Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon,

who deem fit the “woman kept for forbidden intercourse by Torah law” to eat teruma.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who disqualifies a widow married to a High Priest or a divorcée married to an ordinary priest from eating teruma, since they are kept for forbidden intercourse, here too their wives may not eat teruma from the moment their husbands became disqualified, and if they have intercourse with them, their wives become disqualified.

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

—who disqualifies a widow married to a High Priest or a divorcée married to an ordinary priest from eating teruma—for Rabbi Meir spoke only of women who from the beginning of their marriages are kept for forbidden intercourse.

But

here is different,

in our Mishna—for their husbands became disqualified only after they married them—since

she had already eaten

teruma from her husband before he became one with crushed testicles or one with a severed organ, therefore they continue to eat by his authority as long as they have not become ḥalalot through intercourse with him.

And

if

Rabbi Elazar

had said: It is impossible to establish it according to Rabbi Meir; rather, it is according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, because we do not say the reason

“she had already eaten”

is said

to be a reason to continue feeding her teruma.

For if you do not say so,

but indeed we say “she had already eaten” as a reason for eating teruma, raise this difficulty for yourself: Would

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

then

eat

teruma since

“she had already eaten”

until her husband died?

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that we say, “since she has already eaten,” can say to you: the case under discussion is not comparable to the proof:

There,

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

her acquisition was nullified

[the acquisition of the husband] of the husband with regard to his wife.

But

here—

where her husband became a petzu'a daka—

her acquisition was not nullified

by the husband with regard to his wife.

We learned in the Mishna:

Who is a petzu'a daka?

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

The Sages taught:

Who is a petzu'a daka?

Anyone whose testicles were injured

by a blow of a sword or knife,

and even one of them

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

And even if they were punctured,

his testicles,

and even if they withered

[became smaller] because of a blow,

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 Yavne: Anyone who has only one testicle is nothing other than a saris hamah, and is fit.

And we raise an objection: Is it that he is

a saris hamah—

could it enter your mind!?

Could it enter your mind that this is a saris hamah? For a saris hamah is one who is a eunuch because of an illness, whereas this is not an illness?!

Rather,

say thus:

he is like a saris hamah, and is fit

to enter the congregation.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the words of the beraita that we learned, “and even if they were punctured”:

And

when

the testicle is punctured,

is he

not capable of procreation?

Yet he is capable of procreation—as the Gemara proves—and if so, he is not a “petzu'a daka”?!