## Yevamot Daf 74b

###### Yevamot 74b:1
[Yevamot 74b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:1)

בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּרוּמָה. וְאֵימָא בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק? אֵינָהּ בְּחוֹזֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**for** all the **seed of Aaron,** both sons and daughters? **You must say it is *teruma*.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But say** that perhaps the verse is referring to **the breast and thigh** of a peace-offering, which also may be eaten by all the seed of Aaron, both male and female? The Gemara answers: The breast and thigh are not permitted to males and females in equal manner, as they **are not** permitted **to** the daughter of a priest **who returns** to the home of her father. If the daughter of a priest marries a non-priest, it is prohibited for her to partake of *teruma* or sacrificial food. If she is widowed or divorced and has no living descendants by her non-priest husband, it is once again permitted for her to eat *teruma*, but she may not partake of the breast and thigh of the offerings.


###### Yevamot 74b:2
[Yevamot 74b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:2)

תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, אֵינָהּ בַּחֲלָלָה! חֲלָלָה לָאו זַרְעוֹ דְּאַהֲרֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, the same may be said about ***teruma* as well,** as it is **not** permitted **to a *ḥalala*,** a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest, even though she is the daughter of a priest. The Gemara answers: **A *ḥalala* is not** considered **the seed of Aaron.**


###### Yevamot 74b:3
[Yevamot 74b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:3)

וּמִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״, עַד דְּאִיכָּא הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ, אֵימָא: עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the *halakha* recorded in the *baraita* that one who lacks atonement may eat *teruma*. **And from where** do you know **that this** verse: “Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a *zav* shall not eat of the holy things **until he be pure,”** means that he may not eat of the holy things **until sunset? Say** that perhaps it means that he may not eat of them **until he brings** his **atonement** offering and is entirely pure.


###### Yevamot 74b:4
[Yevamot 74b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:4)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּזָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת וּבִמְצוֹרָע מוּסְגָּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דּוּמְיָא דִּ״טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ״, מָה ״טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ״ דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה הוּא — הָנֵי נָמֵי דְּלָאו בְּנֵי כַּפָּרָה נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This cannot enter your mind, as** a *tanna* of **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** that **the verse is speaking of a *zav* who** experienced only **two sightings** of an emission, **and of a quarantined leper,** i.e., a suspected leper who has not yet been declared conclusively ritually impure by a priest. Both of these individuals are ritually impure, but they need not bring an offering as part of the purification process. When understood in this way, the leper and *zav* are **similar to** one who touches any object that is **impure** with ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse,** mentioned later in the verse: **Just as** one who touches anything that is **impure** with ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse does not require an atonement** offering for his impurity, **these too,** the *zav* and leper referred to in this verse, **do not require an atonement** offering; rather, they achieve complete purification at sunset.


###### Yevamot 74b:5
[Yevamot 74b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:5)

וְאֵימָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל דְּבַר כַּפָּרָה, עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question: **But say** that **this** *halakha* **that** sunset alone suffices to permit the eating of *teruma* **applies only** to one **who does not require** an **atonement** offering but merely has to wait until sunset to achieve complete purification. **However,** with regard to **one who does require** an **atonement** offering, perhaps he may not eat *teruma* **until he brings** his **atonement** offering.


###### Yevamot 74b:6
[Yevamot 74b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:6)

וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: טָבַל וְעָלָה — אוֹכֵל בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר, הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ — אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה, הֵבִיא כַּפָּרָה — אוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** the Gemara raises a question with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 14:3): When the period of ritual impurity of a *zav* or a leper has been completed and he **immersed** during the day **and emerged, he may** immediately **partake of** second **tithe;** once **the sun has set for him,** he may **partake of *teruma*;** once he has **brought his atonement** offering, he may **eat sacrificial food. From where do we** derive these different *halakhot*?


###### Yevamot 74b:7
[Yevamot 74b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי. כְּתִיב: ״וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי אִם רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם״, הָא רָחַץ — טָהוֹר. וּכְתִיב: ״וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״. וּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן לְמַעֲשֵׂר, כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה, כָּאן לְקָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that **Rav Ḥisda said: Three verses are written** with regard to purity for eating sacred food. **It is written: “And he shall not eat of the holy things, unless he has bathed his flesh in water”** (Leviticus 22:6); **but** if **he has bathed,** i.e., immersed, he is immediately **pure** and may partake of sacred food. **And it is written: “And when the sun has set, he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things”** (Leviticus 22:7), which indicates that he must wait until sunset. **And it is** further **written: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure”** (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offering. **How so?** How can the apparent discrepancy between these three verses be resolved? **Here,** in the first verse, it is referring **to** second **tithe; there,** in the second verse, it is referring **to *teruma*;** and **here,** in the third verse, it is referring **to sacrificial food.**


###### Yevamot 74b:8
[Yevamot 74b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:8)

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא? מִסְתַּבְּרָא תְּרוּמָה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן מחפ״ז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But I can reverse** this construct and apply the more stringent condition to tithe. The Gemara answers: **It is reasonable** to say that ***teruma* is** subject to the **more stringent** condition, **as it is** already subject to many stringent elements represented by the acronym ***mem*, *ḥet*, *peh*, *zayin*,** which is a mnemonic for the following: One who is prohibited from eating *teruma* but ate it intentionally is liable to the punishment of death [*mita*] at the hand of Heaven; a non-priest who unwittingly ate *teruma* is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth [*ḥomesh*] of the sum; *teruma* does not have the possibility of redemption [*pidyon*]; and it is prohibited to non-priests [*zarim*]. These stringencies do not apply to second tithe.


###### Yevamot 74b:9
[Yevamot 74b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:9)

אַדְּרַבָּה: מֵעֶשֶׂר עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן הֲדַ״ס טָ״ב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **On the contrary,** second **tithe** should be governed by the **more stringent** condition, **as it has** the stringencies represented by the acronym ***heh*, *dalet*, *samekh*, *tet*, *beit*,** which is a mnemonic for the following: Second tithe must be brought [*hava’a*] to Jerusalem; it requires that a declaration [*viddui*] be made on the last day of Passover in the fourth and seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle, stating that one’s agricultural obligations with regard to tithes have been properly fulfilled; it is prohibited [*asur*] to be eaten by one in acute mourning; it may not be burned in a state of impurity [*tuma*]; and it must be removed [*biur*] from one’s house before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle, if one failed to do so beforehand.


###### Yevamot 74b:10
[Yevamot 74b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:10)

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִיתָה עֲדִיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Even so,** the punishment of **death is a greater** stringency, and therefore it is appropriate that *teruma* should be subject to the additional stringency of waiting until sunset.


###### Yevamot 74b:11
[Yevamot 74b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:11)

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא מִיתָה עֲדִיפָא, נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״נֶפֶשׁ״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּכׇל נֶפֶשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Even **without** the rationale that the punishment of **death is a greater** stringency, **you still could not say** that the first verse that speaks only of immersion is referring to *teruma*. As **the verse states** in the continuation: “The **soul** that touches it” (Leviticus 22:6). Now, **what matter is the same for every soul? You must say it is tithe,** as *teruma* may be eaten only by priests.


###### Yevamot 74b:12
[Yevamot 74b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:12)

וְאַכַּתִּי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּבַר כַּפָּרָה — עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with the mishna: **But still,** say that **this** *halakha* **that** sunset alone is enough for the eating of *teruma* **applies only** to one **who does not require** an **atonement** offering but merely has to wait until sunset when he is completely purified. **However,** with regard to **one who does require** an **atonement** offering, such as a confirmed leper, perhaps he may not eat *teruma* **until he brings** his **atonement** offering.


###### Yevamot 74b:13
[Yevamot 74b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:13)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי. בְּיוֹלֶדֶת כְּתִיב: ״עַד מְלֹאת יְמֵי טׇהֳרָהּ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּלְאוּ יָמֶיהָ — טָהֵרָה. וּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה, כָּאן לְקׇדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Two verses are written with regard to a woman after childbirth: It is written:** “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, **until the days of her purification are completed”** (Leviticus 12:4), which suggests that **once her days are completed** and the sun has set on the last day, **she is** completely **pure** and requires nothing more. **And** elsewhere **it is written: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure”** (Leviticus 12:8), which indicates that following childbirth a woman is not completely pure until she has brought her offerings. **How so? Here,** in the first verse, it is referring **to *teruma*; there,** in the second verse, it is referring **to sacrificial food.** A woman following childbirth falls into the category of one who lacks atonement, but nevertheless the verse teaches that if she has immersed, she may eat *teruma* after sunset. The same is true of a confirmed leper and all others who lack atonement.


###### Yevamot 74b:14
[Yevamot 74b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:14)

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא קֹדֶשׁ חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן פנקעכ״ס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But I can reverse** this construct and apply the more stringent condition to *teruma*. The Gemara answers: **It is reasonable** to say that **sacrificial food is** subject to the **more stringent** condition, as it is already subject to many stringent elements represented by the acronym, ***peh*, *nun*, *kuf*, *ayin*, *kaf*, *samekh*,** which is a mnemonic for the following stringencies that apply to sacrificial food and not to *teruma*: An offering is disqualified by improper intention during one of the rites involved in its sacrifice with regard to the time it will be eaten [*piggul*]; meat of an offering that remained beyond its allotted time [*notar*] may not be eaten and must be burned; it is an offering [*korban*] to God; one who unwittingly derives benefit from sacrificial food is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated items [*me’ila*]; the punishment of one who eats sacrificial food while ritually impure is excision [*karet*]; sacrificial food is prohibited [*asur*] to an acute mourner.


###### Yevamot 74b:15
[Yevamot 74b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:15)

אַדְּרַבָּה תְּרוּמָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מחפ״ז? הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this argument: **On the contrary, *teruma*** should be subject to the **more stringent** condition, **as,** with regard to *teruma*, there are many stringent elements represented by the acronym ***mem*, *ḥet*, *peh*, *zayin*.** The Gemara answers: **Those** stringencies that apply to sacrificial food **are** more **numerous** than those that apply to *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 74b:16
[Yevamot 74b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:16)

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה״, מִכְּלָל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּקָדָשִׁים, אִיקְּרִי כָּאן: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Even **without** the rationale that **those** stringencies that apply to sacrificial food **are** more **numerous, you still could not say** that the verse that renders a woman pure at sunset refers to sacrificial food, as **the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure,”** which indicates **by inference that she** remains **ritually impure** to some degree until she has sacrificed her offerings. **And if it enters your mind** that she may eat **sacrificial food** immediately after sunset, you should **apply here** what is stated in a different verse: **“And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 7:19), which indicates that one who is impure with any type of ritual impurity is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. **Rather, learn from this** that the verse is referring to ***teruma*.**


###### Yevamot 74b:17
[Yevamot 74b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:17)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ תְּרוּמָה כְּתִיבָא הָכָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — גִּיּוֹרֶת וְשִׁפְחָה מְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִשָּׁה״. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּתְרוּמָה, גִּיּוֹרֶת וְשִׁפְחָה בְּנוֹת מֵיכַל תְּרוּמָה נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, strongly objects to this** argument: **And how can you say** that a *halakha* governing ***teruma* is written here,** in the verse: “Until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4)? **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The section dealing with a woman following childbirth opens with the verse: **“Speak to the children of Israel,** saying: If a woman delivers and bears a male, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her menstrual affliction shall she be unclean” (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse **I have** derived **only** that **the children of Israel** are included in this *halakha*; **from where** do I derive that **a convert and an emancipated maidservant** are also included? Therefore, **the verse states: “A woman,”** which includes other women. **And if it enters your mind** that the verse is speaking **of *teruma*, are a convert and a maidservant eligible to eat *teruma*?** It is prohibited for them to marry priests, so there can be no possibility of their eating *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 74b:18
[Yevamot 74b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/74b:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְלָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And** is the verse **not** referring to *teruma* as well?