## Yevamot Daf 75a ###### Yevamot 75a:1 [Yevamot 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:1) וְהָכְתִיב: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ — לְרַבּוֹת [אֶת] הַתְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא, קְרָא מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָא חָשֵׁיב. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **But isn’t it written** in that same section dealing with a woman after childbirth: **“She shall touch no hallowed thing,** nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4), which comes **to include *teruma*? Rather, the Torah considers several** distinct **matters** separately, and not all the verses refer to *teruma*. ###### Yevamot 75a:2 [Yevamot 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:2) וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי בִּתְרוּמָה לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי מֵ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״, לָא הֲוָה יָדַעְנָא בְּמַאי — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **And why do I** need **three verses with regard to *teruma*?** The Gemara answers: **They are** all **necessary, as, had** *teruma* been derived solely from the verse: “He shall not eat of the holy things **until he be pure”** (Leviticus 22:4), **I would not have known by what** means ritual purity is achieved, whether by immersion alone or in some other way. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “And when the sun has set he shall be pure,** and afterward he may eat from the holy things” (Leviticus 22:7), to teach that he must also wait for sunset. ###### Yevamot 75a:3 [Yevamot 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:3) וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל דְּבַר כַּפָּרָה אֵימָא עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״עַד מְלֹאת״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And had the Merciful One written** only: **“And when the sun has set,”** I might have said that **this applies** only **to** one **who does not require** an **atonement** offering, **but** as for one **who requires** an **atonement** offering, one might **say** that he may not eat *teruma* **until he brings** his **atonement** offering. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes:** “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, **until the days of her purification are completed”** (Leviticus 12:4), which indicates that she may eat *teruma* as soon as her days of purification are completed, and she need not wait until after she has brought her atonement offering. ###### Yevamot 75a:4 [Yevamot 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:4) וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַד מְלֹאת״ — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּלֹא טְבִילָה — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And had the Merciful One written** only: **“Until** the days of her purification **are completed,” I would say** that upon the completion of the purification period she is immediately purified **even without immersion.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “Until he be pure.”** ###### Yevamot 75a:5 [Yevamot 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:5) וּלְהָךְ תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר בְּזָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת וּבִמְצוֹרָע מוּחְלָט הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְהַאי ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״ — עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה, תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי בְּקָדָשִׁים לְמָה לִי? **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **And according to that *tanna* who disagrees with the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and says** that **the 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” (Leviticus 22:4) **is speaking of a *zav* who** already experienced **three sightings** of an emission, **and of a confirmed leper,** both of whom must bring an offering as part of their purification process; **and,** this being the case, **that** phrase **“until he be pure”** must mean **until he brings** his **atonement** offering; then **why do I** need **two verses with regard to sacrificial food,** this verse and the verse with regard to a woman after childbirth: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure” (Leviticus 12:8), to teach us that sacrificial food may not be eaten until after the atonement offering has been brought? ###### Yevamot 75a:6 [Yevamot 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:6) צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹלֶדֶת — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְרוּבָּה טוּמְאָתָהּ, אֲבָל בְּזָב — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּזָב — דְּלֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ, אֲבָל יוֹלֶדֶת — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara answers: **They are** both **necessary, as had the Merciful One written** this *halakha* only **with regard to a woman after childbirth,** one might have said that it applies only to her **because her** period of ritual **impurity is** so **long,** as she may not return to eating *teruma* or sacrificial food for either forty days, in the case of a male child, or eighty days, in the case of a female. **But with regard to a *zav*, say** that this is **not** the case. **And had the Merciful One written** this *halakha* only **with regard to a *zav*,** one might have said that it applies only to him, **as no exemption is** ever **made from its general prohibition** and he is always impure. **But** as for **a woman after childbirth,** who is permitted to her husband for thirty-three or sixty-six days of that period, **say** that this is **not** the case. Both verses **are** therefore **necessary.** ###### Yevamot 75a:7 [Yevamot 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:7) ״בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד הָעֶרֶב״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לִנְגִיעָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: As for the verse stated with regard to a vessel that contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal: **“It must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening;** then shall it be pure” (Leviticus 11:32), **why do I** need it? **Rabbi Zeira said:** It is necessary in order to teach about **touching.** An impure vessel, even after it has been immersed, still imparts ritual impurity to the *teruma* that it touches until nightfall. The same applies to an impure individual who has already undergone immersion; not only is it prohibited for him to eat *teruma*, but also he renders it impure if he touches it. ###### Yevamot 75a:8 [Yevamot 75a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:8) דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְטָמֵא״ — יָכוֹל לַכֹּל, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטָהֵר״. אִי ״וְטָהֵר״ — יָכוֹל לַכֹּל, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטָמֵא״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן לְמַעֲשֵׂר, כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: Had the verse stated only: “It must be put into water, **and it shall be impure** until the evening,” one **might** have thought that it remains ritually impure until the evening **in all** regards. **Therefore, the verse states: “Then shall it be pure,”** indicating that it is pure following immersion, even before sunset. And **had** it stated only: **“Then shall it be pure,”** one **might** have thought that it is pure following immersion **in all** regards. **Therefore, the verse states: “And it shall be impure** until the evening.” **How so;** how can the apparent contradiction between the two parts of the verse be resolved? **Here,** the verse is referring **to** second **tithe,** for which immersion alone suffices; and **there** it is referring **to *teruma*,** for which sunset is required. ###### Yevamot 75a:9 [Yevamot 75a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:9) וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא כִּי הֵיכִי דַּחֲמִירָא אֲכִילָה דִתְרוּמָה מֵאֲכִילָה דְמַעֲשֵׂר — הָכִי נָמֵי חֲמִירָא נְגִיעָה דִתְרוּמָה מִנְּגִיעָה דְמַעֲשֵׂר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **But I can reverse** this construct and say that the greater stringency should be applied to second tithe. The Gemara answers: **It is reasonable** to say that *teruma* is subject to the greater stringency; **just as the eating of *teruma* is** subject to **greater stringency than the eating of** second **tithe, so too, the touching of *teruma*** should be subject to **greater stringency than the touching of** second **tithe.** ###### Yevamot 75a:10 [Yevamot 75a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:10) וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא נְגִיעָה דִתְרוּמָה מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ — אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לַנּוֹגֵעַ? **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And if you wish, say** that the prohibition with regard to the **touching of *teruma* is derived from here: “She shall touch no hallowed thing,** nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4); this is **a warning with respect to one who eats** *teruma* after having immersed but before sunset. **Or,** perhaps, **it is nothing other than** a warning **with respect to one who touches** *teruma* before sunset, as is implied by the plain reading of the verse? ###### Yevamot 75a:11 [Yevamot 75a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:11) תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא״, מַקִּישׁ קֹדֶשׁ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ: מָה מִקְדָּשׁ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה, אַף קֹדֶשׁ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וּבִנְגִיעָה, נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה לֵיכָּא, **William Davidson Edition - English:** Therefore, **the verse states: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary,** until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4), thereby **juxtaposing consecrated** food **to the Sanctuary. Just as** the prohibition against entering **the Sanctuary is a matter that involves the taking of life,** as one who enters the Sanctuary while impure is liable to receive *karet*, **so too,** the prohibition against touching **consecrated** food must be **a matter that involves the taking of life,** e.g., eating *teruma* in a state of ritual impurity; **but** the prohibition against **touching** *teruma* in a state of impurity **does not involve the taking of life,** as there is no punishment of *karet* for mere touching. ###### Yevamot 75a:12 [Yevamot 75a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:12) וְהַאי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נְגִיעָה כַּאֲכִילָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And** as for the fact **that** the verse **expressed** this *halakha* **in terms of touching, this is what** it **is saying:** The *halakha* governing **touching is like** that of **eating,** as they are both prohibited to an impure person, even after immersion, until sunset. But the verse is actually speaking of the prohibition against eating *teruma* in a state of impurity. ###### Yevamot 75a:13 [Yevamot 75a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:13) פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וְכוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָכְלָה? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § It is taught in the mishna that the wife of a priest with **crushed testicles** or a severed penis may eat *teruma* on his account, provided that they have not engaged in sexual relations since his injury. The Gemara asks: **Who is** the *tanna* **who taught** with regard to a woman **awaiting intercourse that would disqualify** her from marrying into the priesthood **by Torah** law, as in this case, where the woman would become disqualified from marrying into the priesthood if she had relations with her injured husband, that such a woman **may eat** *teruma*? **Rabbi Elazar said:** This *halakha* **is subject to dispute, and it is** taught in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon,** who similarly stated that a widow betrothed to a High Priest may eat *teruma* on his account, provided that he has not engaged in sexual relations with her. ###### Yevamot 75a:14 [Yevamot 75a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:14) רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The mishna can be understood **even** if **you say** that **it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who maintains that a widow betrothed to a High Priest may not eat *teruma* on his account, as **it is different here, as she** had **already eaten** *teruma* on her husband’s account before his injury. Since she has done nothing to disqualify herself, she retains her presumptive status as one for whom it is permitted to eat *teruma*. ###### Yevamot 75a:15 [Yevamot 75a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:15) וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה לָא אָמְרִינַן. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת בַּעְלָהּ — תֹּאכַל, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And** how does **Rabbi Elazar** counter this argument? He maintains that **we do not say that** since **she** had already **eaten** *teruma* on her husband’s account she continues to do so, **as, if you do not say** that **this** argument must be rejected, then it **should** be permitted for **an Israelite woman who married a priest and her husband died** without children to continue **eating** *teruma* on his account, **as she** had **already eaten** *teruma* because of him during his lifetime. However, such a conclusion is clearly incorrect. This *halakha* indicates that the fact that she had already eaten *teruma* is irrelevant. ###### Yevamot 75a:16 [Yevamot 75a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:16) וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָתָם — פָּקַע קִנְיָינֵיהּ, הָכָא — לָא פָּקַע קִנְיָינֵיהּ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And Rabbi Yoḥanan** holds that the two cases are not comparable, as **there,** where the husband died, **his acquisition** of his wife **has lapsed,** i.e., they are no longer married, and therefore she cannot continue to eat *teruma* on his account, whereas **here,** where his genitals were injured, **his acquisition has not lapsed.** While sexual relations between them are forbidden, their marriage remains intact. ###### Yevamot 75a:17 [Yevamot 75a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:17) אֵיזֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא — כׇּל שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ בֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִיקְּבוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִמּוֹקוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ חָסְרוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה: שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סְרִיס חַמָּה, וְכָשֵׁר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § It is taught in the mishna: **Who is** deemed **a man with crushed** testicles? **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Who is** deemed **a man with crushed testicles?** It is **anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even** if only **one of them.** Furthermore, a man is considered to have crushed testicles not only if they have been wounded, but **even** if they have been **punctured, or** have **decayed** as the result of an injury, **or are** partly **deficient** for some other reason. **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, said: I heard from the Sages in the vineyard in Yavne** that **anyone who has only one testicle is nothing other** than **a eunuch by natural causes, and he is fit.** ###### Yevamot 75a:18 [Yevamot 75a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:18) סְרִיס חַמָּה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא: הֲרֵי הוּא כִּסְרִיס חַמָּה, וְכָשֵׁר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara is puzzled by the wording of this last teaching: **Can it enter your mind** that he is **a eunuch by natural causes,** i.e., from birth? That designation refers to one who was born without testicles, whereas the reference here is to one who lost a testicle as the result of an injury. **Rather,** say that **he resembles a eunuch by natural causes, and he is fit.** ###### Yevamot 75a:19 [Yevamot 75a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/75a:19) וְנִיקַּב לָא מוֹלֵיד? וְהָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּסְלֵיק לְדִיקְלָא **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: As for one whose testicles **were punctured, is he incapable of having children,** so that he should have the status of one whose testicles were crushed? **Wasn’t** there an incident where **a certain man was climbing up a palm tree,**