Yevamot 148

בזרעו של אהרן הוי אומר זו תרומה ואימא בחזה ושוק אינה בחוזרת

applicable to all the seed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Males and females. ');">¹</span> of Aaron? You must say that it is <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot refer to holy food of the higher degree of sanctity which is permitted to male priests only. ');">²</span> But might it not be assumed to refer to the breast and the shoulder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the peace-offerings which belong to the class of holy food of a minor degree of sanctity, and are permitted to the priestly males and females. (V. Lev. X, 14). ');">³</span> — [These are] not [permitted] to [a woman] who returns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the home of her husband who was an Israelite and died without issue, to that of her father who is a priest (v. supra 68b). Terumah, however, is permitted in such a case. ');">⁴</span>

תרומה נמי אינה בחללה חללה לאו זרעו דאהרן היא

But <i>terumah</i> also is not permitted to a halalah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos., though she is the daughter of a priest. ');">⁵</span> — A halalah is not regarded as of the seed of Aaron.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been born of a forbidden marriage. ');">⁶</span> And whence is it inferred that until he be clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁷</span> means 'until sunset',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And on the basis of this interpretation the unclean is permitted to eat terumah even before he has brought his atonement. ');">⁸</span>

וממאי דהאי עד אשר יטהר עד דאיכא הערב שמש אימא עד דמייתי כפרה

perhaps it means, 'until the atonement is brought'? — This cannot be entertained. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael [taught] that Scripture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁷</span> speaks of a <i>zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁹</span> who noticed only two issues, and of a leper while under observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a locked-up leper'. V. Lev. XIII, 4ff. ');">¹⁰</span> both being cases similar to that of one who is unclean by the dead;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁷</span>

לא ס"ד דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל בזב בעל שתי ראיות ובמצורע מוסגר הכתוב מדבר דומיא דטמא נפש מה טמא נפש דלאו בר כפרה הוא הני נמי דלאו בני כפרה נינהו

as he who is unclean by the dead<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁷</span> is not liable to bring an atonement so are these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The zab and leper spoken of in this text. ');">¹¹</span> such as are not liable to bring an atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a confirmed leper, and a zab who has had three attacks of gonorrhoea are, on recovery and purification, liable to bring sacrifices. Cf. Meg. 8a. ');">¹²</span> Let it be said, then, that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That sunset alone, though no sacrifice had yet been brought, completes the purification of the unclean as far as the consumption of terumah is concerned. ');">¹³</span>

ואימא הני מילי דלאו בר כפרה אבל דבר כפרה עד דמייתי כפרה

applies only to those who are not liable to bring an atonement, but that for those who are liable to an atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The confirmed leper, and a zab who had three attacks. ');">¹⁴</span> purification is incomplete until the atonement has been brought! Furthermore, in respect of what we learned, 'If he performed the prescribed ablution and came up from his bathing he may eat of the [second] tithe; after sunset he may eat <i>terumah</i>; and after he has brought his atonement he may also eat of the holy food';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. XIV, 3, Pes. 35a, Nid. 71b. ');">¹⁵</span> whence, it may also be asked, are these laws derived? — Raba replied in the name of R. Hisda: Three Scriptural texts are recorded: It is written, And shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 6. ');">¹⁶</span> implying if he bathed, however, he is clean. It is also written, And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and afterwards he may eat of the holy things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">¹⁷</span>

ותו הא דתנן טבל ועלה אוכל במעשר העריב שמשו אוכל בתרומה הביא כפרה אוכל בקדשים מנא לן

And finally, it s written, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 8. ');">¹⁸</span> How, [then, are these contradictory conditions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bathing, sunset and sacrifice. ');">¹⁹</span> to be reconciled]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each text obviously pointing to a different condition as the essential, or completion of purification! ');">²⁰</span> The first refers to [second] tithe; the second to <i>terumah</i>, and the third to holy food. Might not these be reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For terumah bathing alone should suffice; while for tithe, waiting until sunset should be required. ');">²¹</span>

אמר רבא אמר רב חסדא תלתא קראי כתיבי כתיב (ויקרא כב, ו) ולא יאכל מן הקדשים כי אם רחץ בשרו במים הא רחץ טהור וכתיב (ויקרא כב, ז) ובא השמש וטהר ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים וכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה הא כיצד כאן למעשר כאן לתרומה כאן לקדשים

It is reasonable that <i>terumah</i> should be subject to the greater restriction, since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p 497. n. 3. ');">²²</span> it is also subject to the restrictions of the death penalty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 497. n. 4 ');">²³</span> the fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 497 n. 5. ');">²⁴</span> it cannot be redeemed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While tithe may be redeemed. ');">²⁵</span>

ואיפוך אנא מסתברא תרומה עדיפא שכן מחפ"ז

and is also forbidden to the non-priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tithe is not. ');">²⁶</span> On the contrary; [second] tithe might be regarded as subject to the greater restriction, since it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mnemonic [H] lit., 'a good myrtle', represents distinctive letters occurring in prominent words describing the following restrictions [H] = [H] bringing, sc. to the appointed place; [H] = [H] confession; [H] = [H] prohibition sc. to an onan; [H] = [H] uncleanness; [H] = [H] removal. ');">²⁷</span> has to be brought to the appointed place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jerusalem. V. Deut. XIV, 22ff. ');">²⁸</span> requires confession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXVI, 13. ');">²⁹</span>

אדרבה מעשר עדיפא שכן הד"ס ט"ב

is forbidden to an onan, must not be burned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For lighting purposes, if, for instance, it consisted of oil. ');">³⁰</span> [even] when unclean, the penalty of flogging is incurred for eating it when it is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the man is clean. ');">³¹</span> and it is also subject to the law of removal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 494, n. 18. ');">³²</span> — The penalty of death, nevertheless, is of the greatest severity. Raba said: Apart from the fact that the death penalty is of the greatest severity it could not be said so;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 502, n. 15. ');">³³</span>

אפי' הכי מיתה עדיפא

for Scripture stated, soul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 6. ');">³⁴</span> Now, what is it that is equally [permitted] to every soul? You must admit that it is tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This verse then must refer to tithe, and it requires ablution only and no waiting for sunset. ');">³⁵</span> Still, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That purification in respect of terumah is complete even before the sacrifice had been brought. ');">³⁶</span> might apply only to one who is not liable to bring an atonement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for instance, the case of the leper under observation, and that of the zab who had no more than two attacks, of whom the text mentioned speaks. ');">³⁷</span>

רבא אמר בלא מיתה עדיפא נמי לא מצית אמרת אמר קרא נפש איזהו דבר ששוה בכל נפש הוי אומר זה מעשר

but where a man is liable to an atonement it might be said that [purification is not complete] until he has brought the atonement! — Abaye replied: Two Scriptural texts are recorded in the case of a woman in childbirth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is liable to bring a sacrifice. ');">³⁸</span> It is written, Until the days of her purification be fulfilled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 4. ');">³⁹</span> as soon as her days are fulfilled she is clean; and it is also written, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8. ');">⁴⁰</span> how, [then, are the two to be reconciled]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the former text, cleanness is complete at the conclusion of the prescribed period, while according to the latter the woman cannot be clean before her sacrifices are offered. ');">⁴¹</span>

ואכתי הני מילי היכא דלאו בר כפרה אבל היכא דבר כפרה עד דמייתי כפרה

The former applies to <i>terumah</i>, the latter to holy food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it follows that even when a sacrifice has been prescribed (cf. p. 505, n. 17) terumah may be eaten before that sacrifice has been brought. ');">⁴²</span> But might not these be reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first text applying to holy food, and the second to terumah. ');">⁴³</span> — It stands to reason that holy food should be subject to the greater restriction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That its consumption be not permitted before the prescribed sacrifice had been offered. ');">⁴⁴</span> since it is also subject to the restrictions of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For explanation of the mnemonics v. supra p. 497 nn. 1 and 3. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אמר אביי תרי קראי כתיבי ביולדת כתיב (ויקרא יב, ד) עד מלאת ימי טהרה כיון שמלאו ימיה טהרה וכתיב וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה הא כיצד כאן לתרומה כאן לקדשים

piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁶</span> nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁶</span> sacrifice, <i>me'ilah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁶</span> <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ואיפוך אנא מסתברא קדש חמור שכן פנקעכ"ס

and is also forbidden to an onan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁶</span> On the contrary, <i>terumah</i> should be subject to the greater restriction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 2. ');">⁴⁷</span> since it is also subject to the restrictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 497, n. 3. ');">⁴⁸</span> of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For explanation of the mnemonics v. supra p. 497 nn. 1 and 3. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אדרבה תרומה חמורה שכן מחפ"ז הנך נפישן

the death penalty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 497 n. 4. ');">⁴⁹</span> the fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 497 n. 5. ');">⁵⁰</span> it cannot be redeemed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holy food may be redeemed. ');">⁵¹</span> and is also forbidden to the non-priest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holy food is not. ');">⁵²</span>

רבא אמר בלא הנך נפישן לא מצית אמרת אמר קרא וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה מכלל שהיא טמאה ואי ס"ד בקדשים איקרי כאן (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל אלא שמע מינה בתרומה

— Those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions in connection with holy food. ');">⁵³</span> are more in number. Raba said: Apart from the fact that those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions in connection with holy food. ');">⁵³</span> are more in number this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the first text, Lev. XII, 4. which permits consumption before the sacrifice is brought, should refer to holy food. ');">⁵⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב שישא בריה דרב אידי ומי מצית אמרת תרומה כתיבא הכא והתניא (ויקרא יב, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל אין לי אלא בני ישראל גיורת ושפחה משוחררת מנין תלמוד לומר אשה ואי סלקא דעתך בתרומה גיורת ושפחה בנות מיכל תרומה נינהו

could not be maintained. For Scripture stated, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII. 8. ');">⁵⁵</span> which implies that [until that moment] she was unclean. Now, were it to be assumed that this text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 12. ');">⁵⁶</span> speaks of holy food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would accordingly be permitted to be eaten even before the prescribed sacrifice had been offered. ');">⁵⁷</span> the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 29. ');">⁵⁸</span>

אמר רבא ולא

should apply to it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the person who has not brought the prescribed sacrifice is still regarded as unclean. How then could the consumption of holy food be permitted to him? ');">⁵⁹</span> It must, therefore, be concluded that the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII. 4. ');">⁶⁰</span> speaks of <i>terumah</i>. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: How could it be said that the law of <i>terumah</i> was prescribed in this text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII. 4. ');">⁶⁰</span> Surely it was taught: [From the text]. Speak unto the children of Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2. ');">⁶¹</span> one would only learn [that these laws<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to uncleanness after childbirth. V. Lev. XII, 2ff. ');">⁶²</span> are applicable to] the children of Israel; whence, however, is one to infer that they also apply to a proselyte or an emancipated slave? Scripture consequently stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 2. ');">⁶³</span> Woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ker. 7b. ');">⁶⁴</span> Now, if it were to be assumed that the text speaks of <i>terumah</i>, are a proselyte and an emancipated slave, [it may be asked,] permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. The text must consequently refer not to terumah but to holy food! ');">⁶⁵</span> Said Raba: But does it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text cited. ');">⁶⁶</span> not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Speak of terumah? ');">⁶⁷</span>