Yevamot 149

והכתיב (ויקרא יב, ד) בכל קדש לא תגע לרבות התרומה אלא קרא מילי מילי קא חשיב

Surely it is written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same section. ');">¹</span> She shall touch no hallowed thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 4. ');">²</span> [which] includes <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 14b. The proselyte and emancipated slave are also included in such a prohibition. ');">³</span>

ותלתא קראי בתרומה למה לי צריכי דאי מעד אשר יטהר לא הוה ידענא במאי כתב רחמנא ובא השמש וטהר

The fact, however, is that Scripture enumerated a number of distinct subjects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may be applicable to one class of persons. and another to others. ');">⁴</span> Now what need was there for three distinct texts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ibid. 7, and ibid. XII, 4, which, as explained supra. refer to terumah. ');">⁵</span> in respect of <i>terumah</i>! — They are all required. For were <i>terumah</i> to be deduced from Until he be clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁶</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא ובא השמש ה"מ דלאו בר כפרה אבל דבר כפרה אימא עד דמייתי כפרה כתב רחמנא עד מלאת

it would not be known whereby,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cleanness is effected. ');">⁷</span> hence did the All Merciful write, And when the sun is down, he shall be clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">⁸</span> And if the All Merciful had written only And when the sun is down,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">⁸</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא עד מלאת הוה אמינא אפילו בלא טבילה כתב רחמנא עד אשר יטהר

it might have been assumed [to apply to such a person] as is not liable to bring a sacrifice, but in the case of one who is liable it might have been presumed that cleanness is not effected before he has brought his atonement, hence the All Merciful wrote, Until … be fulfilled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 4. which speaks of a woman after childbirth, who is liable to bring a sacrifice and is, nevertheless, regarded as clean in respect of terumah immediately after the sunset of the last day of the prescribed period. ');">⁹</span> And had the All Merciful written only, Until&nbsp;… be fulfilled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 24. ');">¹⁰</span> it might have been presumed that cleanness may be effected even without ablution, hence did the All Merciful write, Until he be clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁶</span>

ולהך תנא דפליג עליה דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דאמר בזב בעל ג' ראיות ובמצורע מוחלט הכתוב מדבר והאי עד אשר יטהר עד דמייתי כפרה תרי קראי בקדשים ל"ל

According. however, to that Tanna who disagrees with the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael, maintaining that the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁶</span> speaks of a <i>zab</i> who had three attacks of gonorrhoea and of a confirmed leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both of whom are liable to bring sacrifices. ');">¹¹</span> and that the deduction from Until he be clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁶</span>

צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא ביולדת משום דמרובה טומאתה אבל בזב אימא לא ואי כתב רחמנא בזב דלא הותר מכללו אבל יולדת אימא לא צריכא

is 'until he brings his atonement,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text referring to holy food, terumah having been deduced by him from Lev. XXII, 7. ');">¹²</span> what need was there for two texts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 8 and ibid. XXII, 4. ');">¹³</span> in respect of holy food? — [They are both] required. For had the All Merciful written about the woman after childbirth only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Lev. XII, 8. ');">¹⁴</span>

(ויקרא יא, לב) במים יובא וטמא עד הערב למה לי א"ר זירא לנגיעה

the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the prescribed sacrifice must be brought before cleanness is effected. ');">¹⁵</span> might have been said to apply to her only because her uncleanness is of long duration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eighty days must elapse in the case of the birth of a daughter (v. Lev. XII. 5) before the mother is permitted to eat of terumah or of holy food. ');">¹⁶</span> but not to a <i>zab</i>. And had the All Merciful written the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">¹⁷</span>

דתניא וטמא יכול לכל ת"ל וטהר אי וטהר יכול לכל ת"ל וטמא הא כיצד כאן למעשר כאן לתרומה

in connection with a <i>zab</i> only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Lev, XXII, 4. ');">¹⁸</span> it might have been assumed to apply to him only since his uncleanness does not automatically cease,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He remains unclean however long his affliction may last. ');">¹⁹</span> but not to a woman after childbirth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in respect of connubial relations, is regarded as clean on the termination of the prescribed period, though the flow may still continue. ');">²⁰</span>

ואיפוך אנא מסתברא כי היכי דחמירא אכילה דתרומה מאכילה דמעשר ה"נ חמירא נגיעה דתרומה מנגיעה דמעשר

[Hence both texts were] necessary. What was the need<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of Lev. XXII, 7 which makes the consummation of cleanness dependent on sunset. ');">²¹</span> for the text, It must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32, which, also making the consummation of cleanness dependent on sunset, must, like Lev. XXII, 7 refer to terumah. ');">²²</span>

ואיבעית אימא נגיעה דתרומה מהכא נפקא (ויקרא יב, ד) בכל קדש לא תגע אזהרה לאוכל או אינו אלא לנוגע

— R. Zera replied: In respect of touch;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before sunset on the day of purification no terumah may come in contact with the unclean vessel; and the same restriction applies to the tebul yom (v. Glos.). This could not have been deduced from Lev. XXII, 7 which does not speak of touch or contact but of eating. ');">²³</span> as it was taught: And it shall be unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32, even after it had been put in water. ');">²⁴</span> might have been taken to refer to all cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the uncleanness remains in respect of both terumah and [second] tithe. ');">²⁵</span>

ת"ל בכל קדש לא תגע ואל המקדש לא תבא מקיש קדש למקדש מה מקדש דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה אף קדש דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה ובנגיעה נטילת נשמה ליכא

hence it was stated, Then shall it be clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. [H]. The use of this form of the verb (which may also represent the present participle), instead of the imperfect, implies a state of cleanness even before the sun had set. (V. Rashi). ');">²⁶</span> And if only Then shall it be clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. [H]. The use of this form of the verb (which may also represent the present participle), instead of the imperfect, implies a state of cleanness even before the sun had set. (V. Rashi). ');">²⁶</span> had been stated it might have been assumed to refer to all cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the state of cleanness arises, as soon as ablution had taken place, in respect of both tithe and terumah. ');">²⁷</span>

והאי דאפקיה בלשון נגיעה הכי קאמר נגיעה כאכילה:

hence it was stated, And it shall be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32. ');">²⁸</span> How then [are the two to be reconciled]? The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter, Be clean. ');">²⁹</span> refers to [second] tithe and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former, Be unclean. ');">³⁰</span>

פצוע דכא וכו': מאן תנא משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא אכלה א"ר אלעזר במחלוקת שנויה ורבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון היא

to <i>terumah</i>. But might not the deduction be reversed? — It stands to reason that as the eating of <i>terumah</i> is more restricted than the eating of tithe, so shall the touching of <i>terumah</i> be more restricted than the touching of tithe. If you prefer I might say that the prohibition against the touching of <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of a tebul yom. V. Glos. ');">³¹</span> is deduced from the following. It was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. Cur. edd. omit. ');">³²</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר אפי' תימא ר' מאיר שאני הכא שכבר אכלה

She shall touch no hallowed thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 4. ');">³³</span> is a warning against its consumption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the sunset of the last day of the prescribed period, the woman being regarded until then as a tebul yom, the 'day' (yom) being a 'long one' embracing all the days of the prescribed period. ');">³⁴</span> Perhaps it is not so, but against touching it? It was stated, She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 4. ');">³³</span>

ור' אלעזר שכבר אכלה לא אמרינן דאי לא תימא הכי בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן ומת בעלה תאכל שכבר אכלה

the hallowed thing is thus compared to the sanctuary; as [an offence against] the sanctuary involves loss of life,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalty for entering the sanctuary while one is unclean is kareth. Cf. Num. XIX, 20. ');">³⁵</span> so [must the offence against] the hallowed thing be such as involves loss of life, while in respect of touch no loss of life is involved; and the reason [why eating] was expressed by a term denoting touch is to indicate that touching and eating are equally [forbidden].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the unclean or the tebul yom. ');">³⁶</span> [A PRIEST WHO IS] WOUNDED IN HIS STONES etc. Who is it that taught: A woman subject to a pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case in our Mishnah with the wife of the mutilated priest with whom no cohabitation has yet taken place after his mutilation, though such cohabitation may still take place at any moment. ');">³⁷</span>

ורבי יוחנן התם פקע קנייניה הכא לא פקע קנייניה:

may eat <i>terumah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah. ');">³⁸</span> — R. Eleazar replied: This question is the subject of a dispute, and the ruling here is that of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 57b. ');">³⁹</span> R. Johanan said: [The ruling here] may even be that of R. Meir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 57b. ');">³⁹</span>

איזהו פצוע: תנו רבנן איזהו פצוע דכא כל שנפצעו ביצים שלו ואפילו אחת מהן ואפי' ניקבו ואפילו נמוקו ואפילו חסרו אמר רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה שמעתי מפי חכמים בכרם ביבנה כל שאין לו אלא ביצה אחת אינו אלא סריס חמה וכשר

the circumstances here being different, since the woman has already been eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before her husband was disabled. She is not deprived of a privilege she had been enjoying though she may not be entitled to new privileges. ');">⁴⁰</span> And R. Eleazar? — The argument, 'since she has already been eating' cannot be entertained; for should you not admit this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the argument is untenable. ');">⁴¹</span> a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest and whose husband subsequently died, should also be permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> since she has already been eating it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is absurd. The argument is consequently untenable. ');">⁴²</span>

סריס חמה ס"ד אלא הרי הוא כסריס חמה וכשר

And R. Johanan? — There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a priest who married the daughter of an Israelite and died. ');">⁴³</span> his <i>kinyan</i> had completely lapsed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he died. Hence the woman's loss of her privilege. ');">⁴⁴</span> here, however, his <i>kinyan</i> did not lapse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the marriage had not been annulled. ');">⁴⁵</span>

וניקב לא מוליד והא ההוא גברא דסליק לדיקלא

WHAT IS TERMED A PEZU'A? Our Rabbis taught: What is termed a pezu'a dakkah? A man both of whose stones were wounded or even only one of them; even though they were only punctured, crushed, or simply defective. Said R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka: I heard from the mouth of the Sages at the Vineyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The College. So called because the students were sitting in rows arranged like the vines in a vineyard. ');">⁴⁶</span> at Jabneh that one having only one stone is a natural born eunuch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'a eunuch through heat', i.e., fever, illness (v. Golds.) or 'a eunuch of the sun', i.e., from birth when the child first saw the sun (v. Jast.). ');">⁴⁷</span> and is, therefore, a fit person. How could it be said that such a person is a natural born eunuch!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former surely might be the result of an accident! ');">⁴⁸</span> — Say rather, he is like a natural born eunuch and is, therefore, fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being restricted to the wounded or crushed. ');">⁴⁹</span> Is [a man whose stones are] punctured incapable of procreation? Surely, a man once climbed up a palm tree