Daf 90b: Resurrection, Terumah, and Scriptural Interpretation
On this page, we will build a map of proofs for resurrection and follow the discussion of giving terumah to a priest. At each step, we will identify the claim, the word being interpreted, and whether an alternative reading challenges the proof.
- 01Follow the sugya’s sequence, including its transitions between resurrection, terumah, and scriptural interpretation.
- 02Distinguish a proof, a challenge to a proof, and an answer that preserves only part of a claim.
- 03Explain how the words “to them,” “and will arise,” and “its sin remains in it” function in the interpretations.
The full Gemara text - 90b, divided by Shakla v'Tarya
Here is the complete Gemara text of this daf, word for word, divided into the stages of the sugya: Mishnah, question, kushya, terutz, raya and conclusion. Read each stage in the source first, then the explanation.
- 01·TerutzSanhedrin 90b
וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי לוֹ כֵּן וַיִּרְמְסוּ אֹתוֹ הָעָם בַּשַּׁעַר וַיָּמֹת״. וְדִילְמָא קִלְלַת אֱלִישָׁע גְּרַמָה לֵיהּ? דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: קִלְלַת חָכָם, אֲפִילּוּ עַל חִנָּם הִיא בָּאָה. אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״וַיִּרְמְסוּהוּ וַיָּמֹת״. מַאי ״בַּשַּׁעַר״? עַל עִסְקֵי שַׁעַר.
The page continues the discussion of the officer who was trampled at the gate. The Gemara asks whether Elisha’s curse alone caused his death, since a sage’s curse can take effect even without cause. The answer focuses on “at the gate”: his death was connected to the grain price he had doubted, not merely to the curse itself.
- 02·RayaSanhedrin 90b
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ [אֶת] תְּרוּמַת ה׳ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״. וְכִי אַהֲרֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִכְנַס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לִחְיוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan derives resurrection from the command to give terumah “to Aaron the priest.” Aaron did not enter the Land of Israel to receive terumah there. The interpretation concludes that he will live again and receive it from Israel.
- 03·Mishnah / BaraitaSanhedrin 90b
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״לְאַהֲרֹן״ – כְּאַהֲרֹן, מָה אַהֲרֹן חָבֵר – אַף בָּנָיו חֲבֵרִים.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael offers another interpretation of “to Aaron”: the recipient should be a priest like Aaron. Just as Aaron was a ḥaver, so the recipients among his descendants should be ḥaverim. This moves the discussion from resurrection to the qualifications of a terumah recipient.
- 04·RayaSanhedrin 90b
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין תְּרוּמָה לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָעָם לְיוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַים לָתֵת מְנָת הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת ה׳״. כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – יֵשׁ לוֹ מְנָת, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – אֵין לוֹ מְנָת.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, citing Rabbi Yonatan, brings a source for not giving terumah to an unlearned priest. The verse connects the priestly and Levitical portions with strengthening commitment to God’s Torah. The interpretation makes entitlement to the portion depend on that commitment.
- 05·Conclusion of the sugyaSanhedrin 90b
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כׇּל הַנּוֹתֵן תְּרוּמָה לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ, כְּאִילּוּ נוֹתְנָהּ לִפְנֵי אֲרִי. מָה אֲרִי - סָפֵק דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, סָפֵק אֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, אַף כֹּהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ - סָפֵק אוֹכְלָהּ בְּטׇהֳרָה, סָפֵק אוֹכְלָהּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
Rav Aḥa bar Adda, citing Rav Yehuda, compares giving terumah to an unlearned priest to placing it before a lion. The comparison centers on uncertainty about how the food will be eaten. With the priest, the uncertainty is whether he will eat it in purity or impurity.
- 06·RayaSanhedrin 90b
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף גּוֹרֵם לוֹ מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ״. דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב תָּנָא: אַף מַשִּׂיאוֹ עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה בְּאׇכְלָם אֶת קׇדְשֵׁיהֶם״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan adds that the giver even causes the priest’s death, citing the verse about profaning terumah. The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov adds that the giver brings guilt upon him. Both sources deepen the discussion of the giver’s responsibility for the danger of prohibited consumption.
- 07·RayaSanhedrin 90b
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְגַם הֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי אִתָּם לָתֵת לָהֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן״. ״לָכֶם״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לָהֶם״. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
In a baraita, Rabbi Simai returns us to proofs for resurrection. The promise to give the land of Canaan says “to them,” meaning the patriarchs themselves, rather than merely “to you.” He infers that the patriarchs will live again and receive the land.
- 08·The Gemara asksSanhedrin 90b
(צֶדֶ״ק גַּ״ם גֶּשֶׁ״ם קָ״ם סִימָן) שָׁאֲלוּ צַדּוּקִים אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מִנַּיִין שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְחַיֶּיה מֵתִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וּמִן הַנְּבִיאִים, וּמִן הַכְּתוּבִים. וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ.
After a mnemonic, a debate opens between Sadducees and Rabban Gamliel about the source for resurrection. Rabban Gamliel offers proofs from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. The narrator first reports that they did not accept them, then explains why.
- 09·KushyaSanhedrin 90b
מִן הַתּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם אֲבֹתֶיךָ וְקָם״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וְדִילְמָא ״וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה״?
The Torah proof connects “and will arise” to God’s words to Moses about his death. The Sadducees instead connect it to what follows: “this people will arise and stray.” This challenges the necessity of reading the verse as a promise of Moses’ resurrection.
- 10·KushyaSanhedrin 90b
מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״יִחְיוּ מֵתֶיךָ נְבֵלָתִי יְקוּמוּן הָקִיצוּ וְרַנְּנוּ שֹׁכְנֵי עָפָר כִּי טַל אוֹרֹת טַלֶּךָ וָאָרֶץ רְפָאִים תַּפִּיל״. וְדִילְמָא מֵתִים שֶׁהֶחְיָה יְחֶזְקֵאל?
The proof from the Prophets cites “Your dead shall live.” The challenge suggests that this refers to the dead revived by Ezekiel. On that reading, the verse does not compel belief in the future resurrection.
- 11·KushyaSanhedrin 90b
מִן הַכְּתוּבִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחִכֵּךְ כְּיֵין הַטּוֹב הוֹלֵךְ לְדוֹדִי לְמֵישָׁרִים דּוֹבֵב שִׂפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים״. וְדִילְמָא רַחוֹשֵׁי מְרַחֲשָׁן שִׂפְוָותֵיהּ בְּעָלְמָא? כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: כׇּל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה הֲלָכָה בִּשְׁמוֹ בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, שִׂפְתוֹתָיו דּוֹבְבוֹת בַּקֶּבֶר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דּוֹבֵב שִׂפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים״.
The proof from the Writings cites “making the lips of sleepers move.” The challenge distinguishes actual resurrection from movement of lips in the grave. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak supplies an alternative: when a teaching is quoted in a deceased person’s name, that person’s lips move in the grave.
- 12·RayaSanhedrin 90b
עַד שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם מִקְרָא זֶה: ״אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם לָתֵת לָהֶם״. ״לָכֶם״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לָהֶם״. מִיכָּן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
Rabban Gamliel finally cites the oath to the patriarchs “to give to them.” The point is that the gift is promised to the patriarchs themselves, not only to their descendants. The narrative presents this proof as the turning point after the earlier proofs were rejected.
- 13·RayaSanhedrin 90b
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה אָמַר לָהֶם, ״וְאַתֶּם הַדְּבֵקִים בַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם הַיּוֹם״. פְּשִׁיטָא דְּחַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם הַיּוֹם! אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלָּם מֵתִים – אַתֶּם חַיִּים. מָה הַיּוֹם כּוּלְּכֶם קַיָּימִין, אַף לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא כּוּלְּכֶם קַיָּימִין.
According to another tradition, Rabban Gamliel answered from “all of you are alive today.” Since the listeners’ present life seems obvious, the interpretation gives the statement a future significance. Just as all are present today, so all will exist in the World to Come.
- 14·RayaSanhedrin 90b
שָׁאֲלוּ רוֹמִיִּים אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה: מִנַּיִין שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְחַיֵּה מֵתִים, וְיוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת? אֲמַר לְהוּ: תַּרְוַויְיהוּ מִן הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם אֲבֹתֶיךָ וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה״.
The Romans ask Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya about two claims: resurrection and knowledge of the future. He cites “You will lie with your ancestors, and this people will arise and stray” for both. His reading finds both rising after death and advance knowledge of the people’s future conduct.
- 15·TerutzSanhedrin 90b
וְדִילְמָא ״וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה״? אֲמַר לְהוּ: נְקוּטוּ מִיהָא פַּלְגָא בִּידַיְיכוּ, דְּיוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִנַּיִין שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְחַיֵּה מֵתִים וְיוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם אֲבֹתֶיךָ וְקָם וְגוֹ׳״.
The Romans again suggest that “will arise” refers to the people rather than Moses. Rabbi Yehoshua answers that even on their reading, at least half the proof remains: God knows the future. A tradition in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai is then cited as deriving both claims from the verse.
- 16·RayaSanhedrin 90b
תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּדָבָר זֶה זִיַּיפְתִּי סִפְרֵי כוּתִים, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים אֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אָמַרְתִּי לָהֶן: זִיַּיפְתֶּם תּוֹרַתְכֶם וְלֹא הֶעֱלִיתֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם כְּלוּם, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים אֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא עֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ״. ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״עֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ״ – לְאֵימַת? לָאו לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא?
Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei reports refuting the Samaritans’ claim that resurrection has no Torah basis. He reads “shall surely be cut off” as punishment in this world, then asks when “its sin remains in it” applies. His answer is that the sin remains in the World to Come, providing the basis for his argument against them.
- 17·TerutzSanhedrin 90b
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְלֵימָא לְהוּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מֵ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״! אִינְהוּ הֲווֹ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rav Pappa asks Abaye why both worlds were not derived from the doubled wording “hikkaret tikkaret.” The answer is that the Samaritans could treat the repetition as ordinary human language. The previous argument therefore relies specifically on the added words “its sin remains in it.”
- 18·Mishnah / BaraitaSanhedrin 90b
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – ״הִכָּרֵת״ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״אֶת ה׳ הוּא מְגַדֵּף וְנִכְרְתָה״, וְכִי שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹלָמִים יֵשׁ? אֶלָּא ״וְנִכְרְתָה״ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״הִכָּרֵת״ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara brings a tannaitic dispute about interpreting the expressions of being cut off. Rabbi Akiva assigns the two parts of “hikkaret tikkaret” to this world and the World to Come. Rabbi Yishmael includes “shall be cut off” from the preceding verse, so he treats the remaining repetition as ordinary human language rather than as indicating another world.
- 19·TerutzSanhedrin 90b
בֵּין רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וּבֵין רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, ״עֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ״ מַאי עָבְדִי בֵּיהּ? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ״. לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁעֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ.
The Gemara asks what Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva derive from “its sin remains in it,” since they already have a source for both worlds. A baraita answers that the described punishment applies while the sin remains in the person. Someone who has repented is not included in that description.
- 20·TerutzSanhedrin 90b
שָׁאֲלָה קְלֵיאוֹפַּטְרָא מַלְכְּתָא אֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמְרָה: יָדַעְנָא דְּחָיִי שָׁכְבֵי, דִּכְתִיב ״וְיָצִיצוּ מֵעִיר כְּעֵשֶׂב הָאָרֶץ״. אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדִין, עוֹמְדִין עֲרוּמִין אוֹ בִּלְבוּשֵׁיהֶן עוֹמְדִין? אֲמַר לַהּ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵחִיטָּה. וּמָה חִיטָּה שֶׁנִּקְבְּרָה עֲרוּמָּה יוֹצְאָה בְּכַמָּה לְבוּשִׁין, צַדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּקְבָּרִים בִּלְבוּשֵׁיהֶן – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Cleopatra accepts resurrection on the basis of the verse she cites and asks whether those who rise will be naked or clothed. Rabbi Meir answers with an inference from wheat, which is buried bare and grows with several coverings. He argues that the righteous, who were buried clothed, will all the more rise clothed.
- 21·KushyaSanhedrin 90b
אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אָמְרִיתוּ דְּשָׁכְבֵי חָיִי. הָא הָווּ עַפְרָא, וְעַפְרָא מִי קָא חָיֵי?!
Caesar challenges Rabban Gamliel on bodily decomposition: the dead have become dust, so how can dust live? Unlike Cleopatra’s question, this challenges the possibility of resurrection itself. The page ends with the objection, without giving the answer here.
Open-ended sugya practice
- 1What underlies Rabbi Yoḥanan’s proof from “to Aaron the priest”? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
- 2What is central to the lion comparison concerning an unlearned priest? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
- 3How was the proof from “making the lips of sleepers move” challenged? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
- 4What remains of Rabbi Yehoshua’s proof even on the Romans’ reading? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
- 5What do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva derive from “its sin remains in it”? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
Build a table for Rabban Gamliel’s first three proofs: the scriptural source, the basis of the proof, and the alternative interpretation offered. Add a row for the proof from “to give to them” and explain what changes.
The page builds proofs for resurrection through close reading of verses and tests them against alternative interpretations. The terumah discussion emphasizes the responsibility involved in giving it, while the discussion of karet examines repeated wording and the role of repentance. At the page’s end, Caesar’s question remains open for the continuation.
Test yourself before marking the lesson complete.
What underlies Rabbi Yoḥanan’s proof from “to Aaron the priest”?