1for 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.
2The 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.
3The 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.
4The 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.
5The 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.
6And 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 ?
7Rava 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.
8The 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.
9The 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.
10The 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.
11Rava 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.
12The 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.
13Abaye 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.
14The 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.
15The 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 .
16Rava 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 .
17Rav 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 .
18Rava said: And is the verse not referring to teruma as well?