Study Yevamot folio 68B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ההוא מיבעי ליה לגופיה! תרי ״וכל זר״ כתיבי.
The Talmud rejects this assertion: That verse is necessary to teach its own basic halakha, that a non-priest is prohibited from partaking of teruma. The Talmud responds: Two prohibitions with regard to a “common man” are written, one in the verse previously cited and the other in Leviticus 22:13: “But there should no common man eat of it.” One of them prohibits a non-priest from partaking of teruma, while the other is referring to the daughter of a priest married to a non-priest.
ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא, דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: ״וכל זר״ — זרות אמרתי לך, ולא אנינות! דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מן ״זר״ ״וכל זר״ נפקא.
The Talmud asks: One of these verses is still necessary to teach another halakha that is taught by R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, as R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, said that the phrase “no common man” indicates that I, God, said to you that commonness, i.e., non-priesthood, renders one unfit to partake of teruma, but acute mourning, i.e., mourning on the day when one’s close relative died, does not render one unfit to eat teruma. The Talmud answers: This teaching of R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, is derived from a superfluous word in the verse, as it could have stated: A common man may not eat of the holy thing, and it actually states: “No common man.”
ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא: כשהיא חוזרת — חוזרת לתרומה ואינה חוזרת לחזה ושוק. ואמר רב חסדא אמר רבינא בר רב שילא: מאי קרא, דכתיב: ״ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל״ — לא תאכל במורם מן הקדשים.
The Talmud asks: The verse “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man” (Leviticus 22:12), from which Rav derived the halakha being discussed, that sex with an unfit man renders a woman unfit to partake of teruma and marry a priest, is still necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: When a priest’s daughter returns to her father’s house after the death of her Israelite husband, she resumes partaking of teruma, but she does not resume partaking of the breast and the right hind leg of sacrificial offerings. And Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina, son of Rav Sheila, said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man, she may not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred” (Leviticus 22:12). This implies that even after her husband’s death, she may not partake of the portion separated from consecrated offerings. Therefore, the verse cannot be the source for the above halakha.