Yevamot

applicable to all the seed  of Aaron? You must say that it is terumah.  But might it not be assumed to refer to the breast and the shoulder?  — [These are] not [permitted] to [a woman] who returns.  But terumah also is not permitted to a halalah!  — A halalah is not regarded as of the seed of Aaron.  And whence is it inferred that until he be clean  means 'until sunset',  perhaps it means, 'until the atonement is brought'? — This cannot be entertained. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael [taught] that Scripture  speaks of a zab  who noticed only two issues, and of a leper while under observation,  both being cases similar to that of one who is unclean by the dead;  as he who is unclean by the dead  is not liable to bring an atonement so are these  such as are not liable to bring an atonement.  Let it be said, then, that this  applies only to those who are not liable to bring an atonement, but that for those who are liable to an atonement,  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 terumah; and after he has brought his atonement he may also eat of the holy food';  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,  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.  And finally, it s written, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.  How, [then, are these contradictory conditions  to be reconciled]?  The first refers to [second] tithe; the second to terumah, and the third to holy food. Might not these be reversed?  It is reasonable that terumah should be subject to the greater restriction, since  it is also subject to the restrictions of the death penalty,  the fifth,  it cannot be redeemed,  and is also forbidden to the non-priest.  On the contrary; [second] tithe might be regarded as subject to the greater restriction, since it  has to be brought to the appointed place,  requires confession,  is forbidden to an onan, must not be burned  [even] when unclean, the penalty of flogging is incurred for eating it when it is unclean,  and it is also subject to the law of removal!  — 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;  for Scripture stated, soul.  Now, what is it that is equally [permitted] to every soul? You must admit that it is tithe.  Still, this  might apply only to one who is not liable to bring an atonement;  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.  It is written, Until the days of her purification be fulfilled,  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,'  how, [then, are the two to be reconciled]?  The former applies to terumah, the latter to holy food. But might not these be reversed?  — It stands to reason that holy food should be subject to the greater restriction,  since it is also subject to the restrictions of  piggul  nothar,  sacrifice, me'ilah,  kareth,  and is also forbidden to an onan.  On the contrary, terumah should be subject to the greater restriction,  since it is also subject to the restrictions  of  the death penalty,  the fifth,  it cannot be redeemed,  and is also forbidden to the non-priest!  — Those  are more in number. Raba said: Apart from the fact that those  are more in number this  could not be maintained. For Scripture stated, And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean,  which implies that [until that moment] she was unclean. Now, were it to be assumed that this text  speaks of holy food,  the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten  should apply to it!  It must, therefore, be concluded that the text  speaks of terumah. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: How could it be said that the law of terumah was prescribed in this text?  Surely it was taught: [From the text]. Speak unto the children of Israel.  one would only learn [that these laws  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,  Woman.  Now, if it were to be assumed that the text speaks of terumah, are a proselyte and an emancipated slave, [it may be asked,] permitted to eat terumah!  Said Raba: But does it  not?