Yevamot

Surely it is written,  She shall touch no hallowed thing  [which] includes terumah!  The fact, however, is that Scripture enumerated a number of distinct subjects.  Now what need was there for three distinct texts  in respect of terumah! — They are all required. For were terumah to be deduced from Until he be clean,  it would not be known whereby,  hence did the All Merciful write, And when the sun is down, he shall be clean.  And if the All Merciful had written only And when the sun is down,  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.  And had the All Merciful written only, Until … be fulfilled,  it might have been presumed that cleanness may be effected even without ablution, hence did the All Merciful write, Until he be clean. According. however, to that Tanna who disagrees with the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael, maintaining that the text  speaks of a zab who had three attacks of gonorrhoea and of a confirmed leper,  and that the deduction from Until he be clean  is 'until he brings his atonement,'  what need was there for two texts  in respect of holy food? — [They are both] required. For had the All Merciful written about the woman after childbirth only,  the law  might have been said to apply to her only because her uncleanness is of long duration,  but not to a zab. And had the All Merciful written the law  in connection with a zab only,  it might have been assumed to apply to him only since his uncleanness does not automatically cease,  but not to a woman after childbirth.  [Hence both texts were] necessary. What was the need  for the text, It must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even?  — R. Zera replied: In respect of touch;  as it was taught: And it shall be unclean  might have been taken to refer to all cases,  hence it was stated, Then shall it be clean.  And if only Then shall it be clean  had been stated it might have been assumed to refer to all cases,  hence it was stated, And it shall be unclean.  How then [are the two to be reconciled]? The one  refers to [second] tithe and the other  to terumah. But might not the deduction be reversed? — It stands to reason that as the eating of terumah is more restricted than the eating of tithe, so shall the touching of terumah be more restricted than the touching of tithe. If you prefer I might say that the prohibition against the touching of terumah  is deduced from the following. It was taught:  She shall touch no hallowed thing,  is a warning against its consumption.  Perhaps it is not so, but against touching it? It was stated, She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary;  the hallowed thing is thus compared to the sanctuary; as [an offence against] the sanctuary involves loss of life,  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]. [A PRIEST WHO IS] WOUNDED IN HIS STONES etc. Who is it that taught: A woman subject to a pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation  may eat terumah?  — R. Eleazar replied: This question is the subject of a dispute, and the ruling here is that of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon.  R. Johanan said: [The ruling here] may even be that of R. Meir,  the circumstances here being different, since the woman has already been eating.  And R. Eleazar? — The argument, 'since she has already been eating' cannot be entertained; for should you not admit this,  a daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest and whose husband subsequently died, should also be permitted to eat terumah since she has already been eating it.  And R. Johanan? — There,  his kinyan had completely lapsed;  here, however, his kinyan did not lapse. 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  at Jabneh that one having only one stone is a natural born eunuch  and is, therefore, a fit person. How could it be said that such a person is a natural born eunuch!  — Say rather, he is like a natural born eunuch and is, therefore, fit. Is [a man whose stones are] punctured incapable of procreation? Surely, a man once climbed up a palm tree