Study Yevamot folio 68B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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: “
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
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
The Talmud answers: If so, if this is the only halakha derived from this verse, let the verse merely write: She may not eat of the sacred. What is the significance of the seemingly superfluous expression “that which is set apart from the sacred”? Conclude from this that the prohibition is referring
The Talmud asks: We found a source for a priestess; from where do we derive the same halakha with regard to a Levite or an Israelite woman who had sex with an unfit man, i.e., that they do not partake of teruma even if they marry a priest? The Talmud answers that it is as R' Abba said that Rav said: