Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 27, 2022 | 讻状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 81

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter, Anoushka. 鈥淐ongratulations to our amazing daughter Anoushka who is today officially an MD. May you be blessed to heal many people and be a source of comfort to all those in need. Ima and Abba.鈥

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of the Kolodny family on the occasion of Avidan’s Bar Mitzva.聽

The end of the Mishna mentioned actions taken by a saris or to an aylonit that would disqualify the woman from marrying a kohen. By inferring certain things from these statements, can one say that the Mishna disagrees with certain positions held by Rav Hamnuna (an amora) or Rabbi Yehuda (a tanna)? A saris from birth can marry and therefore if he is a kohen, his wife can eat truma. What is the status of an androgynous regarding marriage to a woman/man? Are they treated like a male or a female? Can they permit their wife to eat truma, if they are a kohen? Are they liable for engaging in relations with a man? There is a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon’s position that an andrgynous can permit his wife to eat truma. Reish Lakish holds that this applies only to truma and not to the breast and calf (chaze v鈥檚hok) of the animal. Rabbi Yochanan holds that she can eat both. Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish鈥檚 assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple and since that is permitted, so is the chaze v鈥檚hok, which is also a Torah law. Reish Lakish proves that truma is a rabbinic law by bringing a source regarding a mixture of truma and chulin fig cakes and showing that laws of nullification apply even though the item is a dvar chashuv, something of significance (as the object usually sell by the unit), that laws of nullification should not apply to. Thus he infers, truma must be only a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this argument by bringing a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is聽 mixed other meat and is nullified, even though it is an important item (generally sold by the unit) and sacrificial meat is obviously a Torah law! Additionally, he claims that the Mishna that teaches that laws of nullification do not apply to objects sold by the unit (Orla 3:6-7), was referring only to objects exclusively sold by the item and not ones that are usually sold by the item but sometimes sold by weight or estimation. How does Reish Lakish explain that Mishna? The Gemara goes back to the braita quoted by Rabbi Yochanan about a piece of meat and quotes the braita in its entirety and then asks how Reish Lakish can reconcile his opinion with that braita.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讬讘诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 谞诪讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛

Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who said: A widow waiting for her yavam, who engaged in an act of licentious relations, is disqualified from entering into levirate marriage with her yavam, like an ordinary married woman who committed adultery? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, this presents no difficulty for Rav Hamnuna, as it is possible that the same is true even in a case where she had relations with a different man, that she too would be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. But since the tanna taught the first clause with regard to the yavam himself, he also taught the latter clause with regard to the yavam himself, even though the same halakha applies if she cohabitated with another.

讜讻谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讞诇爪讜 诇讛 讗讞讬谉 讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讘注诇讜讛 讛讗 诇讗 讘注诇讜讛 诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讝讜谞讛 讛讬讗

It is taught in the mishna: And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed 岣litza with her he has not disqualified her, but if he engaged in intercourse with her he has disqualified her. The Gemara infers from this wording that the reason for her disqualification is that he had intercourse with her; but if he did not have intercourse with her she is not disqualified. According to whose opinion was this clause of the mishna taught? One must say that it was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if one would claim that this teaching is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that a sexually underdeveloped woman is considered like a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], and so she is in any case disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?

诪转谞讬壮 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: If a priest who is a eunuch by natural causes married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: If a priest who is a hermaphrodite, possessing both male and female genitals, married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 诇讗 讬讞诇讜抓 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻住专讬住 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 谞讜砖讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 讻讝讻专

Rabbi Yehuda says: If a tumtum, whose external sexual organs are indeterminate, was torn open so that his genitals were exposed, and he was found to be a male, he must not perform 岣litza, because he is treated like a eunuch. A hermaphrodite may marry a woman but he may not be married by a man, as he is considered a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account as if he had had relations with a male.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讜诇讬讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the mishna鈥檚 teaching concerning a priest who was sexually impotent from birth: This is obvious; why should such a priest not enable his wife to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary lest you say that since the verse states: 鈥淎nd such as are born in his house, they eat of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), the allowance to eat teruma depends on the priest鈥檚 capacity to father children, i.e., that only one who can father children enables his wife to eat teruma, but one who cannot father children does not enable his wife to eat teruma. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that the priest鈥檚 capacity to have children is irrelevant.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: If a priest who is a hermaphrodite married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma. Reish Lakish said: He enables her to eat teruma, but he does not enable her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He even enables her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, what is different about the breast and thigh of peace-offerings? If you say it is that they are by Torah law, teruma is also by Torah law. Why, then, is it permitted for her to eat teruma, but not the breast and thigh of peace-offerings?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with teruma in the present, after the destruction of the Temple, when teruma is in effect only by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: But when the Temple is standing, what is the halakha? He does not enable his wife to eat teruma. But if so, there is a difficulty. Instead of teaching that he does not enable her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, let him distinguish and teach it within the case of teruma itself as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law, but with regard to teruma that is in effect by Torah law this ruling does not apply.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讗讻讬诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讝诪谉 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. In other words, this is actually what Reish Lakish means, as his statement should be understood as follows: When he enables her to eat, he enables her to eat teruma in the present, when teruma is in effect only by rabbinic law, but he does not enable her to eat teruma at a time that the breast and thigh are given to the priests, i.e., when the Temple is standing, not even teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law. This is due to the concern that perhaps he will bring her to eat teruma that is in effect by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讬 住讘专转 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 注讬讙讜诇 讘注讙讜诇讬诐 注讜诇讛

However, Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees and says that he even enables her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. With respect to this dispute, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Since you distinguish between teruma and the breast and thigh, do you maintain that teruma in the present is mandated only by rabbinic law? He said to him: Yes, and the proof is that I teach that a cake of dried figs that became intermingled with other cakes is nullified. If a cake of teruma figs became intermingled with one hundred ordinary cakes, the cake is nullified and it is not necessary to treat them all as teruma. If the cake, which is a food of importance in its own right, is nullified, this must be because the teruma is only by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讞转讬讻讛 讘讞转讬讻讜转 注讜诇讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: But don鈥檛 I teach that even a piece of a sin-offering that became intermingled with other pieces of meat is nullified, as I maintain that the halakha of nullification applies even to Torah prohibitions? Do you maintain that we learned that any object that it is usual to count, i.e., any object that is even occasionally sold by unit, rather than by weight or measure, is considered to be important and therefore cannot be nullified? This is not so, as in fact we learned that only that which it is usual to count, i.e., an object that is always sold by unit and in no other manner, is considered to be important and is therefore not subject to nullification; and cakes of dried figs are not always sold by unit.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讬讚诇拽讜 谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讞专讜转

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha to which Rabbi Yo岣nan alludes? As we learned in a mishna (Orla 3:6鈥7): In the case of one who had bundles of clover, a type of legume, of a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, i.e., clover plants that grew in a vineyard, these bundles must be burned, as it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard. If the forbidden bundles became intermingled with others that are permitted,

讻讜诇谉 讬讚诇拽讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗转讬诐 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 诪拽讚砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 砖讘注讛

they must all be burned; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are nullified in a mixture of one part forbidden food to two hundred parts permitted food. As Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that it is usual to count renders a mixture prohibited. In other words, objects that are counted and sold by the unit, rather than by weight or estimation, are considered of special importance, and so they cannot be nullified by any majority and therefore must be burned. But the Rabbis say: Only six objects are important enough that they cannot be nullified and therefore render their mixtures forbidden. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven such objects.

讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讙讜讝讬 驻专讱 讜专诪讜谞讬 讘讚谉 讜讞讘讬讜转 住转讜诪讜转 讜讞诇驻讬 转专讚讬谉 讜拽讜诇讞讬 讻专讜讘 讜讚诇注转 讬讜谞讬转 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛专讗讜讬谉 诇注专诇讛 注专诇讛 诇讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐

They are as follows: Perekh nuts, high-quality nuts from a place called Perekh; Badan pomegranates, pomegranates from a place called Badan; sealed barrels of wine; shoots of beet; cabbage stalks; and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds, as his seventh item, a homeowner鈥檚 loaves. Different prohibitions apply to these seven items: Those that are fit for the prohibition of orla, fruit that grows in the first three years after a tree has been planted, i.e., the nuts and pomegranates, render the entire mixture orla. Those that are fit for the prohibition proscribing a mixture of food crops in a vineyard, i.e., the beets, cabbage, and gourd, render the entire mixture a mixture of food crops in a vineyard.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

And it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the precise wording of this mishna: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that we learned: That which it is usual to count, i.e., Rabbi Meir鈥檚 stringent ruling is limited to objects that are sold exclusively by unit. And Reish Lakish holds that we learned: Any object that it is usual to count, i.e., even items that are only sometimes sold by unit are considered important and cannot be nullified.

诪讗讬 讞转讬讻讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讞讟讗转 讟诪讗讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讞转讬讻讜转 砖诇 讞讟讗讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讻谉 驻专讜住讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟诪讗讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜住讜转 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 转注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转注诇讛

The Gemara further explains: What is the case of a piece, referred to by Rabbi Yo岣nan? As it is taught in a baraita: If a piece of a ritually impure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure sin-offerings, and similarly, if a slice of ritually impure shewbread became intermingled with one hundred slices of ritually pure showbread, the impure piece of a sin-offering or slice of shewbread is nullified in its respective mixture. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not nullified.

讗讘诇 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讞讟讗转 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讞转讬讻讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讻谉 驻专讜住讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜住讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 转注诇讛

However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, and similarly, if a slice of ritually pure shewbread became intermingled with one hundred slices of ritually pure non-sacred bread, everyone agrees that the pure piece of sin-offering or slice of shewbread is not nullified in its respective mixture.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讬砖讗 转注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘谞讬诪讜讞讛

The Gemara asks: In any event, the first clause of this baraita teaches that a piece of ritually impure sin-offering can be nullified. This poses a difficulty with respect to the opinion of Reish Lakish, as such a piece of meat is an item that is sometimes counted and considered important in its own right, and it is forbidden by Torah law, but nevertheless it can still be nullified. Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rav Huna, said: This baraita is referring not to a whole piece of meat but to one that had been crushed and broken into small parts. Once it is no longer a whole piece, it loses its importance and can be nullified.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the piece has been crushed, what is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that the piece is not nullified?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 79-85 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss various types of eunuchs and if they have the ability to do Chalitza or Yibum....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 81: Being Able to Count

More on terumah, in a new mishnah: a saris chamah kohen who marries the daughter of a Yisrael... Can she...

Yevamot 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 81

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讬讘诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 谞诪讬 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛

Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who said: A widow waiting for her yavam, who engaged in an act of licentious relations, is disqualified from entering into levirate marriage with her yavam, like an ordinary married woman who committed adultery? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, this presents no difficulty for Rav Hamnuna, as it is possible that the same is true even in a case where she had relations with a different man, that she too would be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. But since the tanna taught the first clause with regard to the yavam himself, he also taught the latter clause with regard to the yavam himself, even though the same halakha applies if she cohabitated with another.

讜讻谉 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 砖讞诇爪讜 诇讛 讗讞讬谉 讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讘注诇讜讛 讛讗 诇讗 讘注诇讜讛 诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讝讜谞讛 讛讬讗

It is taught in the mishna: And similarly, with regard to a sexually underdeveloped woman, if one of the brothers performed 岣litza with her he has not disqualified her, but if he engaged in intercourse with her he has disqualified her. The Gemara infers from this wording that the reason for her disqualification is that he had intercourse with her; but if he did not have intercourse with her she is not disqualified. According to whose opinion was this clause of the mishna taught? One must say that it was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if one would claim that this teaching is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 he say that a sexually underdeveloped woman is considered like a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [zona], and so she is in any case disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?

诪转谞讬壮 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讛谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: If a priest who is a eunuch by natural causes married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: If a priest who is a hermaphrodite, possessing both male and female genitals, married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 诇讗 讬讞诇讜抓 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻住专讬住 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 谞讜砖讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 讻讝讻专

Rabbi Yehuda says: If a tumtum, whose external sexual organs are indeterminate, was torn open so that his genitals were exposed, and he was found to be a male, he must not perform 岣litza, because he is treated like a eunuch. A hermaphrodite may marry a woman but he may not be married by a man, as he is considered a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account as if he had had relations with a male.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讜诇讬讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the mishna鈥檚 teaching concerning a priest who was sexually impotent from birth: This is obvious; why should such a priest not enable his wife to partake of teruma? The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary lest you say that since the verse states: 鈥淎nd such as are born in his house, they eat of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), the allowance to eat teruma depends on the priest鈥檚 capacity to father children, i.e., that only one who can father children enables his wife to eat teruma, but one who cannot father children does not enable his wife to eat teruma. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that the priest鈥檚 capacity to have children is irrelevant.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: If a priest who is a hermaphrodite married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma. Reish Lakish said: He enables her to eat teruma, but he does not enable her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He even enables her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, what is different about the breast and thigh of peace-offerings? If you say it is that they are by Torah law, teruma is also by Torah law. Why, then, is it permitted for her to eat teruma, but not the breast and thigh of peace-offerings?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with teruma in the present, after the destruction of the Temple, when teruma is in effect only by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: But when the Temple is standing, what is the halakha? He does not enable his wife to eat teruma. But if so, there is a difficulty. Instead of teaching that he does not enable her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, let him distinguish and teach it within the case of teruma itself as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law, but with regard to teruma that is in effect by Torah law this ruling does not apply.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讗讻讬诇讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讝诪谉 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying. In other words, this is actually what Reish Lakish means, as his statement should be understood as follows: When he enables her to eat, he enables her to eat teruma in the present, when teruma is in effect only by rabbinic law, but he does not enable her to eat teruma at a time that the breast and thigh are given to the priests, i.e., when the Temple is standing, not even teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law. This is due to the concern that perhaps he will bring her to eat teruma that is in effect by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讬 住讘专转 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 注讬讙讜诇 讘注讙讜诇讬诐 注讜诇讛

However, Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees and says that he even enables her to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. With respect to this dispute, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Since you distinguish between teruma and the breast and thigh, do you maintain that teruma in the present is mandated only by rabbinic law? He said to him: Yes, and the proof is that I teach that a cake of dried figs that became intermingled with other cakes is nullified. If a cake of teruma figs became intermingled with one hundred ordinary cakes, the cake is nullified and it is not necessary to treat them all as teruma. If the cake, which is a food of importance in its own right, is nullified, this must be because the teruma is only by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讞转讬讻讛 讘讞转讬讻讜转 注讜诇讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: But don鈥檛 I teach that even a piece of a sin-offering that became intermingled with other pieces of meat is nullified, as I maintain that the halakha of nullification applies even to Torah prohibitions? Do you maintain that we learned that any object that it is usual to count, i.e., any object that is even occasionally sold by unit, rather than by weight or measure, is considered to be important and therefore cannot be nullified? This is not so, as in fact we learned that only that which it is usual to count, i.e., an object that is always sold by unit and in no other manner, is considered to be important and is therefore not subject to nullification; and cakes of dried figs are not always sold by unit.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞讘讬诇讬 转诇转谉 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讬讚诇拽讜 谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讞专讜转

The Gemara asks: What is this halakha to which Rabbi Yo岣nan alludes? As we learned in a mishna (Orla 3:6鈥7): In the case of one who had bundles of clover, a type of legume, of a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, i.e., clover plants that grew in a vineyard, these bundles must be burned, as it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard. If the forbidden bundles became intermingled with others that are permitted,

讻讜诇谉 讬讚诇拽讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗转讬诐 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 诪拽讚砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讗 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 砖讘注讛

they must all be burned; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are nullified in a mixture of one part forbidden food to two hundred parts permitted food. As Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that it is usual to count renders a mixture prohibited. In other words, objects that are counted and sold by the unit, rather than by weight or estimation, are considered of special importance, and so they cannot be nullified by any majority and therefore must be burned. But the Rabbis say: Only six objects are important enough that they cannot be nullified and therefore render their mixtures forbidden. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven such objects.

讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讙讜讝讬 驻专讱 讜专诪讜谞讬 讘讚谉 讜讞讘讬讜转 住转讜诪讜转 讜讞诇驻讬 转专讚讬谉 讜拽讜诇讞讬 讻专讜讘 讜讚诇注转 讬讜谞讬转 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛专讗讜讬谉 诇注专诇讛 注专诇讛 诇讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐

They are as follows: Perekh nuts, high-quality nuts from a place called Perekh; Badan pomegranates, pomegranates from a place called Badan; sealed barrels of wine; shoots of beet; cabbage stalks; and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds, as his seventh item, a homeowner鈥檚 loaves. Different prohibitions apply to these seven items: Those that are fit for the prohibition of orla, fruit that grows in the first three years after a tree has been planted, i.e., the nuts and pomegranates, render the entire mixture orla. Those that are fit for the prohibition proscribing a mixture of food crops in a vineyard, i.e., the beets, cabbage, and gourd, render the entire mixture a mixture of food crops in a vineyard.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜

And it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the precise wording of this mishna: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that we learned: That which it is usual to count, i.e., Rabbi Meir鈥檚 stringent ruling is limited to objects that are sold exclusively by unit. And Reish Lakish holds that we learned: Any object that it is usual to count, i.e., even items that are only sometimes sold by unit are considered important and cannot be nullified.

诪讗讬 讞转讬讻讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讞讟讗转 讟诪讗讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讞转讬讻讜转 砖诇 讞讟讗讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讻谉 驻专讜住讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟诪讗讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜住讜转 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟讛讜专讜转 转注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转注诇讛

The Gemara further explains: What is the case of a piece, referred to by Rabbi Yo岣nan? As it is taught in a baraita: If a piece of a ritually impure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure sin-offerings, and similarly, if a slice of ritually impure shewbread became intermingled with one hundred slices of ritually pure showbread, the impure piece of a sin-offering or slice of shewbread is nullified in its respective mixture. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not nullified.

讗讘诇 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讞讟讗转 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讞转讬讻讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讻谉 驻专讜住讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜住讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 转注诇讛

However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, and similarly, if a slice of ritually pure shewbread became intermingled with one hundred slices of ritually pure non-sacred bread, everyone agrees that the pure piece of sin-offering or slice of shewbread is not nullified in its respective mixture.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讬砖讗 转注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘谞讬诪讜讞讛

The Gemara asks: In any event, the first clause of this baraita teaches that a piece of ritually impure sin-offering can be nullified. This poses a difficulty with respect to the opinion of Reish Lakish, as such a piece of meat is an item that is sometimes counted and considered important in its own right, and it is forbidden by Torah law, but nevertheless it can still be nullified. Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rav Huna, said: This baraita is referring not to a whole piece of meat but to one that had been crushed and broken into small parts. Once it is no longer a whole piece, it loses its importance and can be nullified.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the piece has been crushed, what is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that the piece is not nullified?

Scroll To Top