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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 28, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • 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 82 – Shabbat May 28

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed regarding an androgynous 鈥 could he permit his wife to eat the breast and calf (chaze v鈥檚hok) of the animal? Or only truma? 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. Rabbi Yochanan proves it from a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is impure that is mixed with pure meat. How does Reish Lakish explain that braita? Three different explanations are brought. Difficulties are raised with each of them 鈥 on the first explanation, the difficulties are resolved. On the other two, they are not. Does Rabbi Yochanan really hold that truma nowadays is obligated by Torah law? In a braita, there is a case with two boxes, one of chulin and one of truma, and two baskets, one with chulin and one with truma, and each basket falls into a box. Rabbi Yochanan is more lenient than Reish Lakish here and permits each one as we can assume the truma fell into truma and the chulin into chulin, even if there wasn鈥檛 a majority of the chulin in the box before the contents of the box fell in. How can Rabbi Yochanan explain his lenient opinion here if truma is a Torah law? After explaining that Rabbi Yochanan was explaining the braita as corresponding to an opinion he doesn鈥檛 hold by, a further question is raised. If the source follows one who says truma is only rabbinic, why is there no need for a majority, while in a similar case of a mikveh there is a need for a majority? The Gemara brings two answers. In the Mishna it says that an androgynous can get married to a woman but cannot be betrothed by a man. Is the first part of that sentence ab initio or de facto?

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he stated a principle that if a particular type of food is mixed with food of its own type, it cannot be nullified under any circumstances.

讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞 诪讗讬 诇讗 转注诇讛 讗讚转谞讬 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 诇讗 转注诇讛 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖谞讬诪讜讞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞讛 诇讗 转注诇讛

The Gemara asks further: But had the piece of meat not been crushed, what would the halakha be? Presumably, it would not be nullified. If so, there is a difficulty, as instead of teaching a case involving non-sacred meat in the second half of the baraita, as follows: However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering is not nullified; let the tanna distinguish and teach it in the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the piece of meat has been crushed and broken into small parts, but if it has not been crushed, it is not nullified.

讟讛讜专讜转 讘讟讛讜专讜转 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Even so, the tanna prefers to address the case of an intermingling of ritually pure items with other ritually pure items and thereby teach a novel halakha, notwithstanding the fact that he could have made a distinction within the case of a ritually impure piece itself.

讜诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, who establishes the baraita as referring to a piece of meat that has been crushed, what is different in the first clause of the baraita and what is different in the latter clause? Why is nullification possible in the case of impure pieces, but not in the case of pure ones? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The first clause is dealing with a piece of a sin-offering that contracted ritual impurity due to liquids, which is imparted by rabbinic law. Since the sacred food contracted impurity that is only rabbinic in origin, it may be nullified rather than allowed to go to waste. The latter clause, on the other hand, deals with sacred food that became intermingled with ordinary non-sacred food. The sacred food is forbidden to non-priests by Torah law, and therefore it is not nullified.

讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 诪讗讬 诇讗 转注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But had the piece of meat mentioned in the first clause of the baraita contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal, which is imparted by Torah law, what would the halakha be? Presumably, it would not be nullified.

讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诇讗 转注诇讛 谞讬驻诇讜讙 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 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 诇讗 讟讛讜专讛 讘讟讛讜专讜转 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

If so, there is a difficulty, as instead of teaching a case involving non-sacred meat in the latter clause of the baraita, as follows: However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering is not nullified; let the tanna distinguish and teach it in the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the piece of meat contracted ritual impurity due to liquids, but where it contracted ritual impurity through a creeping animal it is not nullified. The Gemara answers: Even so, the tanna prefers to address the novel case of an intermingling of ritually pure items with other ritually pure items.

专讘讛 讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 住讬驻讗 讗讬住讜专 讻专转

Rabba said that an alternative explanation may be suggested for the difference between the two clauses of the baraita: In the first clause of the baraita, which deals with the intermingling of impure sacred meat with pure sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of a standard prohibition, i.e., the prohibition against eating impure sacred meat; therefore, the piece of meat is nullified. In the latter clause of the baraita, which deals with the intermingling of sacred meat and non-sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of a prohibition that bears the punishment of karet, which bars a non-priest from eating pure sacrificial food; therefore, the piece of meat is not nullified.

讜讛讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬住讜专 讻专转 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it Rabba himself who said: With regard to the nullification of any item forbidden by Torah law that became intermingled with a permitted substance, there is no difference between that which is forbidden due to a standard prohibition and that which is forbidden due to a prohibition that entails the punishment of karet. The Gemara concludes: This is difficult for Rabba.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

Rav Ashi said yet another explanation: In the latter clause, where ritually pure sacred meat became intermingled with ritually pure non-sacred meat, the sacred meat does not become nullified because it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. The piece of sacred meat is not absolutely forbidden, as it is permitted for a priest to eat it. And the halakha is that any object whose prohibition is temporary cannot be nullified, no matter how great the amount of permitted substance, even in a mixture of one to one thousand.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讗讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: Now, that teaching ascribed to Rav Ashi is certainly a mistake [beduta], as the application of this principle to the case at hand can easily be shown to be erroneous. With regard to whom is the prohibition temporary? If one would say that it is for a priest, the sacred meat was always permitted to him, even before it became intermingled, as a priest may eat both sacred and non-sacred food, and therefore it was never a forbidden mixture with respect to him. And if one would say that it is for an Israelite, the meat will always be forbidden to him. Rather, that teaching attributed to Rav Ashi is clearly a mistake.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖转讬 住讗讬谉 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞驻诇讜 讗诇讜 讘转讜讱 讗诇讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬诐 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 转专讜诪讛 谞驻诇讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘转讜讱 讞讜诇讬谉 谞驻诇讜

The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: And does Rabbi Yo岣nan maintain that teruma in the present applies by Torah law? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There were two large baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and before them were two one-se鈥檃 vessels, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma. And these, the contents of each of the se鈥檃 vessels, fell into those, each of the baskets. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the produce found in the basket containing the non-sacred produce is permitted, as I say that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.

讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖专讘讜 讞讜诇讬谉 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 专讘讜 讞讜诇讬谉 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

And Reish Lakish said that this is only the case if the non-sacred produce in the basket was greater in quantity than the teruma in the one-se鈥檃 vessel, so that even if the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, it is nullified. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mixture is permitted even if the non-sacred produce was not greater in quantity than the teruma, as one may rely on the assumption that each type of produce fell into its own type.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽住讘专 讘讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 专讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗

Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that teruma nowadays applies by rabbinic law, this is logical, as he maintains that even with regard to teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law, we also require the permitted portion of the mixture to be greater in quantity so that it can nullify the forbidden part. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, it is difficult because if he maintains that even nowadays teruma is mandated by Torah law, how can one disregard the concern and permit the mixture based merely on the assumption that the events occurred in a way that preserves the produce in its permitted state?

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan can say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that teruma nowadays is in effect only by rabbinic law.

讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

But I, Rabbi Yo岣nan, said what I said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a priest who is a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat teruma, and Rabbi Yosei himself maintains that even nowadays the halakha of teruma is in effect by Torah law. Accordingly, I argued that a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat not only teruma, but even the breast and thigh of peace-offerings.

讚转谞讬讗 讘住讚专 注讜诇诐 讗砖专 讬专砖讜 讗讘讜转讬讱 讜讬专砖转讛 讬专讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讬砖 诇讛谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉

As it is taught in a baraita in the anthology called Seder Olam, with regard to a verse that speaks of the Jewish people鈥檚 return to Eretz Yisrael following their exile: 鈥淎nd the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:5). These two expressions of inheritance teach that they had a first inheritance of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua and a second inheritance at the time of the return from the Babylonian exile. That is to say, since the sanctity of the land had lapsed when the First Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people exiled to Babylonia, a second sanctification was necessary when they returned to their land. But they will not have a third inheritance. In other words, it will never be necessary to sanctify the land for a third time, as the second sanctification was permanent.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 住讚专 注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Who is the tanna who taught Seder Olam? It is Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei maintains that the second sanctification of Eretz Yisrael never lapsed even after the destruction of the Second Temple, he also holds that teruma nowadays is in effect by Torah law.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 专讘讜讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 谞转谉 住讗讛 讜谞讟诇 住讗讛 讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 专讜讘讜

The Gemara raises another objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: But does Rabbi Yo岣nan maintain that with regard to a mixture containing an item that is forbidden by rabbinic law, we do not require the permitted portion of the mixture to be greater in quantity so that it can nullify the prohibited part? Didn鈥檛 we learn otherwise in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:2): With regard to a ritual bath that contains exactly forty se鈥檃 of water, the minimal measure of a fit ritual bath, and one added to it a se鈥檃 of liquid other than water, and then removed from it a se鈥檃 of the mixture, the ritual bath remains fit, as the liquid that was added was nullified in the forty se鈥檃 of water, so that when one se鈥檃 of the mixture was removed there still remained the requisite forty se鈥檃 of fit water. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that this halakha applies up to the greater part of the ritual bath.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞砖转讬讬专 专讜讘讜 诇讗 讚诇讗 谞砖拽讜诇 专讜讘讜

The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: What, is it not that its greater part must remain, i.e., that most of the original forty se鈥檃 of water must remain in the ritual bath? In other words, up to nineteen se鈥檃 of other liquids may be added to the ritual bath, with an equal quantity of the mixture then removed from it, and these other liquids are nullified by the ritual bath water. But if twenty se鈥檃 are removed, so that fit water no longer constitutes the majority, the ritual bath is no longer fit for use. Since certain liquids are unfit for a ritual bath only by rabbinic law, this shows that even with respect to rabbinic prohibitions the permitted portion of a mixture must be greater in quantity, so that it can nullify the prohibited part. The Gemara refutes this proof: No, it means that its greater part must not be removed, but if the water and other liquids are present in equal proportion, the ritual bath remains fit.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

And if you wish, say an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: It is different here, with regard to the case of two baskets, one of which contains teruma, since it may be said: As I say that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce, it is therefore assumed that that is what actually took place, and therefore the permitted portion need not be the greater part of the mixture.

转谞谉 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 谞讜砖讗 转谞讬 讗诐 谞砖讗

We learned in the mishna: A hermaphrodite may marry a woman. This formulation indicates that he may do so ab initio, as he is considered a full-fledged male. Accordingly, a hermaphrodite who is a priest should enable his wife to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, as is maintained by Rabbi Yo岣nan, and against the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara rejects this argument and suggests that the text be emended: Teach in the mishna: If he married. That is to say, if he married a woman, the marriage is valid and a bill of divorce is required, as it is possible that he is a male. But even if he married, he does not enable his wife to eat teruma, as he may be a female.

讜讛讗 谞讜砖讗 拽转谞讬 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬砖讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 谞讬砖讗 讚讬注讘讚 谞讜砖讗 谞诪讬 讚讬注讘讚

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach that he may marry a woman, which indicates that he may do so ab initio? The Gemara rejects this argument: And according to your reasoning, what is the meaning of the next clause: But he may not be married to a man? This teaching is certainly referring to a case after the fact, as, if he is a full-fledged male there would be no reason to say that he may not be married to a man ab initio. Rather, what is the meaning of: He may not be married to a man? It means that even after the fact the marriage is not valid. This being the case, when the mishna states that a hermaphrodite may marry a woman, it is also speaking after the fact.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 谞讜砖讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪砖诪注 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬砖讗 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

It may be said in response: No; the words: May marry, indicate that a hermaphrodite may marry a woman ab initio, whereas the words: But he may not be married, mean that his marriage to a man is not valid even after the fact. Accordingly, the difficulty raised against Reish Lakish remains.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges this understanding: But from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Rabbi Eliezer says that if a man had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male, this proves by inference that the first tanna is uncertain as to whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a full-fledged male, and this presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion.

讘讬谉 诇诪专 讘讬谉 诇诪专 诪驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 住拽讬诇讛 诪砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 诪砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讝讻专

The Gemara answers: No, it is obvious both to this Master and to that Master that a hermaphrodite is deemed a full-fledged male. The practical difference between them relates to the question of whether one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning for intercourse with him at only one place or at two places. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning on a hermaphrodite鈥檚 account for intercourse at two places, whether he penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. Since the hermaphrodite is deemed a male, one is liable to be punished with stoning for intercourse at either place. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning for relations with a hermaphrodite only if he penetrated him anally, as if he were a male.

讗诪专 专讘

Rav said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • 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 82: Default to Male

More on whether terumah in this day and age (post-Temple) is d'Orayta or deRabbanan. [What's What: Seder Olam (Rabbah), here,...

Yevamot 82 – Shabbat May 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 82 – Shabbat May 28

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he stated a principle that if a particular type of food is mixed with food of its own type, it cannot be nullified under any circumstances.

讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞 诪讗讬 诇讗 转注诇讛 讗讚转谞讬 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 诇讗 转注诇讛 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖谞讬诪讜讞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬诪讜讞讛 诇讗 转注诇讛

The Gemara asks further: But had the piece of meat not been crushed, what would the halakha be? Presumably, it would not be nullified. If so, there is a difficulty, as instead of teaching a case involving non-sacred meat in the second half of the baraita, as follows: However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering is not nullified; let the tanna distinguish and teach it in the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the piece of meat has been crushed and broken into small parts, but if it has not been crushed, it is not nullified.

讟讛讜专讜转 讘讟讛讜专讜转 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Even so, the tanna prefers to address the case of an intermingling of ritually pure items with other ritually pure items and thereby teach a novel halakha, notwithstanding the fact that he could have made a distinction within the case of a ritually impure piece itself.

讜诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 专讬砖讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, who establishes the baraita as referring to a piece of meat that has been crushed, what is different in the first clause of the baraita and what is different in the latter clause? Why is nullification possible in the case of impure pieces, but not in the case of pure ones? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The first clause is dealing with a piece of a sin-offering that contracted ritual impurity due to liquids, which is imparted by rabbinic law. Since the sacred food contracted impurity that is only rabbinic in origin, it may be nullified rather than allowed to go to waste. The latter clause, on the other hand, deals with sacred food that became intermingled with ordinary non-sacred food. The sacred food is forbidden to non-priests by Torah law, and therefore it is not nullified.

讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 诪讗讬 诇讗 转注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But had the piece of meat mentioned in the first clause of the baraita contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal, which is imparted by Torah law, what would the halakha be? Presumably, it would not be nullified.

讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诇讗 转注诇讛 谞讬驻诇讜讙 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 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 诇讗 讟讛讜专讛 讘讟讛讜专讜转 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

If so, there is a difficulty, as instead of teaching a case involving non-sacred meat in the latter clause of the baraita, as follows: However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering is not nullified; let the tanna distinguish and teach it in the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the piece of meat contracted ritual impurity due to liquids, but where it contracted ritual impurity through a creeping animal it is not nullified. The Gemara answers: Even so, the tanna prefers to address the novel case of an intermingling of ritually pure items with other ritually pure items.

专讘讛 讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 住讬驻讗 讗讬住讜专 讻专转

Rabba said that an alternative explanation may be suggested for the difference between the two clauses of the baraita: In the first clause of the baraita, which deals with the intermingling of impure sacred meat with pure sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of a standard prohibition, i.e., the prohibition against eating impure sacred meat; therefore, the piece of meat is nullified. In the latter clause of the baraita, which deals with the intermingling of sacred meat and non-sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of a prohibition that bears the punishment of karet, which bars a non-priest from eating pure sacrificial food; therefore, the piece of meat is not nullified.

讜讛讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬住讜专 讻专转 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it Rabba himself who said: With regard to the nullification of any item forbidden by Torah law that became intermingled with a permitted substance, there is no difference between that which is forbidden due to a standard prohibition and that which is forbidden due to a prohibition that entails the punishment of karet. The Gemara concludes: This is difficult for Rabba.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 住讬驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

Rav Ashi said yet another explanation: In the latter clause, where ritually pure sacred meat became intermingled with ritually pure non-sacred meat, the sacred meat does not become nullified because it is an object whose prohibition is temporary. The piece of sacred meat is not absolutely forbidden, as it is permitted for a priest to eat it. And the halakha is that any object whose prohibition is temporary cannot be nullified, no matter how great the amount of permitted substance, even in a mixture of one to one thousand.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讗讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: Now, that teaching ascribed to Rav Ashi is certainly a mistake [beduta], as the application of this principle to the case at hand can easily be shown to be erroneous. With regard to whom is the prohibition temporary? If one would say that it is for a priest, the sacred meat was always permitted to him, even before it became intermingled, as a priest may eat both sacred and non-sacred food, and therefore it was never a forbidden mixture with respect to him. And if one would say that it is for an Israelite, the meat will always be forbidden to him. Rather, that teaching attributed to Rav Ashi is clearly a mistake.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖转讬 住讗讬谉 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞驻诇讜 讗诇讜 讘转讜讱 讗诇讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬诐 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 转专讜诪讛 谞驻诇讛 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讘转讜讱 讞讜诇讬谉 谞驻诇讜

The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: And does Rabbi Yo岣nan maintain that teruma in the present applies by Torah law? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There were two large baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and before them were two one-se鈥檃 vessels, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma. And these, the contents of each of the se鈥檃 vessels, fell into those, each of the baskets. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the produce found in the basket containing the non-sacred produce is permitted, as I say that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.

讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖专讘讜 讞讜诇讬谉 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 专讘讜 讞讜诇讬谉 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

And Reish Lakish said that this is only the case if the non-sacred produce in the basket was greater in quantity than the teruma in the one-se鈥檃 vessel, so that even if the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, it is nullified. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mixture is permitted even if the non-sacred produce was not greater in quantity than the teruma, as one may rely on the assumption that each type of produce fell into its own type.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽住讘专 讘讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 专讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗

Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that teruma nowadays applies by rabbinic law, this is logical, as he maintains that even with regard to teruma that is in effect only by rabbinic law, we also require the permitted portion of the mixture to be greater in quantity so that it can nullify the forbidden part. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, it is difficult because if he maintains that even nowadays teruma is mandated by Torah law, how can one disregard the concern and permit the mixture based merely on the assumption that the events occurred in a way that preserves the produce in its permitted state?

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan can say: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that teruma nowadays is in effect only by rabbinic law.

讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

But I, Rabbi Yo岣nan, said what I said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a priest who is a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat teruma, and Rabbi Yosei himself maintains that even nowadays the halakha of teruma is in effect by Torah law. Accordingly, I argued that a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat not only teruma, but even the breast and thigh of peace-offerings.

讚转谞讬讗 讘住讚专 注讜诇诐 讗砖专 讬专砖讜 讗讘讜转讬讱 讜讬专砖转讛 讬专讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讬砖 诇讛谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉

As it is taught in a baraita in the anthology called Seder Olam, with regard to a verse that speaks of the Jewish people鈥檚 return to Eretz Yisrael following their exile: 鈥淎nd the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:5). These two expressions of inheritance teach that they had a first inheritance of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua and a second inheritance at the time of the return from the Babylonian exile. That is to say, since the sanctity of the land had lapsed when the First Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people exiled to Babylonia, a second sanctification was necessary when they returned to their land. But they will not have a third inheritance. In other words, it will never be necessary to sanctify the land for a third time, as the second sanctification was permanent.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 住讚专 注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Who is the tanna who taught Seder Olam? It is Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei maintains that the second sanctification of Eretz Yisrael never lapsed even after the destruction of the Second Temple, he also holds that teruma nowadays is in effect by Torah law.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 专讘讜讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪拽讜讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 谞转谉 住讗讛 讜谞讟诇 住讗讛 讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 专讜讘讜

The Gemara raises another objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: But does Rabbi Yo岣nan maintain that with regard to a mixture containing an item that is forbidden by rabbinic law, we do not require the permitted portion of the mixture to be greater in quantity so that it can nullify the prohibited part? Didn鈥檛 we learn otherwise in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:2): With regard to a ritual bath that contains exactly forty se鈥檃 of water, the minimal measure of a fit ritual bath, and one added to it a se鈥檃 of liquid other than water, and then removed from it a se鈥檃 of the mixture, the ritual bath remains fit, as the liquid that was added was nullified in the forty se鈥檃 of water, so that when one se鈥檃 of the mixture was removed there still remained the requisite forty se鈥檃 of fit water. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that this halakha applies up to the greater part of the ritual bath.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞砖转讬讬专 专讜讘讜 诇讗 讚诇讗 谞砖拽讜诇 专讜讘讜

The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: What, is it not that its greater part must remain, i.e., that most of the original forty se鈥檃 of water must remain in the ritual bath? In other words, up to nineteen se鈥檃 of other liquids may be added to the ritual bath, with an equal quantity of the mixture then removed from it, and these other liquids are nullified by the ritual bath water. But if twenty se鈥檃 are removed, so that fit water no longer constitutes the majority, the ritual bath is no longer fit for use. Since certain liquids are unfit for a ritual bath only by rabbinic law, this shows that even with respect to rabbinic prohibitions the permitted portion of a mixture must be greater in quantity, so that it can nullify the prohibited part. The Gemara refutes this proof: No, it means that its greater part must not be removed, but if the water and other liquids are present in equal proportion, the ritual bath remains fit.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

And if you wish, say an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: It is different here, with regard to the case of two baskets, one of which contains teruma, since it may be said: As I say that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce, it is therefore assumed that that is what actually took place, and therefore the permitted portion need not be the greater part of the mixture.

转谞谉 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 谞讜砖讗 转谞讬 讗诐 谞砖讗

We learned in the mishna: A hermaphrodite may marry a woman. This formulation indicates that he may do so ab initio, as he is considered a full-fledged male. Accordingly, a hermaphrodite who is a priest should enable his wife to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, as is maintained by Rabbi Yo岣nan, and against the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara rejects this argument and suggests that the text be emended: Teach in the mishna: If he married. That is to say, if he married a woman, the marriage is valid and a bill of divorce is required, as it is possible that he is a male. But even if he married, he does not enable his wife to eat teruma, as he may be a female.

讜讛讗 谞讜砖讗 拽转谞讬 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬砖讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 谞讬砖讗 讚讬注讘讚 谞讜砖讗 谞诪讬 讚讬注讘讚

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach that he may marry a woman, which indicates that he may do so ab initio? The Gemara rejects this argument: And according to your reasoning, what is the meaning of the next clause: But he may not be married to a man? This teaching is certainly referring to a case after the fact, as, if he is a full-fledged male there would be no reason to say that he may not be married to a man ab initio. Rather, what is the meaning of: He may not be married to a man? It means that even after the fact the marriage is not valid. This being the case, when the mishna states that a hermaphrodite may marry a woman, it is also speaking after the fact.

讗诪专讬 诇讗 谞讜砖讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪砖诪注 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讬砖讗 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

It may be said in response: No; the words: May marry, indicate that a hermaphrodite may marry a woman ab initio, whereas the words: But he may not be married, mean that his marriage to a man is not valid even after the fact. Accordingly, the difficulty raised against Reish Lakish remains.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges this understanding: But from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Rabbi Eliezer says that if a man had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male, this proves by inference that the first tanna is uncertain as to whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a full-fledged male, and this presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion.

讘讬谉 诇诪专 讘讬谉 诇诪专 诪驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 住拽讬诇讛 诪砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 住拽讬诇讛 诪砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讝讻专

The Gemara answers: No, it is obvious both to this Master and to that Master that a hermaphrodite is deemed a full-fledged male. The practical difference between them relates to the question of whether one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning for intercourse with him at only one place or at two places. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning on a hermaphrodite鈥檚 account for intercourse at two places, whether he penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. Since the hermaphrodite is deemed a male, one is liable to be punished with stoning for intercourse at either place. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning for relations with a hermaphrodite only if he penetrated him anally, as if he were a male.

讗诪专 专讘

Rav said:

Scroll To Top