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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 29, 2022 | 讻状讞 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 83

Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of the city of Jerusalem for Yom Yerushalayim. Celebrating 55 years since its unification.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rebecca Darshan in loving memory of her mother, Helene Isaacs, Chana bat Avraham David and Esther Rachel on her 22nd yahrzeit. 鈥淪he was immersed in Torah learning and encouraged others to learn and teach. She lived life to its fullest, and the last 10 years of her life were in Jerusalem!鈥澛

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava. 鈥淲ith gratitude to Hkbhu on the birth of a new grandson, Kol Lev Moshe, and for the Hanachat tefillin of his cousin, David Yakir. Also, in honor of Rabbanit Michelle, who day in, day out, gets up early to teach us the daf. May you have continued strength!鈥澛

In the Mishna, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon ruled that a kohen who was an androgynous could feed his wife truma. This opinion treats an androgynous like a male. However in a braita, Rabbi Yosi says that an androgynous is a unique category and the rabbis didn’t know if to treat it like a male or female. Rav holds that the braita reflects a later position of Rabbi Yosi’s after he changed his mind. Shmuel holds that the correct version is the Mishna. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that we hold like Rabbi Yosi regarding the androgynous and grafting before the shmita year. Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yosi regarding how much time before labor can one attribute blood that comes with labor pains as relating to labor and not to zava blood. He also holds like him regarding laws of mixed breeds (kilaim) in a field – if one mixed his vine with another’s crop, he cannot forbid someone else’s crops and therefore his part is considered kilaim but the friend’s is not. The Gemara asks what did Shmuel hold regarding the issues in which Rav held like Rabbi Yosi. And what did Rav hold in the issues that Shmuel held like Rabbi Yosi. Some can be answered by another statement of theirs and some are unable to be answered. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a tumtum is a saris. If so, what would he have to say about the tumtum that was opened up and found to be a man and gave birth to seven children? He claims the mother must have borne children from another man. Rabbi Yiso son of Rabbi Yehuda had a slightly different version of the law regarding a tumtum. What is the difference between them? In what case is the androgynous liable to stoning when engaging in relations with another man? The Gemara brings different opinions on the matter. What is the source for each opinion? Even though in our Mishna, Rabbi Eliezer treats an androgynous as a male, when it comes to animals for sacrifices, it is not considered male or female and therefore can’t be used for a sacrifice. With birds, it can be, as male or female is not specified by bird sacrifices. The rabbis disagree with him regarding the birds and disqualify the androgynous as well.

诇讬转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讻专讬注讜 讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The mishna here, which states that according to Rabbi Yosei a priest who is a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat teruma, is not to be relied upon in the presence of a baraita that teaches otherwise. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: A hermaphrodite is a creature unto himself, and the Sages did not determine whether he is a male or a female. He is consequently prohibited from marrying a woman, and if he does so he does not enable her to eat teruma.

讗讚专讘讛 诇讬转讗 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讚砖讘拽讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讘专 讝讜讙讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, say that the baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna here, as baraitot are generally considered less authoritative than mishnayot. The Gemara answers: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei left his colleague, Rabbi Shimon, as the mishna鈥檚 ruling is attributed to both Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon whereas the teaching of the baraita is reported only in the name of Rabbi Yosei, learn from this that Rabbi Yosei retracted his original opinion that he had maintained together with Rabbi Shimon and reached a different conclusion.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬转讗 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讚专讘讛 诇讬转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 诇讗 诪转注拽专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讻讬 诪转注拽专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖

And Shmuel said the reverse: The baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna here. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, say that the mishna here is not to be relied upon in the presence of the baraita, as we have heard that Shmuel takes into consideration even an individual dissenting opinion appearing in a baraita. The Gemara answers: This applies only when the mishna itself is not thereby uprooted, as the baraita merely adds to it. But when the mishna is uprooted by a contrary statement taught in a baraita, he does not take it into consideration.

讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讘讛专讻讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘拽讜砖讬 讜讘拽讬讚讜砖

The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, both with regard to the halakha of a hermaphrodite and with regard to the halakha of grafting. And Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to the laws of protracted labor and forfeiture.

讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛专讻讘讛 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讟注讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讘专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪专讻讬讘讬谉 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讗诐 谞讟注 讜讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讬注拽讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 拽讜诇讟转 讘砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讛 拽讜诇讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转

The Gemara clarifies: The halakha of a hermaphrodite is that which we just said, that he is considered a creature unto himself (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). The halakha of grafting is as we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 2:6): One may not plant, or sink the shoot of a vine into the ground, or graft a shoot onto a tree on the eve of the Sabbatical Year less than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, lest it take root in the seventh year. And if he planted or sank or grafted, he must uproot it. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any graft that does not take root in three days will never take root, and therefore it is prohibited to plant only for three days before the start of the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say that it takes two weeks for a plant to take root.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 爪专讬讱 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 讜砖诇砖讬诐

And Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: According to the first tanna, who says thirty days, he means that thirty days are required for the tree to take root and another thirty days are required for the addition to the Sabbatical Year, as the prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year apply already during the last thirty days of the sixth year. It is consequently prohibited to plant sixty days before Rosh HaShana. And similarly, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says three days, he means that three days are required for the tree to take root and another thirty days are required for the addition to the Sabbatical Year. And so too, according to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, who say two weeks, they mean that two weeks are required for the tree to take root and another thirty days are required for the addition to the Sabbatical Year. Rav rules on this matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘拽讜砖讬 讜拽讬讚讜砖 拽讜砖讬 讚转谞谉

And Shmuel said that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to protracted labor and proscription as well. The Gemara explains: What is the case of protracted labor? As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 36b): Ordinarily a woman who experiences a flow of blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she does not expect to experience menstrual bleeding is rendered ritually impure as a zava. However, if she experiences such bleeding while she is in protracted labor, the bleeding is attributed to her labor, and she is governed by the halakhot of a woman after childbirth.

讻诪讛 讬讛讗 拽讬砖讜讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讬讛 讞讚砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽讬砖讜讬 讬讜转专 诪砖转讬 砖讘转讜转

The tanna鈥檌m disagree about the question: How long is a woman鈥檚 period of protracted labor? For what period of time prior to her giving birth is the bleeding attributed to her labor? Rabbi Meir says: It is up to forty or fifty days before she delivers. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her month suffices for her, i.e., it is from the beginning of the month in which she gives birth. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Protracted labor does not last for more than two weeks. Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in this case.

拽讬讚讜砖 讚转谞谉 讛诪住讻讱 讙驻谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 转讘讜讗转讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐

What is this halakha of proscription? As we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 7:4): If one causes his grapevine to overshadow the grain of another, he has proscribed it, rendering it forbidden as a food crop in a vineyard, and he bears financial responsibility for it, i.e., he must compensate the other individual for the loss of the produce that has been rendered forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜

A person cannot render forbidden an item that is not his. Since the grain does not belong to him, he cannot render it forbidden. According to Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 注谞谉 诇讬转讗 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: As for a hermaphrodite, what did Shmuel say? It was stated in the name of Rav that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to a hermaphrodite, but no ruling was attributed to Shmuel concerning this case. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan: The baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna. This indicates that Shmuel rejects Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as stated in the baraita that a hermaphrodite is considered a creature unto himself.

讛专讻讘讛 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 注谞谉 转谞讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

The Gemara asks further: Concerning grafting, what did Shmuel say? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan that he should teach in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that it is prohibited to plant for thirty-three days before Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Evidently, he ruled on this matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not that of Rabbi Yosei.

拽讜砖讬 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 转讬拽讜

The Gemara continues to ask along these lines: With regard to the case of protracted labor, what did Rav say? Does he accept Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion, as does Shmuel? No resolution was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes that this dilemma shall stand unresolved.

拽讬讚讜砖 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚住诪讻转 讗讛讗 住诪讜讱 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪谞讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛

The Gemara further inquires: With regard to proscription, what did Rav say? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear, as Rav Huna said that Rav said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Abaye said to him: What did you see that led you to rely on that source? Rely on this source; as Rav Adda said that Rav said that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. There is, then, a tradition that Rav accepted Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 view. The Gemara responds: When it is stated that the Sages of the school of Rav said a teaching, to whom is it referring? The reference is to Rav Huna. And it was Rav Huna who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It may be presumed, then, that Rav Adda鈥檚 version of Rav鈥檚 ruling is in error, as preference is given to the report of Rav鈥檚 preeminent disciple, Rav Huna.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟讜诪讟讜诐 讚讘讬专讬 讚讗讜转讘讜讛 讗讘讬 讻讜专住讬讛 讜讗讬拽专注 讜讗讜诇讬讚 砖讘注 讘谞讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讞讝专 注诇 讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬谉 讛诐

搂 It is taught in the mishna that 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. Rabbi Ami said: What would Rabbi Yehuda do with the tumtum living in the town of Biri, who was placed in a seat for an operation, and the tissue covering his genitals was torn open and he later fathered seven children? Evidently, a tumtum who was torn open is not necessarily sexually impotent. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: Go and inquire about his children and find out from where they came. He did not believe that they were fathered by this man but rather by someone else.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜抓 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪拽专注 讝讻专 讛讜讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 谞拽讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum must not perform 岣litza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a eunuch by natural causes. The Gemara asks: Why did he formulate his teaching in this manner? Is that to say that every tumtum who is torn open is a male? It is certainly possible for a tumtum to be found to be a female. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: A tumtum must not perform 岣litza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a female, who certainly cannot perform 岣litza, and even if he is found to be a male, perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch by natural causes.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇驻住讜诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讬谉 讜诇讞诇讜抓 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei? Rava said: There is a practical difference between them as to whether the 岣litza performed by a tumtum disqualifies the brothers in a case where there are other brothers in addition to the tumtum. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a tumtum is regarded as definitely sexually impotent, and therefore his 岣litza is of no consequence. Therefore, if the tumtum went ahead and performed 岣litza, he has not disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. According to Rabbi Yosei, however, he is only doubtfully sexually impotent, and therefore he has disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. And there is also a difference between them as to whether the tumtum must perform 岣litza where there are no other brothers besides him. According to Rabbi Yehuda he need not do so, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei he must perform 岣litza owing to his uncertain status.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 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 诪砖转讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 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 讻讘讝讻专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘谞拽讘讜转 砖诇讜 驻讟讜专

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Abba, brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi, said that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account for intercourse at two places, whether one penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. The Gemara raises an objection against this from the following teaching. Rabbi Eliezer said: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male. In what case is this statement said? It is if he had relations with him through his male organ, i.e., in the manner of homosexual intercourse, but if he engaged in intercourse with him through his female organ, he is exempt.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 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 诪砖转讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 讜讗转 讝讻专 诇讗 转砖讻讘 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讗讬 讝讛讜 讝讻专 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖谞讬 诪砖讻讘讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The Gemara answers that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the following baraita: Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account for intercourse at two places. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Simai? Rava said: The Sage bar Hamedurei explained the matter to me, based on an allusion to this halakha found in the Bible. The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not lie with a male as with a woman [mishkevei isha]鈥 (Leviticus 18:22). The phrase mishkevei isha, referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. Now, what male has two manners of lying? You must say that this is referring to a hermaphrodite, and the plural form mishkevei, meaning: Lyings, indicates that there is liability for both manners of intercourse with him.

讜专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖谞讬 诪砖讻讘讜转 讗转 讝讻专 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Simai counter this argument? The Gemara explains: Although he has two manners of lying, it is nevertheless written: 鈥淲ith a male,鈥 indicating that one is liable to be stoned on a hermaphrodite鈥檚 account only if he had relations with him in the manner of a male.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讻专 讙专讬讚讗 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讗砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讜讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who explain this entire verse as referring to a hermaphrodite, from where do they derive that a man is prohibited from engaging in relations with an ordinary male? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the words 鈥渁 woman.鈥 The Gemara asks further: And from where do the Rabbis derive that one is liable to be punished for engaging in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him even if he engaged in relations in an unnatural manner, i.e., anal intercourse? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the inclusive 鈥渁nd鈥 in 鈥渁nd鈥ith a woman.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 砖讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讝讻专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讬拽讚砖

Rav Shezvi said that Rav 岣sda said: Not in all regards did Rabbi Eliezer say that a hermaphrodite is a proper male. As, if you say so, that a hermaphrodite is a proper male in every aspect, then with regard to consecrated animals an animal that is a hermaphrodite should become sacred if one consecrated it.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 拽讚砖 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

And from where do we derive that it does not become sacred? As the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a bird used for sexual relations with a human being, and one set aside for idolatrous purposes, and one that itself was worshipped as an idol, and one given as payment to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and one that was the price of a dog received in exchange for the sale of a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and similarly, a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, if one killed any of these birds by pinching their necks in the manner of an offering rather than by ritual slaughter, the birds render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure, when the birds are eaten and come into contact with his throat. The reason is that pinching is valid only for sacrificial birds; any other bird that is killed by pinching is deemed an unslaughtered carcass. Since none of these birds are fit to be sacrificed, pinching their necks renders them unslaughtered carcasses, and the unslaughtered carcass of a clean bird imparts ritual impurity when it is eaten and reaches the individual鈥檚 throat.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐

Rabbi Eliezer says: If one pinched the neck of a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, it does not render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure when it is eaten and comes into contact with his throat, as the sanctity of an offering does in fact apply to it. As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is explicitly stated in the Torah 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale,鈥 you are to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as their gender status is in doubt. This is true of animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses the terms male and female. In the case of a bird-offering, however, since male and female are not stated with regard to it, but instead the Torah simply mentions turtledoves and young pigeons, you are not to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as they are fit for the altar. It is evident then that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a hermaphrodite is not considered a proper male with respect to offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We too learned this explicitly in a baraita that states: Rabbi Eliezer says:

  • 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 83: The Questionable Father of 7

More from Rabbi Yosei. [Who's Who: R. Yosei Ben Halafta] On prolonged labor, and how it relates to grafting, from...

Yevamot 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 83

诇讬转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讻专讬注讜 讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The mishna here, which states that according to Rabbi Yosei a priest who is a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat teruma, is not to be relied upon in the presence of a baraita that teaches otherwise. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: A hermaphrodite is a creature unto himself, and the Sages did not determine whether he is a male or a female. He is consequently prohibited from marrying a woman, and if he does so he does not enable her to eat teruma.

讗讚专讘讛 诇讬转讗 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讚砖讘拽讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讘专 讝讜讙讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, say that the baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna here, as baraitot are generally considered less authoritative than mishnayot. The Gemara answers: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei left his colleague, Rabbi Shimon, as the mishna鈥檚 ruling is attributed to both Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon whereas the teaching of the baraita is reported only in the name of Rabbi Yosei, learn from this that Rabbi Yosei retracted his original opinion that he had maintained together with Rabbi Shimon and reached a different conclusion.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬转讗 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讚专讘讛 诇讬转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 诇讗 诪转注拽专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讻讬 诪转注拽专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖

And Shmuel said the reverse: The baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna here. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, say that the mishna here is not to be relied upon in the presence of the baraita, as we have heard that Shmuel takes into consideration even an individual dissenting opinion appearing in a baraita. The Gemara answers: This applies only when the mishna itself is not thereby uprooted, as the baraita merely adds to it. But when the mishna is uprooted by a contrary statement taught in a baraita, he does not take it into consideration.

讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讘讛专讻讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘拽讜砖讬 讜讘拽讬讚讜砖

The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, both with regard to the halakha of a hermaphrodite and with regard to the halakha of grafting. And Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to the laws of protracted labor and forfeiture.

讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛专讻讘讛 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讟注讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讘专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪专讻讬讘讬谉 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讗诐 谞讟注 讜讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讬注拽讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 拽讜诇讟转 讘砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讛 拽讜诇讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转

The Gemara clarifies: The halakha of a hermaphrodite is that which we just said, that he is considered a creature unto himself (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). The halakha of grafting is as we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 2:6): One may not plant, or sink the shoot of a vine into the ground, or graft a shoot onto a tree on the eve of the Sabbatical Year less than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, lest it take root in the seventh year. And if he planted or sank or grafted, he must uproot it. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any graft that does not take root in three days will never take root, and therefore it is prohibited to plant only for three days before the start of the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say that it takes two weeks for a plant to take root.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 爪专讬讱 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 讜砖诇砖讬诐

And Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: According to the first tanna, who says thirty days, he means that thirty days are required for the tree to take root and another thirty days are required for the addition to the Sabbatical Year, as the prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year apply already during the last thirty days of the sixth year. It is consequently prohibited to plant sixty days before Rosh HaShana. And similarly, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says three days, he means that three days are required for the tree to take root and another thirty days are required for the addition to the Sabbatical Year. And so too, according to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, who say two weeks, they mean that two weeks are required for the tree to take root and another thirty days are required for the addition to the Sabbatical Year. Rav rules on this matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘拽讜砖讬 讜拽讬讚讜砖 拽讜砖讬 讚转谞谉

And Shmuel said that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to protracted labor and proscription as well. The Gemara explains: What is the case of protracted labor? As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 36b): Ordinarily a woman who experiences a flow of blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she does not expect to experience menstrual bleeding is rendered ritually impure as a zava. However, if she experiences such bleeding while she is in protracted labor, the bleeding is attributed to her labor, and she is governed by the halakhot of a woman after childbirth.

讻诪讛 讬讛讗 拽讬砖讜讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讬讛 讞讚砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽讬砖讜讬 讬讜转专 诪砖转讬 砖讘转讜转

The tanna鈥檌m disagree about the question: How long is a woman鈥檚 period of protracted labor? For what period of time prior to her giving birth is the bleeding attributed to her labor? Rabbi Meir says: It is up to forty or fifty days before she delivers. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her month suffices for her, i.e., it is from the beginning of the month in which she gives birth. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Protracted labor does not last for more than two weeks. Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in this case.

拽讬讚讜砖 讚转谞谉 讛诪住讻讱 讙驻谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 转讘讜讗转讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐

What is this halakha of proscription? As we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 7:4): If one causes his grapevine to overshadow the grain of another, he has proscribed it, rendering it forbidden as a food crop in a vineyard, and he bears financial responsibility for it, i.e., he must compensate the other individual for the loss of the produce that has been rendered forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜

A person cannot render forbidden an item that is not his. Since the grain does not belong to him, he cannot render it forbidden. According to Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 注谞谉 诇讬转讗 诇讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: As for a hermaphrodite, what did Shmuel say? It was stated in the name of Rav that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to a hermaphrodite, but no ruling was attributed to Shmuel concerning this case. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan: The baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna. This indicates that Shmuel rejects Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as stated in the baraita that a hermaphrodite is considered a creature unto himself.

讛专讻讘讛 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 注谞谉 转谞讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

The Gemara asks further: Concerning grafting, what did Shmuel say? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan that he should teach in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that it is prohibited to plant for thirty-three days before Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Evidently, he ruled on this matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not that of Rabbi Yosei.

拽讜砖讬 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 转讬拽讜

The Gemara continues to ask along these lines: With regard to the case of protracted labor, what did Rav say? Does he accept Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion, as does Shmuel? No resolution was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes that this dilemma shall stand unresolved.

拽讬讚讜砖 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚住诪讻转 讗讛讗 住诪讜讱 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪谞讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛

The Gemara further inquires: With regard to proscription, what did Rav say? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear, as Rav Huna said that Rav said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Abaye said to him: What did you see that led you to rely on that source? Rely on this source; as Rav Adda said that Rav said that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. There is, then, a tradition that Rav accepted Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 view. The Gemara responds: When it is stated that the Sages of the school of Rav said a teaching, to whom is it referring? The reference is to Rav Huna. And it was Rav Huna who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It may be presumed, then, that Rav Adda鈥檚 version of Rav鈥檚 ruling is in error, as preference is given to the report of Rav鈥檚 preeminent disciple, Rav Huna.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟讜诪讟讜诐 讚讘讬专讬 讚讗讜转讘讜讛 讗讘讬 讻讜专住讬讛 讜讗讬拽专注 讜讗讜诇讬讚 砖讘注 讘谞讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讞讝专 注诇 讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬谉 讛诐

搂 It is taught in the mishna that 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. Rabbi Ami said: What would Rabbi Yehuda do with the tumtum living in the town of Biri, who was placed in a seat for an operation, and the tissue covering his genitals was torn open and he later fathered seven children? Evidently, a tumtum who was torn open is not necessarily sexually impotent. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: Go and inquire about his children and find out from where they came. He did not believe that they were fathered by this man but rather by someone else.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜抓 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪拽专注 讝讻专 讛讜讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 谞拽讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum must not perform 岣litza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a eunuch by natural causes. The Gemara asks: Why did he formulate his teaching in this manner? Is that to say that every tumtum who is torn open is a male? It is certainly possible for a tumtum to be found to be a female. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: A tumtum must not perform 岣litza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a female, who certainly cannot perform 岣litza, and even if he is found to be a male, perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch by natural causes.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇驻住讜诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讬谉 讜诇讞诇讜抓 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei? Rava said: There is a practical difference between them as to whether the 岣litza performed by a tumtum disqualifies the brothers in a case where there are other brothers in addition to the tumtum. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a tumtum is regarded as definitely sexually impotent, and therefore his 岣litza is of no consequence. Therefore, if the tumtum went ahead and performed 岣litza, he has not disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. According to Rabbi Yosei, however, he is only doubtfully sexually impotent, and therefore he has disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. And there is also a difference between them as to whether the tumtum must perform 岣litza where there are no other brothers besides him. According to Rabbi Yehuda he need not do so, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei he must perform 岣litza owing to his uncertain status.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 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 诪砖转讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 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 讻讘讝讻专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘谞拽讘讜转 砖诇讜 驻讟讜专

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Abba, brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi, said that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account for intercourse at two places, whether one penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. The Gemara raises an objection against this from the following teaching. Rabbi Eliezer said: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male. In what case is this statement said? It is if he had relations with him through his male organ, i.e., in the manner of homosexual intercourse, but if he engaged in intercourse with him through his female organ, he is exempt.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 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 诪砖转讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 讜讗转 讝讻专 诇讗 转砖讻讘 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讗讬 讝讛讜 讝讻专 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖谞讬 诪砖讻讘讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The Gemara answers that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the following baraita: Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account for intercourse at two places. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Simai? Rava said: The Sage bar Hamedurei explained the matter to me, based on an allusion to this halakha found in the Bible. The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not lie with a male as with a woman [mishkevei isha]鈥 (Leviticus 18:22). The phrase mishkevei isha, referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. Now, what male has two manners of lying? You must say that this is referring to a hermaphrodite, and the plural form mishkevei, meaning: Lyings, indicates that there is liability for both manners of intercourse with him.

讜专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖谞讬 诪砖讻讘讜转 讗转 讝讻专 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Simai counter this argument? The Gemara explains: Although he has two manners of lying, it is nevertheless written: 鈥淲ith a male,鈥 indicating that one is liable to be stoned on a hermaphrodite鈥檚 account only if he had relations with him in the manner of a male.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讻专 讙专讬讚讗 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讗砖讛 讘讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 诪讜讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who explain this entire verse as referring to a hermaphrodite, from where do they derive that a man is prohibited from engaging in relations with an ordinary male? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the words 鈥渁 woman.鈥 The Gemara asks further: And from where do the Rabbis derive that one is liable to be punished for engaging in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him even if he engaged in relations in an unnatural manner, i.e., anal intercourse? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the inclusive 鈥渁nd鈥 in 鈥渁nd鈥ith a woman.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 砖讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讝讻专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讬拽讚砖

Rav Shezvi said that Rav 岣sda said: Not in all regards did Rabbi Eliezer say that a hermaphrodite is a proper male. As, if you say so, that a hermaphrodite is a proper male in every aspect, then with regard to consecrated animals an animal that is a hermaphrodite should become sacred if one consecrated it.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 拽讚砖 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

And from where do we derive that it does not become sacred? As the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a bird used for sexual relations with a human being, and one set aside for idolatrous purposes, and one that itself was worshipped as an idol, and one given as payment to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and one that was the price of a dog received in exchange for the sale of a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and similarly, a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, if one killed any of these birds by pinching their necks in the manner of an offering rather than by ritual slaughter, the birds render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure, when the birds are eaten and come into contact with his throat. The reason is that pinching is valid only for sacrificial birds; any other bird that is killed by pinching is deemed an unslaughtered carcass. Since none of these birds are fit to be sacrificed, pinching their necks renders them unslaughtered carcasses, and the unslaughtered carcass of a clean bird imparts ritual impurity when it is eaten and reaches the individual鈥檚 throat.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐

Rabbi Eliezer says: If one pinched the neck of a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, it does not render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure when it is eaten and comes into contact with his throat, as the sanctity of an offering does in fact apply to it. As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is explicitly stated in the Torah 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale,鈥 you are to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as their gender status is in doubt. This is true of animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses the terms male and female. In the case of a bird-offering, however, since male and female are not stated with regard to it, but instead the Torah simply mentions turtledoves and young pigeons, you are not to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as they are fit for the altar. It is evident then that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a hermaphrodite is not considered a proper male with respect to offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We too learned this explicitly in a baraita that states: Rabbi Eliezer says:

Scroll To Top