Reference for Yevamot 161:4

ר' יהודה אומר טומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר לא יחלוץ מפני שהוא כסריס אנדרוגינוס נושא אבל לא נישא ר' אליעזר אומר אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר:

GEMARA. [Is not this]14 obvious!15 — It might have been assumed that only one who is capable of propagation is entitled to bestow the right of eating16 and that he who is not capable of propagating is not entitled to bestow the right of eating; hence we were taught [that even the saris may bestow the right]. R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON STATED … HERMAPHRODITE. Resh Lakish said: He CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH but does not confer upon her the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder.17

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh²²⁸The part of breast and right front thigh from a well-being offering which has to be given to the Cohen and is eaten by him and his family; Lev. 7:34. In the interpretation of the Babli, 81a, “breast and thigh” stands for all gifts to the Cohen which are biblical; “heave” is today’s heave which is only a rabbinical obligation. The following discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that this cannot be the Yerushalmi’s interpretation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh²²⁹In the Babli, 81a, this position is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish, the opposite statement to R. Joḥanan. Since practice in general follows R. Joḥanan, the two Talmudim take opposite positions in practice. According to the Babli, the entire discussion is about the hermaphrodite Cohen, not the one born without testicles. It seems from the second paragraph following that the Yerushalmi also has to be read in this sense.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. ²³⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 17(5). R. Simeon ben Laqish intimates that there may be more (amoraic) arguments in the vein of the tannaitic statement to be quoted.“Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel²³¹It is not clear what the argument is. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Sifra gives two possible explanations. (1) Before the sin of the Golden Calf, first-borns exercised the priestly functions. (2) In the obligatory sacrifices of Passover and animal tithes, the Cohen gets nothing. (In profane slaughter he should get some other parts, Deut. 18:3. During the stay in the desert, profane slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:3–4). Since this shows that there is nothing intrinsic in the nature of a sacrifice which requires a part to be given to the Cohen, the Cohen’s parts are in some sense robbed from the Israel and given to the Cohen.? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse²³²Lev.7:34. says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse