Related%20passage for Yevamot 164:12

אמר רב

— And even in accordance with your view what is the meaning of BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed? ');">²³</span> Consequently it must be granted that as MAY&nbsp;… BE MARRIED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed? ');">²³</span> implies an act that had already been performed, so also MAY MARRY implies an act that had already been performed. It may still be urged: No;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two expressions are not identical. ');">²⁴</span> MAY MARRY implies that the act is permissible; but MAY NOT BE MARRIED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed? ');">²³</span> implies, not even if the act had already been performed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty against the view of Resh Lakish consequently remains, while the opinion of R. Johanan receives confirmation. ');">²⁵</span> But surely since it was taught in the final clause, R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE, it is to be inferred that the first Tanna was doubtful on the point!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the hermaphrodite is to be regarded as a male. This, then, presents an objection against the view of R. Johanan. ');">²⁶</span> — The law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the hermaphrodite is regarded as a male. ');">²⁷</span> was clear to the one Master as well as to the other Master; the only difference between them was the question of stoning for copulation through either of his two organs. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">²⁸</span> was of the opinion that the penalty of stoning is incurred by copulation through either of the two organs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it was effected through his female organ. ');">²⁹</span> while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer. ');">³⁰</span> was of the opinion [that it is incurred through the male organ only] AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. Rab said:

Explore related%20passage for Yevamot 164:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.