Yevamot 161

לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב המנונא דאמר שומרת יבם שזינתה פסולה ליבמה לא הוא הדין אפילו לאחר נמי ואיידי דתנא רישא בדידיה תנא נמי סיפא בדידיה:

is this, then, an objection to the view of R. Hamnuna who stated that a widow awaiting the decision of her levir who committed adultery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With any man. ');">¹</span> is disqualified [from marrying her] brother-in-law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As any harlot. Consequently she would also be forbidden to marry a priest. But according to the implication of our Mishnah she is not disqualified from marrying a priest! ');">²</span> — No; the same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our Mishnah, that cohabitation with the widow causes her disqualification. ');">³</span> is applicable to [the case of cohabitation with] another man also; Only because the first clause was taught in respect of himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">⁴</span> the latter clause also was taught in respect of himself.

וכן איילונית שחלצו לה אחין כו': טעמא דבעלוה הא לא בעלוה לא כמאן דלא כרבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה האמר איילונית זונה היא:

SIMILARLY, WHERE BROTHERS SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> FROM A WOMAN INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION etc. The reason then [why when THEY COHABITED WITH HER THEY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED] is because they cohabited with her, but had they not cohabited with her they would not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cause her to be disqualified. ');">⁵</span> in accordance with whose view [is this statement made]? — Not in accordance with that of R. Judah; for should it [be suggested that it is in agreement with] R. Judah, he, surely, [it might be objected,] stated that a woman incapable of procreation is regarded as a harlot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 61a. Cf. supra p. 548, n. 8, mutatis mutandis. ');">⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A PRIEST WHO WAS A SARIS BY NATURE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This excludes the man-made saris who stands under the prohibition of Deut. XXIII, 2, and cannot consequently confer upon his wife the right of eating. ');">⁷</span> MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, HE CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT OF EATING <i>TERUMAH</i>. R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON STATED: IF A PRIEST WHO WAS AN HERMAPHRODITE MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, HE CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. R. JUDAH STATED: IF A <i>TUMTUM</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> סריס חמה כהן שנשא בת ישראל מאכילה בתרומה רבי יוסי ור"ש אומרים אנדרוגינוס כהן שנשא בת ישראל מאכילה בתרומה

WAS OPERATED UPON<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was torn asunder'. ');">⁹</span> AND HE WAS FOUND TO BE A MALE, HE MUST NOT PARTICIPATE IN <i>HALIZAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he has a brother who could participate in the ceremony instead of him. ');">¹⁰</span> BECAUSE HE HAS THE SAME STATUS AS A SARIS. THE HERMAPHRODITE MAY MARRY [A WIFE] BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He has the status of a male rather than that of a female, and his cohabitation with a male would be an act of sodomy. ');">¹¹</span> R. ELIEZER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Eleazar' according to [H]. Cf. however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] infra 84a. ');">¹²</span> STATED: [FOR COPULATION] WITH AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the difference between R. Eliezer and R. Judah. v. Gemara infra. ');">¹³</span>

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]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the congenital saris bestows the right of eating terumah upon his wife. ');">¹⁴</span> obvious!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His marriage being lawful; since he is not subject to the prohibition in Deut. XXIII, 2 (cf. supra note 3), he is obviously entitled to bestow the right. ');">¹⁵</span> — It might have been assumed that only one who is capable of propagation is entitled to bestow the right of eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXII, 11. And such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread, emphasis on born in his house. Cf. Rashi, a.l. ');">¹⁶</span> 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&nbsp;… HERMAPHRODITE. Resh Lakish said: He CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT OF EATING <i>TERUMAH</i> but does not confer upon her the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest's due from certain sacrifices. Cf. Lev. VII, 34. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא מהו דתימא מוליד מאכיל שאינו מוליד אינו מאכיל קמ"ל:

R. Johanan, however, said: He also confers upon her the right to eat of the breast and shoulder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest's due from certain sacrifices. Cf. Lev. VII, 34. ');">¹⁷</span> According to Resh Lakish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forbids the breast and the shoulder to the wife of the hermaphrodite. ');">¹⁸</span> why is the breast and the shoulder different?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From terumah which may be eaten by her. ');">¹⁹</span> [Obviously] because [it was] Pentateuchally [ordained].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 1. ');">²⁰</span> [Was not] <i>terumah</i>, [however]. also Pentateuchally [ordained]? — We are dealing here with <i>terumah</i> at the present time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple. ');">²¹</span>

רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים אנדרוגינוס: אמר ר"ל מאכילה בתרומה ואין מאכילה בחזה ושוק רבי יוחנן אומר אף מאכילה בחזה ושוק ולריש לקיש מאי שנא חזה ושוק דאורייתא תרומה נמי דאורייתא

which [is only a] Rabbinical [ordinance].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchally it is only due while the Temple is in existence. ');">²²</span> What is the law, however, when the Sanctuary is in existence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 6. ');">²³</span> [Obviously that <i>terumah</i> may] not [be eaten]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the wife of an hermaphrodite. ');">²⁴</span> Why, then, did he state, 'But does not confer the right of eating the breast and the shoulder'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Drawing a distinction between terumah and other priestly gifts. ');">²⁵</span> He should rather have drawn the distinction in respect of the <i>terumah</i> itself, thus: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the hermaphrodite confers upon his wife the right of eating. ');">²⁶</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בתרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן אבל בזמן שבהמ"ק קיים מאי לא אדתני אין מאכילה בחזה ושוק ליפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בתרומה דרבנן אבל בתרומה דאורייתא לא

applies only to Rabbinical <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple. ');">²⁷</span> but not to <i>terumah</i> that has been Pentateuchally ordained!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 6. ');">²⁸</span> — It is this, in fact, that he meant: When he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hermaphrodite. ');">²⁹</span> confers upon her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife. ');">³⁰</span> the right of eating, he enables her to eat <i>terumah</i> at the present time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple. ');">²⁷</span>

הכי נמי קאמר כשהוא מאכילה מאכילה בתרומה בזה"ז דרבנן ואין מאכילה בזמן חזה ושוק ואפילו בתרומה דרבנן דלמא אתי לאוכלה בתרומה דאורייתא

only when it is a Rabbinical ordinance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchally it is only due while the Temple is in existence. ');">³¹</span> he is not entitled, however, to confer upon her the right of eating <i>terumah</i> at the time when the law of the breast and the shoulder is in force,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Temple is in existence. ');">³²</span> even if the <i>terumah</i> is only Rabbinical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as that given from the fruit of the trees, which is at all times a Rabbinical ordinance only. ');">³³</span> for she might in consequence also come to eat of Pentateuchal <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which is given from corn, wine and oil. ');">³⁴</span> 'R. Johanan, however, said: He also confers upon her the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder'. Said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: Do you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you restrict the right of consumption to terumah and exclude that of the breast and the shoulder. ');">³⁵</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר אף מאכילה בחזה ושוק א"ל ר' יוחנן לר"ל מי סברת תרומה בזה"ז דרבנן א"ל אין שאני שונה עיגול בעגולים עולה

maintain that <i>terumah</i> at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance? — 'Yes', the other replied, 'for I read:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a Baraitha. Cf. the Mishnah cited infra and note 11. ');">³⁶</span> A cake of figs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A number of figs pressed together. ');">³⁷</span> among cakes of figs is neutralised'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If such a cake of terumah was mixed up with a hundred non-consecrated cakes of the same size, or if a cake of terumah that was levitically unclean was mixed up with a hundred such cakes of clean terumah, the entire quantity is permitted. in the latter case, to clean priests and, in the former case, to Israelites also. This proves that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance, since such neutralization, had the ordinance been Pentateuchal, would not, owing to its comparative importance (its high commercial value, v. infra), have been permitted. Though the terumah of figs, like that of all other fruit of trees, is at all times a Rabbinical ordinance only, its neutralization would not have been permitted at the present time had there been any Pentateuchal terumah in existence at the same time. The neutralization of the former would have been forbidden as a preventive measure against the possible assumption that the 'latter also might be neutralized. ');">³⁸</span> 'But I', said the first, 'read, "A piece<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of an unclean sin-offering which is Pentateuchally forbidden. V. the Baraitha infra 81b. ');">³⁹</span> among pieces<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of clean meat. ');">⁴⁰</span>

אמר ליה והלא אני שונה חתיכה בחתיכות עולה מי סברת כל שדרכו לימנות שנינו את שדרכו לימנות שנינו

is neutralized";<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is permitted to be eaten. As a piece of meat which is Pentateuchally forbidden (v. supra n. 5) may be neutralized, even though its importance, owing to its commercial value, may be as high as that of a cake of figs, so may any food be neutralized even though its prohibition is Pentateuchal. ');">⁴¹</span> you obviously believe that the reading<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. the Mishnah cited infra. ');">⁴²</span> is, "Whatsoever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any objects which any person whatsoever sells by counting the units. V. infra n. 11. ');">⁴³</span> one is wont to count",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cannot be neutralized. ');">⁴⁴</span> the reading in fact is, "That which one is wont to count"'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Whatsoever' is more comprehensive than 'that'. According to the former reading, neutralization is not permitted in the case of any objects which are regarded as of sufficiently high commercial value to be sold not in bulk but in units. According to the latter reading, neutralization is permitted in all cases except those where the units are of such a high value that they are not sold save by counting single units. Now, since cakes of figs are not invariably sold in units they may of course be neutralized even though they consist of Pentateuchal terumah (cf. supra n. 7). Resh Lakish, therefore, remains with no proof whatsoever that terumah at the present time is a mere Rabbinical ordinance. [This interpretation which follows Rashi does not account for the phrase 'one is wont etc', mentioned also with the latter reading. Me'iri explains the former as including whatever is being sold as a rule by counting among the poor, whereas the latter requires the sale by counting to be the general practice among the rich as well as the poor. On either reading it is the general practice rather than the invariable rule which is the determining factor]. ');">⁴⁵</span>

מאי היא דתנן מי שהיו לו חבילי תלתן של כלאי הכרם ידלקו נתערבו באחרות

What [Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to by R. Johanan (cf. p. 551. n. 8). ');">⁴⁶</span> is] it? — That wherein we learned: If a man had bundles of fenugrec of kil'ayim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴⁷</span> of the vineyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXII, 9. ');">⁴⁸</span> they must be burned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced from the expression [H], (ibid. R.V., forfeited; R.V. marg., consecrated), read as [H], 'shall be burned with fire'. ');">⁴⁹</span> If these were mixed up with others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitted bundles of fenugrec. ');">⁵⁰</span>