Yevamot 165

Chapter 165

א ליתא למתניתין מקמי ברייתא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר אנדרוגינוס בריה בפני עצמה הוא ולא הכריעו בו חכמים אם זכר אם נקבה
1 Our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which attributes to R. Jose the opinion that the hermaphrodite bestows upon his wife the right of eating terumah. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> cannot be maintained in the presence of the following Baraitha. For it was taught: R. Jose stated, 'The hermaphrodite is a creature sui generis, and the Sages did not determine whether he is a male or a female'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Bik. II. Since his sex is a matter of doubt he cannot obviously bestow the right (v. p. 558, n. 12) upon his wife. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> On the contrary; the Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Bik. II. Since his sex is a matter of doubt he cannot obviously bestow the right (v. p. 558, n. 12) upon his wife. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אדרבה ליתא לברייתא מקמי מתניתין מדשבקיה רבי יוסי לבר זוגיה ש"מ הדר ביה
2 cannot be maintained in the face of our Mishnah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 558. n. 12. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> — As R. Jose left his colleague<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his statement in the Baraitha where he alone appears as the author. In the Mishnah both R. Jose and R. Simeon appear as the authors. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> it may be inferred that he changed his opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he first expressed in our Mishnah. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג ושמואל אמר ליתא לברייתא מקמי מתניתין אדרבה ליתא למתניתין מקמי ברייתא דהא שמעינן ליה לשמואל דחייש ליחידאה הני מילי כי לא מתעקרא מתניתין אבל כי מתעקרא מתניתין לא חייש
3 Samuel, however, said: The Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Bik. II. Since his sex is a matter of doubt he cannot obviously bestow the right (v. p. 558, n. 12) upon his wife. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> cannot be maintained in the face of our Mishnah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 558. n. 12. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> On the contrary; our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 558. n. 12. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אמרי בי רב משמיה דרב הלכה כרבי יוסי באנדרוגינוס ובהרכבה ושמואל אמר בקושי ובקידוש
4 cannot be maintained in the face of the Baraitha,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Bik. II. Since his sex is a matter of doubt he cannot obviously bestow the right (v. p. 558, n. 12) upon his wife. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> since Samuel was heard to take note of an individual opinion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If that opinion is more rigid. (Cf. supra 41a Meg. 18b). Here too R. Jose's opinion in the Baraitha is more restrictive than his opinion in our Mishnah and should therefore be taken into consideration! ');"><sup>6</sup></span> — This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an individual opinion is to be taken into consideration. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה אנדרוגינוס הא דאמרן הרכבה דתנן אין נוטעין ואין מבריכין ואין מרכיבין ערב שביעית פחות משלשים יום לפני ראש השנה ואם נטע והבריך והרכיב יעקור רבי יהודה אומר כל הרכבה שאינה קולטת בשלשה ימים שוב אינה קולטת רבי יוסי ור' שמעון אומרים שתי שבתות
5 applies only to a case where the Mishnah is not thereby uprooted; when the Mishnah, however, is thereby uprooted it need not be taken into consideration. At the school of Rab it was stated in the name of Rab that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose in respect of the hermaphrodite and grafting; and Samuel stated: In respect of protracted labour and forfeiture. As to the 'hermaphrodite', there is the ruling just mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah (cf. Rashi a.l.). ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו ואמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה לדברי האומר שלשים צריך שלשים ושלשים לדברי האומר שלשה צריך שלשה ושלשים לדברי האומר שתי שבתות צריך שתי שבתות ושלשים
6 'Grafting'? — As we have learned: There must be no planting, no sinking<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sinking of a branch under the ground while one end of it remains attached to the tree and the other end is made to protrude from the ground so that in due course it may develop into an independent tree. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> and no grafting on the eve of the Sabbatical Year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 4ff. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> within thirty days before the new year; and if one planted or sank or grafted, the tree must be uprooted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tree does not take root according to this view, before thirty days from the day of its planting have elapsed, and by that time the Sabbatical Year has already begun where all such agricultural activities are forbidden. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז ושמואל אמר בקושי וקידוש קושי דתנן
7 R. Judah said: Any grafting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly any planting or sinking. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> which takes no root within three days will never take root. R. Jose and R. Simeon stated: [Within] two weeks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. II, 6. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> And, [in reference to this.] R. Nahman stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha that according to him who stated, 'thirty days', thirty and thirty are required;' according to him who stated 'three days', three and thirty are required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the last thirty days of the eve of the Sabbatical Year are regarded as part of the next Sabbatical Year (v. M.K. 3b). the plant, in order that it may be permitted, must have taken root prior to these last thirty days. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח כמה יהא קישויה ר"מ אומר או ארבעים או חמשים יום רבי יהודה אומר דייה חדשה רבי יוסי ור' שמעון אומרים אין קישוי יותר משתי שבתות
8 and according to him who stated 'two weeks', two weeks and thirty days are required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the last thirty days of the eve of the Sabbatical Year are regarded as part of the next Sabbatical Year (v. M.K. 3b). the plant, in order that it may be permitted, must have taken root prior to these last thirty days. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> 'And Samuel stated: In respect of protracted labour and forfeiture'. 'Protracted labour'? — As we learned: How long does the period of protracted labour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During this period a woman is not subject to the restrictions of a zabah (v. Glos.), if the flow occurred during the eleven days that intervene between her menstrual periods, even if the discharge continued for three consecutive days. Such a continuous discharge at any other time, when it cannot be attributed to labour, subjects a woman to the uncleanness of a zabah. As in this case, however, the discharge may be regarded as that attendant on labour, the woman must observe only the days prescribed for one after childbirth (cf. Lev. XII, 2ff) and not those prescribed for a zabah (cf. ibid. XV, 25ff). V. Nid. 36b. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> continue? R. Meir said: Forty or fifty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to the birth of the child. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ט קידוש דתנן המסכך גפנו על גבי תבואתו של חברו הרי זה קדש וחייב באחריותו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים
9 R. Judah said: Her [ninth] month is sufficient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should the flow begin prior to the ninth month and continue for three consecutive days she is regarded as a zabah. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> R. Jose and R. Simeon said: Protracted labour cannot extend beyond two weeks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 36b. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> 'Forfeiture'? As we have learned: If one causes his vine to overhang<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to cover'. 'to make a shadow'. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> above the crops of his neighbour, behold he causes thereby their forfeiture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXII, 9. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> and he is liable to make compensation; so R. Meir. R. Jose and R. Simeon said: