Yevamot 166

Chapter 166

א אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו

1 No man can impose a prohibition upon that which is not his.1 The question was raised: What would Samuel2 have said with regard to the hermaphrodite?3

ב איבעיא להו באנדרוגינוס מה לי אמר שמואל ת"ש דאמר שמואל לרב ענן ליתא לברייתא מקמי מתני'

2 — Come and hear what Samuel said to R. Anan: The Baraitha cannot be maintained in the face of our Mishnah.4 What would Samuel have said in respect of grafting?3 — Come and hear what Samuel said to R. Anan: Teach in accordance with the view of him who stated 'three and thirty'.

ג הרכבה מה לי אמר שמואל תא שמע דא"ל שמואל לרב ענן תני כמאן דאמר שלשה ושלשים

3 What is the opinion of Rab5 in respect of protracted labour?6 — This is undecided.7

ד קושי מה לי אמר רב תיקו

4 What is Rab's Opinion in respect of forfeiture?6 R. Joseph replied. Come and hear what R. Huna stated in the name of Rab: The halachah is not in agreement with R. Jose. Said Abaye to him:8

ה קידוש מה לי אמר רב אמר רב יוסף ת"ש דאמר רב הונא אמר רב אין הלכה כרבי יוסי אמר ליה אביי מאי חזית דסמכת אהא סמוך אהא דאמר רב אדא אמר רב הלכה כרבי יוסי אמרי בי רב מנו רב הונא ורב הונא אמר אין הלכה:

5 What reason do you see for relying upon this statement?9 Rely rather on that which R. Adda made in the name of Rab: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose! — Who is it [that is referred to by the phrase] 'At the school of Rab it was stated'?10 R. Huna [of course];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 17b. Wherever it is reported that 'At the school of Rab it was stated' the author of the statement was R. Huna. When, however, R. Huna himself reports 'At the school etc.' the author of the statement is R. Hamnuna. V. Rashi a.l. and cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H]. ');">11

ו רבי יהודה אומר טומטום וכו': א"ר אמי מאי עביד ליה רבי יהודה לטומטום דבירי דאותבוה אבי כורסיה ואיקרע ואוליד שבע בנין ור' יהודה א"ל חזר על בניו מאין הם

6 and R. Huna it was who stated that the halachah is not in agreement [with R. Jose].12 R. JUDAH STATED: A TUMTUM etc. R. Ammi remarked: What would R. Judah13 have done with a case like that of the tumtum of Bairi,14

ז תניא ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר טומטום לא יחלוץ שמא יקרע ונמצא סריס חמה אטו כל דמקרע זכר הוי הכי קאמר שמא יקרע ונמצא נקבה ואפילו נמצא זכר שמא ימצא סריס חמה

7 who, after having been placed upon the operating table15 and operated upon, begat seven children!16 And R Judah?17

ח מאי בינייהו אמר רבא לפסול במקום אחין ולחלוץ שלא במקום אחין איכא בינייהו

8 — He could tell you:18 An enquiry should be made as to the origin of his children. It was taught: R. Jose son of. R. Judah stated that a tumtum must not participate in halizah, since it is possible that on being operated upon he may be found to be a congenital saris.19

ט אמר רב שמואל בר יהודה א"ר אבא אחוה דר' יהודה בר זבדי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה משתי מקומות מיתיבי רבי אליעזר אמר אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה כבזכר בד"א בזכרות שלו אבל בנקבות שלו פטור

9 Is everyone then,20 who is operated upon a male! — It is this that he meant: It is possible that on being operated upon he may be found to be a female; and were he found to be a male, it is even then possible that he might be found to be a congenital saris. What is the practical difference between them?21 — Raba replied: The practical difference between them is the question of disqualification22

י הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי סימאי אומר אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה משתי מקומות מ"ט דרבי סימאי אמר רבא בר המדורי אסברא לי (ויקרא יח, כב) ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה אי זהו זכר שיש בו שני משכבות הוי אומר זה אנדרוגינוס

10 where other brothers are in existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Besides the tumtum. According to R. Judah, who regards him as definitely a saris, the widow, if the tumtum submitted to her halizah, is not thereby disqualified from subsequently marrying any of the other brothers, since the halizah of a saris is null and void. According to R. Jose, however, the widow is disqualified. since the tumtum might possibly be a male and his halizah might be valid. ');">23 and that of halizah where no other brothers exist.24 R. Samuel son of R. Judah said in the name of R. Abba, the brother of R. Judah b. Zabdi, in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Rab: In respect of the hermaphrodite the penalty of stoning is incurred through either of his organs.

יא ורבנן אע"ג דאית ביה שני משכבות את זכר כתיב

11 An objection was raised: R. Eliezer stated, 'In respect of the hermaphrodite the penalty of stoning is incurred as in the case of a male. This, however, applies only to his male organ; but in respect of his female organ no penalty is incurred'!25 — He26 holds the same opinion as the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simai stated that in respect of the hermaphrodite the penalty of stoning is incurred through either of his organs. What is R. Simai's reason? — Raba replied: Bar Hamduri has explained it to me as follows: And thou shalt not lie with a male, as well as with womankind;27

יב ורבנן זכר גרידא מנא להו מאשה באשה שלא כדרכה מנא להו מואשה

12 what male is it that is capable of two manners of lying?28 Obviously29 the hermaphrodite. And the Rabbis? — Though he is capable of two manners of lying it is nevertheless written in Scripture. With a male.30

יג אמר רב שזבי אמר רב חסדא לא לכל א"ר אליעזר אנדרוגינוס זכר מעליא הוא שאם אתה אומר כן במוקדשין יקדש

13 Whence, however, do the Rabbis31 derive the law concerning an ordinary male? — From And.32 Whence33

יד ומנלן דלא קדש דת"ר הנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והאתנן ומחיר וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה

14 the prohibition in respect of unnatural intercourse with a woman? — From Woman.34 R. Shezbi stated in the name of R. Hisda: It is not in all respects that R. Eliezer maintains that the hermaphrodite is a proper male. Since, were you to say so, [such an animal]35 would be fit for consecration.36

טו רבי אליעזר אומר טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה שהיה ר"א אומר כל מקום שנאמר זכר ונקבה אתה מוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מביניהם ועוף הואיל ולא נאמר בו זכר ונקבה אי אתה מוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מביניהם:

15 And whence is it derived that it37 may not be consecrated? — From what the Rabbis taught: [A bird] that was covered,38 set aside [for idolatrous purposes], or worshipped, that was the hire of a harlot39

טז אר"נ בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא רבי אליעזר אומר

16 or the price of a dog,39 a tumtum or hermaphrodite, causes the defilement of one's clothes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the bird was offered up as a sacrifice in consequence of which its head is pinched off (cf. Lev. I, 15). As for the reasons stated, the bird is unfit for the altar, pinching (which is not the ritual mode of slaughter for unconsecrated birds) renders the bird nebelah (v. Glos.) which imparts uncleanness to one's clothes. V. infra n. 10. ');">40 by [contact with one's] oesophagus.41 R. Eliezer said: [A bird that was] a tumtum or hermaphrodite does not impart the defilement of clothes through contact with one's oesophagus; for R. Eliezer maintained that wherever male and female were mentioned,42 the tumtum and hermaphrodite are to be excluded; but [in the case of the sacrifice of a] bird, since in respect of it no mention was made of male or female, the tumtum and hermaphrodite are not to be excluded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 42a, Zeb. 85b. Since in the case of sacrifices of beasts, male and female were mentioned, it is obvious that, according to R. Eliezer, no tumtum or hermaphrodite is suitable. ');">43 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We also learned [a similar Baraitha]: R. Eliezer stated:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter