Shabbat 136b (קלו:) — the Talmud in English

If

now, after she has become consecrated,

she is the wife of an Israelite—

she performs ḥalitza.

But

if

now, after she has become consecrated,

she is the wife of a kohen,

and if she were to perform ḥalitza, she would become forbidden to him,

she does not perform ḥalitza.

And we rely on that which the Sages said: He is not a nefel.

And Rav Shezvi said in the name of Rava: In both this case

that of a woman consecrated to an Israelite,

and in that case

of a woman consecrated to a kohen, she

performs ḥalitza.

Ravina said to Rav Shezvi: In the evening,

indeed,

Rava said this,

as you stated in his name: In both this case and that case, she performs ḥalitza. But

in the morning,

in the morning,

he retracted his position

and said as Ravina stated in his name: If she is the wife of a kohen, she does not perform ḥalitza.

He said to him,

Rav Shezvi to Ravina:

You permitted her,

you permitted her to marry without ḥalitza, and you transgressed the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that until thirty days have passed, he is a nefel.

May it be the will of Heaven that you permit forbidden fat,

that you permit even forbidden fat to be eaten.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda permits

in the case of an androgynos.

Rav Shezvi said that Rav Ḥisda said: It was not with regard to every

matter that

Rabbi Yehuda said

that an

androgynos is male.

For if you say so,

that he is male with regard to every matter, then

with regard to valuations,

if one says, “The valuation of this androgynos is incumbent upon me,” would he indeed

be valued,

and the one who vowed to provide the valuation become liable for his prescribed valuation?

And from where do we know that

an androgynos

is not valued?

As it is taught:

It is written: “And your valuation shall be

the male,”

but it should have written merely “male”; and from the redundancy of the letter heh we exclude:

and not a tumtum or an androgynos.

One might have thought that

a tumtum and an androgynos are not valued

according to the valuation of a man, but they are

valued

according to the valuation of a woman?

The verse states: “The male”,

and it is written afterward:

“And if she is a female.”

And from the redundancy of the word “and if” we exclude them: not a tumtum and not an androgynos. The laws of valuations apply only to one who makes a valuation for

a definite male or a definite female, and not

one who makes a valuation for

a tumtum or an androgynos.