Shabbat 136b — the Talmud in English

If

now, after she became betrothed,

she is an Israelite's wife—

she performs chalitza.

But

if

now, after she became betrothed,

she is a koen's wife,

and if she performs chalitza, she will become forbidden to him,

she does not perform chalitza.

And we rely upon that which the Rabbis said: he is not a nonviable infant.

And Rav Sheravya said in Rava's name: This one

who became betrothed to an Israelite,

and this one

who became betrothed to a koen—she

performs chalitza.

Ravina said to Rav Sheravya: In the evening,

in the evening, indeed,

Rava said thus,

as you say in his name: that this one and this one perform chalitza. But

in the morning,

in the morning,

he retracted

and said as Ravina said in his name: that if she is a koen's wife, she does not perform chalitza.

He said to him,

Rav Sheravya to Ravina:

You permitted her,

you permitted her to marry without chalitza, and you transgressed the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, who said that for thirty days he is a nonviable infant.

May it be the will that you permit forbidden fat,

that you permit even fat to be eaten.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah permits

in the case of an androgynos.

Rav Shizbi said in Rav Hisda's name: Not with regard to everything

did

Rabbi Judah say

that

an androgynos is male.

For if you say so,

that he is male with regard to everything, then

in valuations,

if someone says, “The valuation of this androgynos is upon me,” would it

receive a valuation,

and would the one making the valuation, who makes the vow, become liable for its 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,”

whereas it should have written “male”; and from the superfluous “the” we exclude:

and not a tumtum or an androgynos.

Could it be that

a tumtum and an androgynos are not valued

at a man's valuation, but would be

valued

at a woman's valuation?

Scripture says: “the male”,

and it is written after it:

“And if she is female.”

And from the superfluity of “and if” we exclude: the law of valuations applies specifically to one who makes a valuation of

a definite male, a definite female. And not

one who makes a valuation

of a tumtum and an androgynos.