Yevamot 80a — the Talmud in English

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Anyone ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

who did not see

even

one hour in his fitness,

that is, who was defective from his mother’s womb.

From where do we know [what is the sign by which to know that a child who was born is defective]?

Abaye said: Anyone who urinates and does not make a dome,

for his stream of urine does not travel far when he urinates upward, and it does not become like a dome, but drips and descends.

From what did he become [a eunuch of this sort]? That is: what is the cause that his mother gives birth to a eunuch?

That is: What causes his mother to give birth to a eunuch?

And we explain:

that his mother baked in the afternoon [his mother baked bread in an oven at midday], for his mother became heated from the heat of midday and of the oven together,

so that his mother was heated both by the midday heat and by the oven,

and she drank diluted beer [his mother drank diluted beer; and some explain: strong beer].

его мать пила разбавленное пиво; некоторые объясняют: крепкое пиво].

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard from my mother [Rabbi Ami]

[Rabbi Ami],

who said: Anyone who was defective from his mother’s womb—and I did not know what this was,

that is, I did not know from what he became.

And

we raise an objection: Since a eunuch who had a period of fitness performs chalitzah, and chalitzah is performed for his wife, if so, how do we exempt a saris hamah from chalitzah? For although we saw in his formation that he was defective, and even now we see that he is defective, nevertheless

let us be concerned lest he became healthy in the interim,

and it is found that he had a period of fitness?!

And we answer:

Since his beginning and his end are defective, we are not concerned

that he became healthy in the interim.

Rav Mari raises an objection

on the basis of this principle:

But we learned in the Mishna in Bekhorot, among the defects that permit a firstborn animal for slaughter:

A permanent white spot [a disease in which there are white drops in the eye] and permanent watery eyes [whose eyes drip water].

What is a permanent white spot? Any one that remained for eighty days.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: One examines it three times within eighty days,

and if they did not examine it, even though the white spot was found there on the eightieth day, it is not a defect, for perhaps in the interim it went away and returned, since that is its way [Rashi, Bekhorot]?!

You have therefore learned that we do not say: Since its beginning and its end are defective, we are not concerned?!

And we answer:

With regard to one limb we are concerned

lest it became healthy in the interim, but

with regard to the entire body,

that is, with regard to a saris hamah, whose condition is caused by an illness of the entire body,

we are not concerned.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not so,

but a saris hamah performs chalitzah, and chalitzah is performed for his wife, because he has a cure; a saris adam does not perform chalitzah, and chalitzah is not performed for his wife, because he has no cure:

And we juxtapose to it

from a Mishna in tractate Niddah:

A levir

who is twenty years old and has not produced two pubic hairs,

and the court obligates him to perform yibbum with his yevama or to perform chalitzah for her, while the relatives of the levir wish to exempt him from this by claiming that he is a eunuch—

these relatives

shall bring proof that he is

already

twenty years old,

and has not produced two pubic hairs.

And he is the eunuch!

That is: And if signs of eunuchhood developed in him, then he

does not perform chalitzah and does not perform yibbum.

And likewise a yevama

who is twenty years old and has not produced two pubic hairs: They shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and she is the aylonit,

and this woman

does not perform chalitzah and does not enter into yibbum.

The words of Beit Hillel.

And Beit Shammai say: Both this and that [the eunuch and the aylonit]

[a eunuch and an aylonit]

are eighteen years old

and, when they have not produced two pubic hairs, this joins the signs of eunuchhood and aylonit, and one need not wait until they are twenty years old.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The male is according to the words of Beit Hillel,

for he is not a eunuch unless he becomes twenty years old and still has not produced two pubic hairs,

and

the

female is according to the words of Beit Shammai,

when she is eighteen years old,

because a woman hastens to arrive [it is her way to produce hairs]

[it is her nature to develop pubic hair]

before a man.

You have therefore learned that according to Rabbi Eliezer, a saris hamah does not perform chalitzah and does not perform yibbum, and not as is explained in our Mishna according to his opinion, that a saris hamah performs chalitzah and yibbum?!

He said,

he answered,

Rami bar Dikulei said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his opinion.

It was asked of them: From what did he retract,

Rabbi Eliezer—whether from what he said in our Mishna, that a saris hamah performs chalitzah, or from what he said in the Mishna in tractate Niddah, that a saris hamah does not perform chalitzah?

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: A saris hamah performs chalitzah, and chalitzah is performed for his wife, since those of his kind are cured in Alexandria of Egypt.

It is thus found that in two places we learned according to his opinion that he performs chalitzah and chalitzah is performed for his wife; and erase that Mishna of Niddah, which is against these two places.

Rabbi Elazar says: He did not retract

Rabbi Eliezer.

And when we learned that one,

in Niddah, in which Rabbi Eliezer said, “The male is according to the words of Beit Hillel,” this was not with regard to chalitzah and yibbum, of which the Mishna initially spoke, but

with regard

to

punishments,

for if the male did not produce two pubic hairs until he became twenty years old, and signs of eunuchhood developed in him, he is an adult and liable for all punishments in the Torah.

It was stated:

A. A man or woman who did not produce two pubic hairs by the age of eighteen or twenty [as was explained in the Mishna cited above], and signs of eunuchhood or aylonit also developed in them, are presumed to be a eunuch or aylonit, even if they produced two pubic hairs after eighteen or twenty.

B. In the teaching before us, Rav and Shmuel disagreed whether failure to produce hairs together with signs of eunuchhood or aylonit is effective to establish the man or woman as an adult from the time when every man or woman is fit to produce two pubic hairs and become an adult, namely, at thirteen for a male and twelve for a female,

or whether they are not established as adults until eighteen or twenty.

C. The teaching before us follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that the age of failure to produce hairs in a female is eighteen years, and in a male twenty years.

If she ate—

that is, a woman ate who had not produced two pubic hairs—

forbidden fat,

whose prohibition is a negative commandment and for which one is liable to lashes,

from

the age of

twelve

years

and one day,

when she is fit to produce two pubic hairs,

until

the age of

eighteen years,

and she still had not produced two pubic hairs,

and signs of eunuchhood developed in him [in her] as well,

[in her] as well,

signs of eunuchhood [aylonit],

[an aylonit],

and afterward he produced [she produced]

[she developed]

two pubic hairs.

Rav said:

Since when she was eighteen years old she had still not produced two pubic hairs [and for a female the measure is eighteen years, as above according to Rabbi Eliezer], and signs of aylonit developed in her and it became clear that she is an aylonit, she

became a eunuch [became an aylonit]

[she became an aylonit]

retroactively,

that is, she is presumed to have been an adult retroactively, from the time when she was twelve years and one day old, when she was fit to produce two pubic hairs; and she is liable to lashes for eating forbidden fat from that time onward.

And even though she produced two pubic hairs afterward, this has no significance, for producing two pubic hairs after she became eighteen and displayed signs of aylonit neither raises nor lowers her status.

And Shmuel said:

Even if she did not produce two pubic hairs afterward, she is an adult only from the time when she was eighteen, and

he was a minor [she was a minor]

[she was a minor]

at that time [from twelve until eighteen].

[from the age of twelve until the age of eighteen].

Rav Yosef raises an objection to Rav,

who holds that she becomes an aylonit retroactively:

A. In the Mishna in Ketubot, at the beginning of the chapter “These are the maidens,” Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagreed concerning one who raped or seduced a minor, whether he is liable for a fine for her just as he is liable for a maiden. Rabbi Meir’s opinion is that there is a fine only for one who has intercourse with a maiden, but a minor has no fine; whereas with regard to an adult woman, everyone agrees that there is no fine.

B. A minor is one who has not yet produced two pubic hairs; a maiden is one who produced two pubic hairs when she was twelve, and for six months after producing her hairs she is a maiden; an adult woman is one whose days of maidenhood have ended, or who produced her hairs after she was twelve and a half, for then she passed from minority to adulthood, since a woman becomes a maiden only during the six months from age twelve to twelve and a half [Tosafot].

C. A woman who did not produce two pubic hairs until she became eighteen years old, and has signs of aylonit, and is an adult, is not judged as a maiden, for she did not become an adult until after she became twelve and a half, while the days of maidenhood are the six months adjacent to twelve, when the days of minority end, and this woman’s days of minority ended after that time.

However, according to Rav, who holds that she is retroactively an adult from the time when she was fit to produce two pubic hairs, it might have entered our minds that she is a maiden from age twelve to twelve and a half. For what difference is there between one who becomes an adult through hairs, whom we judge as a maiden if she produced them when she was twelve, and one who became an adult when she was twelve because she is an aylonit? Therefore we raise the difficulty:

If so—according to Rav, who holds that she becomes an adult retroactively from the time when she was twelve—

an aylonit, according to Rabbi Meir, should have a fine,

for it is possible for an aylonit to have maidenhood?!

That is: In a beraita in Ketubot we learned that an aylonit has no fine, and according to Shmuel’s opinion the beraita is explained according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a minor has no fine. Therefore, one cannot find an aylonit for whom they would be liable for a fine, for until age eighteen she is a minor, and after age eighteen she is an adult woman, and neither this one nor that one has a fine according to Rabbi Meir.

But according to Rav, even an aylonit is a maiden from age twelve to twelve and a half, and at that time she has a fine even according to Rabbi Meir. Since so, how do we explain the beraita that says: An aylonit has no fine?!

He said,

he answered,

Abaye said to him,

to Rav Yosef:

This is what they say in your name [the version of the Ritba; thus they say in your name]

[the reading of the Ritva; “this is what they say in your name”]

She passed from minority to adulthood,

that is, an aylonit who becomes an adult retroactively from the time she reached the age of twelve years does not become a maiden retroactively , but is an adult woman retroactively from that time ; it follows that the aylonit passes from minority to adulthood and has no maidenhood, and therefore she has no fine.

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: You have spoken well! Would that

all these excellent words be said in my name [would that such good words be said in my name]—

[if only such good statements would be said in my name]—

Since

in

this way

it was taught:

A eunuch is not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son [a son who steals from his father and is gluttonous and a drunkard, and is judged by stoning],

[a son who steals from his father and is gluttonous and a drunkard, and is sentenced to stoning],

because a stubborn and rebellious son is judged only upon the completion of the lower beard,

that is, upon the production of two hairs only in the pubic region.

And an aylonit is not judged as a betrothed maiden

to be liable to stoning for her sexual relations, because the Torah made stoning liable only for a maiden, and not for an aylonit,

who passed from minority to adulthood

and has no maidenhood.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

The signs of eunuchhood and aylonit, and

the signs of

an eight-month child [a baby born after eight months]

[a baby born after eight months of gestation]

are not acted upon until they are twenty years old.

That is: A man or woman who has signs of eunuchhood or aylonit is not presumed by us to be an adult and a eunuch unless they reached the age of twenty and still have not produced two pubic hairs, and from that time onward they are considered adults; but before then they are judged as minors [Ritba].

And likewise, a baby born after eight months, who is not viable unless the signs of his hair and nails were completed when he was born: one does not rely on these signs to establish him as viable, in order to mourn for him and to exempt his mother from chalitzah [Meiri], unless he lives until twenty years; and until then he is a doubtful stillborn.

And we raise the difficulty:

But does an eight-month child live [Is one born after eight months, then, viable]?!

[Could it possibly be that one born after eight months is viable]?!

But it was taught: An eight-month child

of age

is like a stone, and it is forbidden to move him

on Shabbat, because he is not viable,