Yevamot 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone

who was not seen

even

for a single hour in his fitness—

that is, he was impaired from his mother’s womb.

From where do we know this [what is the sign by which one can know that a child was born impaired]?

Abaye said: Anyone who urinates but does not produce an arch—

meaning that his stream of urine does not travel a distance when he urinates upward, and it does not form an arch, but merely dribbles downward.

From what did this result [from what does one become a eunuch of this type]?

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

And we explain:

His mother baked bread at midday [his mother baked bread in an oven at midday],

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

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

Rav Yosef said: This is what I heard from my mother

[Rabbi Ami],

who said: Anyone who was impaired from his mother’s womb—

that is, I did not know from what this resulted.

And

we raise an objection: Since a eunuch who had a period of fitness must perform ḥalitza, and ḥalitza is performed for his wife, how then can we exempt a eunuch by natural causes from ḥalitza? Although we saw that he was impaired from birth, and we now also see that he is impaired, nevertheless

let us be concerned that perhaps he was healed in the interim

and it turns out that he had a period of fitness?!

And we answer:

Since he was impaired at the beginning and at the end, we are not concerned

that he was healed in the interim.

Rav Mari raised an objection

to this principle:

We learned in the Mishna in tractate Bekhorot, among the defects that permit a firstborn animal to be slaughtered:

A permanent ḥavror [a permanent eye blemish; a disease involving white spots in the eye] and permanent watery eyes [whose eyes continually discharge water].

What is a permanent ḥavror? Any condition that lasted eighty days.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One examines it three times during the eighty days

and if it was not examined, even though the ḥavror was found there on the eightieth day, it is not a blemish, for perhaps it disappeared in the interim and then returned, as this is its nature [Rashi, Bekhorot]?!

Thus you have learned that we do not say: Since he was impaired at the beginning and at the end, we are not concerned?!

And we answer:

With regard to a single limb, we are concerned

that perhaps it was healed in the interim; but

with regard to the entire body

that is, a eunuch by natural causes, whose condition results from an illness affecting the entire body,

we are not concerned.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not so

but rather, a eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza, and ḥalitza is performed for his wife, because there is a cure for his condition; a eunuch caused by human agency does not perform ḥalitza, nor is ḥalitza performed for his wife, because there is no cure for his condition:

And we raise a contradiction

from a Mishna in tractate Nidda:

A yavam

who is twenty years old and has not developed two pubic hairs

and the court obligates him either to perform yibbum with his yevama or to perform ḥalitza for her, while the relatives of the yavam wish to exempt him on the claim that he is a eunuch—

these relatives

must bring proof that he is

already

twenty years old

and has not developed two pubic hairs.

And that he is a eunuch!

That is: If signs of a eunuch have appeared in him, then

he does not perform ḥalitza and does not perform yibbum.

And similarly, a yevama

who is twenty years old and has not developed two pubic hairs must have proof brought that she is twenty years old, and that she is an aylonit

and therefore

she does not perform ḥalitza and does not enter into yibbum.

These are the words of Beit Hillel.

And Beit Shammai say: Both this one and that one

[a eunuch and an aylonit]

are eighteen years old

and if they have not developed two pubic hairs, this joins the signs of a eunuch and an aylonit, and one need not wait until they are twenty years old.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The male follows the statement of Beit Hillel

who holds that he is not a eunuch unless he reaches twenty years of age and still has not developed two pubic hairs,

and

the

female follows the statement of Beit Shammai

when she is eighteen years old,

because a woman is quick to develop

[it is her nature to develop pubic hair]

before a man.

You have learned, then, that according to Rabbi Eliezer a eunuch by natural causes does not perform ḥalitza or yibbum, contrary to what is stated in our Mishna according to his opinion, that a eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza and yibbum?!

He said

and resolved the contradiction:

Rami bar Dikulei said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his opinion.

It was raised as a dilemma: From which statement did he retract

his opinion, Rabbi Eliezer—from what he said in our Mishna, that a eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza, or from what he said in the Mishna in tractate Nidda, that a eunuch by natural causes does not perform ḥalitza?

Come and hear, as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: A eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza, and ḥalitza is performed for his wife, for those of his kind are cured in Alexandria of Egypt.

Thus, in two places we learn that according to his opinion he performs ḥalitza and ḥalitza is performed for his wife. Therefore, erase that Mishna in tractate Nidda, which contradicts these two sources.

Rabbi Elazar says: He did not retract his opinion

Rabbi Eliezer.

And when we learned that statement

in the Mishna in tractate Nidda, in which Rabbi Eliezer said, “The male follows the statement of Beit Hillel,” this was not with regard to ḥalitza and yibbum, which the Mishna discussed initially, but

with regard to

punishments

that is, if the male did not develop two pubic hairs by the time he reached twenty years, and signs of a eunuch also appeared in him, he is an adult and liable for all punishments of the Torah.

It was stated:

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

B. In the discussion before us, Rav and Shmuel disagree as to whether failure to develop pubic hair together with the signs of a eunuch or an aylonit establishes the person as an adult from the time when every male or female is fit to develop two pubic hairs and become an adult—that is, at thirteen for a male and twelve for a female—

or whether they are not considered adults until the age of eighteen or twenty.

C. The discussion before us follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that the age at which failure to develop pubic hair is significant is eighteen years for a female and twenty years for a male.

She ate—

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

forbidden fat

[whose violation is subject to a prohibition and for which one is liable to lashes]

from the age of

[when she was]

twelve

years

and one day,

when she was fit to develop two pubic hairs,

until she was

[when she was]

eighteen years old

and still had not developed two pubic hairs,

and signs of a eunuch appeared in him

[in her] as well,

signs of a eunuch

[an aylonit],

and afterward he developed

[she developed]

two pubic hairs.

Rav said:

Since when she was eighteen years old she had still not developed two pubic hairs [and for a female the relevant age is eighteen, as stated above according to Rabbi Eliezer], and signs of an aylonit had appeared in her, establishing that she was an aylonit,

she became a eunuch

[she became an aylonit]

retroactively

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

And although she developed two pubic hairs afterward, this is of no consequence, because the development of two pubic hairs after she became eighteen and signs of an aylonit had appeared in her neither adds nor detracts.

And Shmuel said:

Even if she did not develop two pubic hairs afterward, she is an adult only from the time she became eighteen, and

he was a minor

[she was a minor]

at that time

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

Rav Yosef challenged Rav

who holds that she becomes an aylonit retroactively:

A. In the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter “These are the Maiden,” in tractate Ketubot, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree concerning one who raped or seduced a minor, whether he is liable to pay a fine for her as he is liable for a young woman. Rabbi Meir holds that there is a fine only for intercourse with a young woman, but there is no fine for a minor; whereas in the case of an adult woman, everyone agrees that there is no fine.

B. A minor is one who has not yet developed two pubic hairs. A young woman is one who developed two pubic hairs when she was twelve, and for six months after developing them she remains a young woman. An adult woman is one whose period of being a young woman has ended, or one who developed pubic hair after she was twelve and a half, because in that case she passes directly from being a minor to being an adult; a woman becomes a young woman only during the six months from age twelve until age twelve and a half [Tosafot].

C. A woman who did not develop two pubic hairs until she became eighteen years old, and who has the signs of an aylonit and is therefore an adult, is not treated as a young woman, since she did not mature until after she became twelve and a half, whereas the period of being a young woman is the six months following age twelve, when the period of minority ends and in her case the period of minority ended only after that time.

However, according to Rav, who holds that she is retroactively an adult from the time she was fit to develop two pubic hairs, it might have been assumed that she is a young woman from age twelve until age twelve and a half. For what difference is there between one who becomes an adult through pubic hair, whom we treat as a young woman if she developed it at age twelve, and one who became an adult at age twelve because she is an aylonit? Therefore we ask:

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

an aylonit according to Rabbi Meir should have a fine,

since it is possible for an aylonit to have the status of a young woman?!

That is: In a beraita in tractate Ketubot we learned that an aylonit has no fine. According to Shmuel’s opinion, the beraita is understood according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a minor has no fine. Accordingly, there is no case in which one would be liable to pay a fine for an aylonit: until age eighteen she is a minor, and after age eighteen she is an adult, and according to Rabbi Meir neither a minor nor an adult is entitled to a fine.

But according to Rav, an aylonit is also a young woman from age twelve until age twelve and a half, and during that period she has a fine even according to Rabbi Meir. If so, how are we to explain the beraita that says that an aylonit has no fine?!

He said

and answered

him, Abaye

to Rav Yosef:

This is what they say in your name

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

She passes directly from minority to adulthood

that is, an aylonit who becomes retroactively an adult from the time she reached twelve years of age does not retroactively become a young woman but is retroactively an adult from that same time so the aylonit passes directly from minority to adulthood and has no period of being a young woman; therefore, she has no fine.

He said to him

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: You have spoken well! If only

all these excellent teachings would be said in my name

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

Since

it is so

it was taught:

A eunuch is not judged as a wayward and rebellious son

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

because a wayward and rebellious son is judged only upon the sealing of the lower beard

that is, upon the development of two pubic hairs alone.

And an aylonit is not judged as a betrothed young woman

to be liable to stoning for her illicit intercourse, because the Torah made one liable to stoning only for a young woman, and not for an aylonit,

who passes directly from minority to adulthood

and has no period of being a young woman.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

The signs of a eunuch and an aylonit, and

the signs of

an eight-month infant

[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 the signs of a eunuch or an aylonit is not considered an adult and a eunuch or an aylonit unless they reach the age of twenty and still have not developed two pubic hairs. From that point onward they are considered adults, but before then they are treated as minors [Ritva].

And similarly, an infant born after eight months, who is not considered viable unless the signs of his hair and nails were fully developed at birth: one does not rely on these signs to establish him as viable, to mourn for him and to exempt his mother from ḥalitza [Meiri], unless he lives until the age of twenty. Until then, he is considered possibly nonviable.

And we ask:

But is an eight-month infant viable?

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

But it was taught in a beraita: An eight-month infant

months old

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

on Shabbat, because he is not viable,