Yevamot 80b — the Talmud in English

But his mother bends over him and nurses him, ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

because of the danger

to the mother and the child.

It now emerges for the Gemara that there is no distinction between one whose identifying signs have been completed and one whose identifying signs have not been completed, and this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here,

when his identifying signs have been completed,

that is: Since his identifying signs have been completed, he is viable if he reaches the age of twenty, in accordance with Rabbi’s opinion in the beraita that the Gemara cites. And Rabbi Abbahu teaches us: Nevertheless, he is not presumed to be viable unless he reaches the age of twenty and remains alive.

As it was taught in a beraita: What is an eight-month infant

who is not viable?

Any infant whose months have not been completed,

that is: At the time of birth, the law depends on the time of gestation and not on the signs.

Rabbi says: The signs prove concerning him

that he is an eight-month infant:

His hair and nails have not been completed.

You have therefore learned that according to Rabbi:

The reason is that they have not been completed,

and it is only because his hair and nails have not been completed that he is not viable.

But

if he was born after eight months, and

they have been completed,

his hair and nails,

we say: This

infant

is a seven-month

infant

who

[whose form was completed at the end of seven months]

was merely delayed,

[he remained in his mother’s womb after being fully formed and was born after eight months], and it follows that he is viable, like other infants born after seven months.

And we raise an objection:

But what of the case in which Rabbi Abba Tosafאה performed an act of practical ruling involving a woman whose husband had gone overseas, and he remained

the husband overseas

for twelve months

[twelve months], and then his wife gave birth,

and he declared him fit

Rabbi Abba deemed the child fit to enter the congregation. This was because we attribute the pregnancy not to a later conception, which would make the child a mamzer, but to conception from her husband before he left for overseas; the fetus remained in his mother’s womb for three months after its form had been completed at the end of nine months—

In accordance with whom,

according to whose opinion did Rabbi Abba act in this manner? Was it

in accordance with Rabbi, who said: An infant can remain delayed

in its mother’s womb after its form has been completed?!

And we answer:

Since there is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says

also:

An infant can remain delayed

in its mother’s womb after its form has been completed, it follows that

he acted in accordance with the majority,

for

Rabbi Abba acted

in accordance with the majority and not in accordance with an individual opinion.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any person who remains for thirty days,

a newborn who lives for thirty days after birth, even if he was born after eight months,

is not a nonviable infant,

because we say: His form was completed after seven months, but he remained in his mother’s womb until the eighth month.

The Sages taught: What is a eunuch by natural causes? Anyone who is twenty years old and has not produced two pubic hairs; and even if he produces

two pubic hairs

after that, he is like a eunuch in every respect.

And these are his signs

that establish him as a eunuch, in addition to his failure to produce two pubic hairs:

Anyone who has no beard,

that is: His beard has not filled out, even if he has hairs in his beard, [Tosafot].

And his hair is impaired

[extremely thin and soft, Rashi and Meiri].

And his flesh is smooth

[smooth like a woman’s, and not hairy as is usual among other men].

Rabbi Yehuda ben Yair says: Anyone whose urine

[urine, Rambam and Meiri ]

does not produce bubbles,

which is called “foam,” [Meiri].

And some say: Anyone who urinates and does not produce a dome

[a long stream that travels far and is rounded like a dome].

And some say: Anyone whose semen is runny

[clear like water and not thick like the white of an egg, Rashi and Meiri].

And some say: Anyone whose urine does not ferment

[does not become foul-smelling when it remains in a vessel].

Others say: Anyone who bathes

in hot water

during the rainy season, and his flesh does not give off vapor

[steam].

Rabban Shimon ben Elazar says: Anyone whose voice is impaired,

thin and resembling a chirp,

and no distinction can be discerned between

the voice of

a man and a woman, [Meiri].

And what is an ailonit:

Anyone who is twenty years old

and has not produced two pubic hairs, and even if she produces

two pubic hairs

after that, she is like an ailonit in every respect.

она считается бесплодной во всех отношениях.

And these are her signs

that establish her as an ailonit, in addition to her failure to produce two pubic hairs:

Anyone who has no breasts.

And who experiences difficulty during intercourse

[intercourse is difficult for her].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Anyone whose lower abdomen is not like that of women

[she does not have a shape resembling a scoop above that place].

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Anyone whose voice is deep, and no distinction can be discerned between a woman and a man.

The following discussion is explained according to the approach of Tosafot.

It was stated: The signs of a eunuch

mentioned in the beraita above: The amoraim disagreed whether all of them are required, or whether some of them suffice to establish him as a eunuch by natural causes:

Rav Huna said: Until he has

у него

all of them.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Even with one of them,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain his statement.

Where he has produced

even

two pubic hairs

alone

in his beard, everyone agrees—

even Rabbi Yohanan concedes—

that he

is not a eunuch

until he has

у него

all of them.

That is: His beard must not fill out together with the other signs taught in the beraita.

They disagree when he has not produced

even two hairs in his beard.

Only in this case did Rabbi Yohanan say that this sign alone suffices to classify him as a eunuch, whereas according to Rav Huna, even in this case he is not presumed to be a eunuch until the other signs join it.

And we raise an objection:

But what of the statement that Rabbah bar Avuha said to the Sages

[Rabbah bar Avuha asked the Sages]:

“Examine Rav Naḥman”

[go out and observe Rav Naḥman]—for he had no beard—

and determine

whether his flesh gives off vapor;

if so, he is not a eunuch,

“I will give him my daughter

[I will give him my daughter as a wife]!”

It follows from Rabbah bar Avuha’s words that the absence of a beard is not sufficient to establish him as a eunuch. If so,

in accordance with whom

did Rabbah bar Avuha hold?

In accordance with Rav Huna,

who says: Even when he has not produced two hairs in his beard, he must have all the signs; therefore, if Rav Naḥman lacked the sign stated as “his flesh does not give off vapor,” he is not a eunuch?!

And we answer:

No,

not as we initially thought—that Rav Naḥman did not have even two hairs in his beard. Rather:

Rav Naḥman had beard stubble

[the pegs of the beard, that is, hairs in several places on his beard]

he had.

It follows that Rav Naḥman did not have the sign that according to Rabbi Yohanan alone suffices to establish him as a eunuch—namely, that he has no two hairs in his beard. Therefore, if all the other signs were not found in Rav Naḥman, he was not a eunuch.

We learned in the Mishna:

A eunuch neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into yibbum, and likewise an ailonit

does not perform ḥalitza or enter into yibbum:

And we infer:

It teaches eunuch analogous to ailonit—

Just as an “ailonit” is by the hands of Heaven,

статус,

so too a “eunuch”

in the case of a eunuch

by the hands of Heaven

[that is, a eunuch by natural causes, who was impaired from his mother’s womb] is the subject of our Mishna; and it is in this regard that they said: A eunuch neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into yibbum,

and

it follows that the

anonymous statement

of our Mishna

is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said:

A eunuch

by the hands of man does not

in fact require ḥalitza, since he had a period when he was fit for it;

by the hands of Heaven

he

does not

require ḥalitza, since he had a period when he was fit for it.

We learned in the Mishna:

A eunuch who performed ḥalitza with his yevama does not disqualify her,

whereas her husband disqualifies her:

The following discussion is explained according to the Ritba.

a. Earlier, on page 61b, it was taught in a beraita: “‘A zona’ whom the Torah prohibited to a kohein is a zona in accordance with its name [one who strays, who strays from her husband to others, Rashi], the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.”

[According to Rabbi Eliezer, a zona is only a married woman, Rashi].

Rabbi Akiva says: This zona is one who is sexually promiscuous.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This zona is an ailonit.

And the Sages say: A zona is only a convert, an emancipated slavewoman, or a woman who engaged in forbidden intercourse” [for example, with one of those liable for karet, or a daughter of Israel with a Gibeonite or a mamzer, Rashi].

b. According to the Sages, every woman who engages in forbidden intercourse becomes a zona, provided that “the outsider was initially a stranger to her.”

But if he was initially permitted to her and subsequently became prohibited to her, she does not become a zona.

c. If she engaged in intercourse with one liable for karet, she is a zona even if he was not initially a stranger to her.

And we infer:

The reason is that it was her husband

[the eunuch] who disqualified her from marrying a kohein, because she engaged in intercourse with her husband’s brother when there was no mitzva of yibbum.

But

if her husband

another man

and she had other healthy brothers to whom she was bound in yibbum,

she is not

disqualified from marrying a kohein, even though she is prohibited to everyone before she performs ḥalitza; and if so: