Yevamot 81a — the Talmud in English

Let us say that it be

our Mishna

a refutation of Rav Hamnuna.

For he said: A woman awaiting levirate marriage who committed adultery—

is disqualified for levirate marriage

like a married woman who committed adultery beneath her husband, who is forbidden to her husband. And according to his view, she is a zona and is forbidden to the priesthood. And our Mishna should be difficult: it did not disqualify for the priesthood the one who is awaiting levirate marriage for the healthy brothers, אלא if she committed adultery with her husband’s eunuch brother?!

That is to say: this works out if we do not hold like Rav Huna; for she does not become a zona, since the other was not originally a stranger to her, because before she was married to this one she was permitted to him, and therefore he did not make her a zona.

But according to Rav Hamnuna, who compares a woman awaiting levirate marriage who committed adultery to a married woman who committed adultery, she is a zona and disqualified for the priesthood.

And we answer:

No

not as you inferred—that if she committed adultery with another she is not disqualified for the priesthood, from the fact that we taught only that her eunuch husband disqualified her, and not another.

Rather,

the same law applies even

if she had intercourse

with another—

also

she is disqualified for the priesthood.

And

the reason that we taught that her eunuch husband disqualified her is that

since

when

the first clause was taught

that a eunuch who performed halitza with his levirate wife did not disqualify her,

with him

[the eunuch], for this law applies only with a eunuch, therefore

the latter clause was also taught:

her husband disqualified her,

with him

and not with another.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, a sexually underdeveloped woman with whom the brothers performed halitza,

they did not disqualify her; if they had intercourse with her, they disqualified her, because her intercourse is intercourse of prostitution:

And we infer:

The reason is that they had intercourse with her

the brothers; only then did they disqualify her for the priesthood.

But if they had not had intercourse with her

the brothers—

no,

she is not disqualified for the priesthood merely by virtue of being sexually underdeveloped—

According to whom

is our Mishna?—

Not according to Rabbi Judah.

For if it is Rabbi Judah, he said: A sexually underdeveloped woman is a zona,

and she is forbidden to a priest, because her very intercourse is intercourse of prostitution, since she is unfit to give birth and to break forth, as it is written: “They committed adultery and they did not break forth”; you have learned that every intercourse in which there is no breaking forth is nothing but intercourse of prostitution.

Mishna:

A sun-eunuch who is a priest—

who is permitted to a daughter of Israel—

who married a daughter of Israel,

this one

feeds her teruma

like the other priests.

But a man-made eunuch—this one is a eunuch with crushed genitals, and he does not feed her teruma.

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: An androgyne who is a priest who married a daughter of Israel,

this one

feeds her teruma.

And in the Gemara their words will be explained: whether their reason is that in their view an androgyne is certainly male, or whether he is of uncertain male and uncertain female status, but with regard to rabbinic teruma, this one feeds her even on account of the uncertainty.

Rabbi Judah says: A tumtum whose covering was torn and who was found to be male,

and he has another brother—

he shall not perform halitza

himself

because he is like a eunuch,

that is, because he does not beget.

And Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon further said:

An androgyne marries

a woman,

but is not married

to a man, for the androgyne is male, and one who lies with him is as one who has intercourse with a male.

Rabbi Eliezer says: An androgyne

with whom a male had intercourse,

they are liable on his account to stoning,

as though he had had intercourse with a

male.

And in the Gemara it will be explained in what Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree with Rabbi Eliezer.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A sun-eunuch who is a priest who married a daughter of Israel feeds her teruma.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: For

it is obvious

that he feeds her teruma; why did the tanna need to make this known to us?!

And we explain: There is a novelty in this law, because

it might enter your mind to say

since the Torah said, “And those born in his house, they shall eat of his bread,” and we read in it, “they shall feed of his bread,” we should expound from the wording “born” that only a priest who

begets

is the one who

feeds

with teruma.

But a priest

who does not beget does not feed—

It teaches us

that he too feeds her.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: An androgyne

who is a priest who married a daughter of Israel feeds her teruma:

Reish Lakish said:

An androgyne, according to Rabbi Yose, is of uncertain male and uncertain female status.

And therefore, he does not

feed her

except

with teruma,

since teruma is rabbinic, as he proceeds to explain,

and he does not feed her breast and thigh,

which are given to priests and are forbidden to non-priests.

For since they are forbidden to non-priests by Torah law, he does not feed his wife with them, for it is uncertain whether the betrothal took effect with his wife, since perhaps he is female, and a female does not betroth a female.

Rabbi Yohanan says: He even feeds her breast and thigh,

for according to Rabbi Yose the androgyne is certainly male, and therefore he feeds her even breast and thigh, which are by Torah law.

And according to Reish Lakish,

who distinguished between teruma, with which the androgyne feeds her, and breast and thigh, with which he does not feed her, it should be difficult:

What is different about breast and thigh

with which the androgyne does not feed his wife, since the prohibition against a non-priest’s eating breast and thigh is

by Torah law, whereas the prohibition against a non-priest’s eating

teruma is also

by Torah law

a prohibition

by Torah law

is it not?!

And we answer:

Here,

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with teruma in the present time,

for the entire status of teruma now is only

rabbinic.

And it is forbidden to non-priests only by rabbinic law. And since it is possible that the androgyne is male, his wife therefore eats teruma on account of the uncertainty, for an uncertainty concerning a rabbinic prohibition is treated leniently.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this explanation of Reish Lakish’s words:

But when the Temple is standing—

what

will be the law of the androgyne’s wife with regard to teruma, according to Reish Lakish? Will she

not

eat teruma then, since at that time teruma is by Torah law?!

And if so,

rather than teaching

Reish Lakish

“He does not feed her breast and thigh”

which are by Torah law and apply when the Temple is standing—since according to your words, as you explained Reish Lakish, he permitted only teruma in the present time, which is rabbinic—

let Reish Lakish distinguish

Reish Lakish

and teach it concerning that itself

[teruma itself], and Reish Lakish should say as follows:

When is this statement applicable

that she eats

teruma? In the present time, when it is only

Nowadays, when it is only

rabbinic.

But teruma

when the Temple is standing, when it is

by Torah law—

no,

the androgyne does not feed his wife.

And why did Reish Lakish need to distinguish and say that when the Temple is standing she does not eat breast and thigh, when at that time she does not even eat teruma?! And we answer:

This too is what he said

Reish Lakish:

When he feeds her—

he feeds her teruma in the present time,

because teruma is only

rabbinic.

And

however, he

does not feed her

teruma

at the time

when they eat

breast and thigh,

when the Temple is standing,

and even

not

with rabbinic teruma

does he feed her then—for example, teruma of tree produce, which is only rabbinic at all times.

And because of a decree,

lest she come

[lest the woman come]

to eat it

[to eat] also

teruma by Torah law.

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan said: He even feeds her

when the Temple is standing

breast and thigh,

since the androgyne is completely male.

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish: Do you hold that teruma in the present time is rabbinic

because the sanctity departed from the Land when Israel went into exile from it?!

He said to him,

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan:

No,

indeed teruma in the present time is rabbinic!

A. Teruma—both teruma by Torah law and rabbinic teruma—is not nullified by a majority like other prohibitions, but only by one hundred and one. That is to say: if there were one hundred measures of non-sacred produce against one measure of teruma, the teruma is nullified.

B. Important teruma [or another Torah prohibition involving an important item], which is sold by number and not by estimation, is not nullified at all. This law applies to teruma by Torah law, but teruma in the present time, according to the one who holds that it is rabbinic, is nullified.

C. Teruma of produce is only rabbinic even during the time of the Temple, for teruma by Torah law applies only to grain, wine, and oil, [Rashi’s method].

D. Important teruma of produce during the time of the Temple [or in the present time, according to the one who holds that teruma in the present time is by Torah law] is not nullified. This is because we decree concerning rabbinic teruma of produce on account of teruma of grain, wine, and oil, which is by Torah law. Its law is not like teruma in the present time, concerning which we do not decree on account of Torah law, since in the present time teruma by Torah law does not apply at all.

Since

I teach

a beraita in which it is stated:

A fig cake among fig cakes rises.

That is to say: a fig cake of teruma that fell into one hundred fig cakes of non-sacred produce—the cake is nullified.

And it is proven that teruma in the present time is rabbinic, for if teruma applied in the present time by Torah law, the fig cake—which is an important item and is sold by number—would not be able to be nullified.

And although in either case the teruma of the fig cake is not teruma by Torah law, since it is teruma of produce, nevertheless, if teruma in the present time were by Torah law, we would have to decree concerning rabbinic teruma because of teruma by Torah law.

Rather, certainly teruma in the present time is only rabbinic, and since now there is no teruma by Torah law at all, they did not decree that it should not be nullified because of teruma by Torah law.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish: Is it because the fig cake of pressed figs is nullified, as you taught, that its prohibition is only rabbinic, as you explained?!

But I teach

another beraita, in which it is stated: even

a piece

of impure sacrificial meat—which too is sold by number, like the fig cake, and is as important as it—when it was mixed

with

one hundred

pieces

of pure meat, it

rises,

for it is nullified by the majority despite the fact that its prohibition is by Torah law?!

And if so, it is proven that the reason the fig cake and the piece are nullified is not that their prohibition is rabbinic, but because these are not important:

Do you hold that “everything whose manner is to be counted

[an item that ordinarily is not sold by estimation but by number]

we taught

is not nullified because of its importance?!

That is not so. Rather,

“that whose manner is to be counted

[an item that is always sold by number because of its importance, and is never sold by estimation because of its importance] is what

we taught

is not nullified because of its importance.

And the piece of meat and the fig cake are not sufficiently important that they should not be nullified, for these are sometimes sold by estimation and not by number.

And since the fig cake is not important, we therefore taught: A fig cake among fig cakes rises; and you cannot prove from here that teruma in the present time is rabbinic.

And the Gemara explains:

What is it?

Where did we teach that an item sold by number is not nullified, concerning which Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan disagreed as to what we taught?

For we learned:

[It is a type of legume, and it is used to flavor the pot]

One who had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard mixtures—

these are forbidden for benefit, and

they shall burn,

for the law of vineyard mixtures is that they are burned, as the verse says: “You shall not sow your vineyard with mixtures, lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the produce of the vineyard be consecrated.”

And the Sages expounded: “It shall be consecrated” is as though Scripture said, “It shall be consumed by fire,” to teach you that vineyard mixtures are burned.

And if

they became mixed

those prohibited bundles

with

bundles

other

permitted -