Yevamot 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

And

if

I—

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

who says in accordance with Rabbi Yosei! According to Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in our Mishna, he is the one about whom I said: “She may feed him even the breast and thigh,” because it is impossible to explain his opinion as meaning that he spoke only about teruma, and because teruma nowadays is rabbinic [and this is in accordance with Reish Lakish’s understanding of Rabbi Yosei], since Rabbi Yosei himself maintains that teruma nowadays is by Torah law, as is evident from his statement in Seder Olam.

According to Rabbi Yosei’s view in our Mishna, this is what I said: “It feeds her even teruma from the breast and shoulder,” because it is impossible to explain his view as saying only in the case of teruma, on the grounds that teruma nowadays is rabbinic [and in accordance with Reish Lakish’s position regarding Rabbi Yosei], for Rabbi Yosei himself holds that teruma nowadays is from the Torah, as is demonstrated by his words in Seder Olam”.

As it is taught in Seder Olam:

It is written: “And the Lord your God will bring you to the land

which your fathers inherited—

and you shall inherit it.”

This indicates two inheritances [that is, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael through the inheritance and entry of the Jewish people into the Land], and no more—

Only

the first

inheritance and sanctity,

in the days of Joshua,

and

a second inheritance and sanctity,

in the days of Ezra,

when they ascended from the exile,

do the Jewish people have

.

The first sanctity, from the days of Joshua, was nullified when they were exiled from it upon the destruction of the First Temple, and when they returned from the exile, a second sanctity was established.

And

as for a

third

inheritance—they do not have one!

That is: There is no need for a third inheritance and sanctity, because the second sanctity remains even after the Jewish people were exiled from it upon the destruction of the Second Temple, in the days of Titus.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Who is the tanna

who taught

the Seder Olam?

It is Rabbi Yosei

!

And from here it follows that, according to Rabbi Yosei, teruma nowadays is by Torah law, because the sanctity of the Land was not nullified.

The Gemara now returns to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, according to which, even though non-sacred produce did not outnumber the teruma, the baskets are permitted.

And it initially assumes that his reasoning is as follows: Since teruma nowadays is rabbinic [according to this tanna], even a majority is not required to nullify teruma in non-sacred produce; rather, whenever teruma becomes mixed with non-sacred produce it is nullified, and therefore the baskets are permitted, even though I do not say: “Teruma fell into teruma, and non-sacred produce fell into non-sacred produce,” and therefore we raise the following difficulty:

And

because

Rabbi Yoḥanan holds

that

with regard to rabbinic prohibitions, an increase is not required,

but whenever a prohibited substance becomes mixed with permitted substance, even one with one, it is nullified?

But didn’t we learn:

If a ritual bath contains exactly forty se’a,

precisely the amount required for a ritual bath, and

one se’a is added

of other liquids, fruit juices, brine, fish sauce, or fermented temed, none of which are valid for a ritual bath, into the ritual bath,

and one se’a is removed

from the ritual bath, the ritual bath is

valid.

For as soon as the se’a of fruit juice was added to the ritual bath, the liquid was nullified and itself became valid for a ritual bath.

It follows that even after one se’a was removed, exactly forty se’a of water valid for a ritual bath remained in the ritual bath.

And Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

They declared it valid in this manner only

up to the majority

of the ritual bath, as he proceeds to explain.

Does this not mean

that this is what he is saying: They declared it valid only where

the majority remained

of the ritual bath as valid water, meaning that only nineteen se’a of fruit juice were introduced into the ritual bath, while a majority of the ritual bath of valid water remained in it?

You have therefore learned: Even though the disqualification is only rabbinic [see the additional explanation in the notes ], nevertheless, a majority of the contents must be valid.

And we answer:

No,

not as you explained Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement; rather, this is what he is saying: The Sages declared it valid only in a manner

that he does not remove its majority,

that he did not remove twenty-one se’a. Nevertheless, a majority is not required, since it is rabbinic.

And if you wish, say:

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reason concerning teruma is not that he holds that, in the case of a rabbinic prohibition, it is sufficient for the prohibited substance merely to become mixed, even when there is no majority to nullify it; and the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the baskets are permitted, since teruma nowadays is rabbinic, is—

Here it is different

in the case of the baskets,

as it is possible to say, “I say that

the teruma fell into the teruma, and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.”

The Gemara now returns to the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in our Mishna, whether an androgynos is a case of uncertainty or is certainly male, and it raises the following objection:

We learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says:

An androgynos marries

a woman. This implies a complete marriage, and he is treated as male and may enable his wife to eat teruma by Torah law; for otherwise, he should have said: “An androgynos whose betrothal was performed has a valid betrothal” [Tosafot ], and this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who maintains that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is of uncertain sex?!

And we answer:

Read it as: If he married, the marriage is valid.

That is: We are stringent, suspecting that it is a marriage, and she requires a bill of divorce from him in order to marry another; but we are not lenient by allowing her to eat teruma by Torah law.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

But it teaches “marries,”

which implies that this is permitted ab initio, meaning that the marriage is fully valid, even to enable her to eat teruma by Torah law.

And according to your reasoning, what is the meaning of “but he may not be married

to a man”?

That is: According to your reasoning, since you analyze the wording precisely, how do you interpret “but he may not be married,” which implies that this is also referring to the preferred course of action? Obviously, since it teaches “marries” as a preferred course of action and treats him as fully male—

Rather, what

must you say? It necessarily means: But he may not be

“married,” after the fact,

and since “he may not be married” in the latter clause refers to the situation after the fact,

“marries” likewise refers to the situation after the fact, [as explained according to the Ritva; see the Meiri].

as is explained according to the Ritva; and see the Meiri].

They said

the members of the academy, rejecting the comparison:

No!

“Marries”—

implies that this is permitted ab initio.

“But he may not be married”—

even after the fact, he may not.

This implies that the marriage of an androgynos to a woman is a fully valid marriage, and this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who maintains that according to Rabbi Yosei it is a case of uncertainty?!

We now raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan, who maintains that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is certainly male:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says: An androgynos is liable to stoning as a male—

By inference

you learn

that the first tanna,

namely Rabbi Yosei,

is uncertain about it,

for if this were not so, over what do they disagree?!

And we answer:

According to one master

Rabbi Eliezer,

and according to the other master

Rabbi Yosei,

it is obvious to him

that an androgynos is male. And as for your difficulty—if so, over what do they disagree?

There is a difference between them

as to whether one is liable for him

to be stoned on account of both openings [the one who engages in intercourse with him from behind and the one who engages in intercourse with him from the front]:

[one who has relations with him from behind and one who has relations with him from the front]:

One master,

Rabbi Yosei,

holds that one is liable to be stoned on account of both openings,

and he derives the reason later, on page 83b, from a verse, which teaches that one is liable for him also on account of his female aspect [from the front], even though he is certainly male.

And the other,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds: As a male,

and no more than a male.

Just as with a male, one is liable for him only when one engages in intercourse with him through one opening, namely, from behind, so too with an androgynos, one is liable to be stoned only when one engages in intercourse with him through his male aspect.

Rav said: