Yevamot 82b — the Talmud in English

And

if

I

Rabbi Yohanan

said in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

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”.

For it was 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.”

Thus, two inheritances [that is, the sanctity of the Land of Israel through the inheritance and entry of the Israelites into the Land] are implied, and no more—

Only

the inheritance

and sanctification

the first

in the days of Joshua,

and

the second inheritance and sanctification

the second

when they ascended from the exile in the days of Ezra,

do they have

for Israel.

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

And

but an inheritance

a third—

they do not have!

That is: there is no need for a third inheritance and sanctity, for the second sanctity remains even after Israel was exiled from it at the destruction of the Second Temple, in the days of Titus.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Who is the tanna

who teaches

Seder Olam?—

Rabbi Yosei

is he!

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

And here the Gemara returns to Rabbi Yohanan’s words, who holds that even though non-sacred produce did not exceed the teruma, the baskets are permitted.

And it presently occurred to us in explaining his reason that since teruma nowadays is rabbinic [according to this tanna], even a majority is not needed to nullify the teruma in non-sacred produce; rather, whenever the teruma became 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 an objection:

And

for

Rabbi Yohanan held

that

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

but whenever a forbidden matter became mixed with permitted matter, even one with one, it is nullified?

But we learned:

A ritual bath containing exactly forty seah,

precisely, as the amount required for a ritual bath, if

he gave one seah—

of other liquids, or fruit juices, or brine and fish sauce, or fermented temed, which are unfit for a ritual bath—into the ritual bath,

and took one seah

from the ritual bath, the ritual bath is

valid.

For as soon as they put the measure of fruit juice into the ritual bath, the liquids became nullified, and they themselves became fit for a ritual bath.

And it follows that even after he took one seah, exactly forty seah of water fit for a ritual bath remained in the ritual bath.

And Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said in the name of Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

They declared it valid in this manner only

up to its majority

of the ritual bath, as he explains it below.

Is it not

what he means is this: they declared it valid only where

its majority remained

of the ritual bath as valid water, so that he introduced into the ritual bath only nineteen seah of fruit juice, and a majority of the ritual bath of valid water remained in the ritual bath?

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

And we answer:

No,

not as you explained Rabbi Yohanan’s words; rather, this is what he means: the Sages declared it valid only in a manner

that he does not take its majority,

so that he did not take twenty-one seah; but a majority is not required, since it is rabbinic.

And if you wish, say:

Rabbi Yohanan’s reason concerning teruma is not because he holds that with regard to rabbinic law it is enough that it become mixed, even though it did not contain a majority to nullify it; and the fact that Rabbi Yohanan said that the baskets are permitted because teruma nowadays is rabbinic—

Here it is different—

concerning the baskets—

for it is possible to say, “I say,”

that is, with regard to rabbinic law we attribute the matter leniently, saying: teruma fell into teruma, and non-sacred produce fell into non-sacred produce.

And here the Gemara returns to the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan concerning Rabbi Yosei’s view in our Mishna, whether the androginus is a case of doubt or is certainly male, and we object:

We learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says:

An androginus marries

a woman, implying a complete marriage, and he is like a male and feeds his wife teruma from the Torah; for otherwise he should have said, “An androginus who betrothed a woman, his betrothal is a betrothal” [Tosafot ], and this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who holds according to Rabbi Yosei that the androginus is doubtfully male?!

And we answer:

Teach: if he married, the marriage is valid.

That is: we are concerned stringently, that it is a marriage and she requires a bill of divorce from him in order to marry another, but not leniently, to feed his wife teruma from the Torah.

And we object to this:

But it teaches, “marries”,

which implies from the outset, and this means that it is a complete marriage, even to feed her teruma from the Torah.

And according to your reasoning, what is “but he may not be married”

the androginus to a man?

That is: according to your reasoning, since you are precise about the wording, how do you understand “but he may not be married,” which implies from the outset? Obviously, since it teaches “marries” from the outset and regards him as a full male—

Rather, what

must it mean is this: but he may not be

“married,” after the fact,

and from the fact that “he may not be married” in the conclusion means after the fact,

“marries” likewise means after the fact, [

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

They say,

the members of the academy, to reject the comparison:

No!

“Marries”—

it implies from the outset.

“But he may not be married”—

even after the fact, no.

And it implies that the marriage of an androginus to a woman is a complete marriage, and this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who holds that according to Rabbi Yosei he is a case of doubt?!

And now we raise an objection to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds according to Rabbi Yosei that an androginus is certainly male:

But from the fact that it teaches in the conclusion: Rabbi Eliezer says: an androginus is liable to stoning for him as for a male—

By implication,

you learn

that the first tanna,

that is, Rabbi Yosei,

is in doubt concerning him,

for if not, in what did they disagree?!

And we answer:

Both according to this master [

Rabbi Eliezer]

and according to that master [

Rabbi Yosei]

it is explicit to him

that the androginus is male; and as for what is difficult for you—if so, in what do they disagree?

There is a difference between them

whether they are liable for him to

stoning from two places [

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

This master,

Rabbi Yosei,

holds: they are liable for him to stoning from two places,

and he derives the reason below, on page 83b, from a verse, that they are liable for him also on account of his femaleness [from the front], even though he is certainly male.

And this master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds: as a male,

and no more than a male.

Just as with a male they are liable for him only when one has intercourse with him from one place, namely from behind, so with an androginus they are liable for him to stoning only if one has intercourse with him in the place of his maleness.

Rav said: