Yevamot 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

The Mishna is not applicable,

as it is explained there that an androgynos enables his wife to eat teruma, even teruma by Torah law, and infer from it that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is certainly male—

before the beraita,

in which Rabbi Yosei holds that an androgynos is a matter of uncertainty.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: An androgynos—

is a creature in its own right, and the Sages did not determine whether it is male or female.

And we challenge this: From where do you know to reject the Mishna because of the beraita?

On the contrary,

let us say that

the beraita is not applicable in the presence of the Mishna!

And we answer:

Since Rabbi Yosei left his colleague,

since in the beraita Rabbi Yosei left Rabbi Shimon, his colleague who taught the Mishna with him,

infer from this that he retracted,

that Rabbi Yosei retracted what he had said in the Mishna.

And Shmuel said: The beraita is not applicable,

as it is explained in it that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is a matter of uncertainty—

in favor of the Mishna,

which implies that according to Rabbi Yosei it is certainly male.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary,

let us say:

The Mishna is not applicable in favor of the beraita!

For we have heard Shmuel say that “he takes into consideration the opinion of an individual.”

And if so, in this beraita, in which Rabbi Yosei’s statement was taught alone, as the opinion of an individual tanna, we should adopt its ruling!

And we answer:

That applies when the Mishna is not uprooted—

when no Mishna is being uprooted—

but when the Mishna is uprooted,

as it is explained in it that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is certainly male,

he does not take it into consideration,

Shmuel does not take into consideration the opinion of an individual tanna.

They said in Rav’s house of study—

they said in Rav’s academy, and below it is explained that this refers to Rav Huna—

in the name of Rav:

The halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to

the matter of

an androgynos and with regard to

the matter of

grafting,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain them.

And Shmuel said:

The halakha follows Rabbi Yosei

with regard to

the matter of

labor pains and with regard to

the matter of

sanctification.

And the Gemara explains this:

The statement that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to

an androgynos

means

that which we said,

that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei of the Mishna, and not as was explained above in the name of Rav: “The Mishna is not applicable in favor of the beraita.” The statement that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to

grafting

means this

that we learned:

One may not plant

a tree,

and one may not layer—

bending a branch from the tree down to the ground, while bringing it out elsewhere is called “layering”—,

and one may not graft—

inserting a branch from another tree into the tree—during the sixth year,

on the eve of

the

seventh year, less than thirty days before Rosh HaShana,

since it takes root during the seventh year, as the period required for it to take root is thirty days.

And if one planted, layered, or grafted

less than thirty days before the Sabbatical year, the Sages penalized him, since this is

to be uprooted.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any grafting—

and likewise planting and layering—

that does not take root within three days—

will no longer take root.

Therefore, three days before the beginning of the seventh year are sufficient.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Two weeks

is the period required for it to take root, and this amount of time before the seventh year is sufficient.

And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

According to the one who says—

the first tanna—

thirty

days—

thirty are required

for it to take root,

and

an additional

thirty

days before them.

That is to say, the taking root must be completed thirty days before the seventh year, because the entire thirty-day period before the seventh year is considered like the seventh year, as derived [Moed Katan 3b] from the verse: “You shall desist from plowing and reaping,” which teaches that one must add from the ordinary to the sacred.

According to the one who says—

Rabbi Yehuda—

three

days,

three are required

for it to take root

and

an additional

thirty

days before the seventh year, for they are considered like the seventh year.

According to the one who says—

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon—

two weeks: two weeks are required

for it to take root,

and

an additional

thirty

days.

And the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei: two weeks are required, with thirty days before them.

And Shmuel said:

The halakha follows Rabbi Yosei

with regard to labor pains and sanctification,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain them.

The statement that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to

labor pains

means in this matter

that we learned:

A. A woman becomes a “menstruating woman”—if she sees blood during her “period of menstruation.”

She becomes a “zava”—if she sees blood during her “period outside her menstruation.”

Every woman has a fixed cycle of seven days called her “period of menstruation,” followed by eleven days called her “period outside her menstruation.”

Once these eighteen days have elapsed, the period in which the woman is fit to become a menstruating woman begins again. That is, from the time she again sees blood, it is menstrual blood, and the cycle of seven days of menstruation begins again, followed by eleven days that are her “period outside her menstruation”; if she sees blood during those days, she becomes a zava.

B. A woman who saw menstrual blood is a menstruating woman for seven days, and she may immerse herself [by Torah law] for her purification at their conclusion. This is so even if she saw menstrual blood throughout all seven days, provided that she stopped seeing blood toward the end of the seventh day.

And if she saw blood for three consecutive days during the eleven days following the seven days of menstruation, she becomes a “major zava,” and must count seven clean days after the flow of ziva ceases. The period of eleven days following the seven days of menstruation is called the “eleven days between one menstruation and the next.”

C. The blood of a woman who has given birth, which emerges during childbirth or beforehand, when she feels labor pains, does not render her impure with the impurity of a zava. This law—that labor blood associated with childbirth does not render her impure with the impurity of ziva—is derived from the verse: “And when a woman has a discharge, the discharge of her blood for many days.” The Sages expounded: “the discharge of her blood” due to herself, but not when the discharge of blood is caused by the birth of the child.

D. The definition of blood as labor blood associated with childbirth, which does not render her impure as a zava, depends on its proximity to childbirth.

And the Sages disputed what period of time before childbirth is one in which the woman will not become a zava even if she sees blood during the eleven days that are her “period outside her menstruation,” provided that she experiences labor pains.

How long may her labor pains last,

that is, the pain a woman experiences close to childbirth and during which she sees blood: From when is the pain considered to be caused by the child, so that we may attribute her ziva to the child and she does not become a zava through this sight?

Rabbi Meir says: Either forty or fifty days,

that is, even if she experienced labor pains and saw blood forty or fifty days before childbirth, we attribute the sight of blood to the child, and she does not become a zava; rather, she is a menstruating woman because of that blood.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The recent month is sufficient,

that is, only if she experienced labor pains and saw blood during the final month of her pregnancy does that blood not make her a zava. But blood that she saw before the final month of her pregnancy makes her a zava, since this blood was not caused by the child.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor pains

associated with childbirth do not continue

for more than two weeks,

two weeks before childbirth.

The statement that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to

sanctification—

means this

that we learned: One who spreads his grapevine over the produce of another

—and the same applies to one who sows, as Tosafot state—then leaves the grapevine until it increases the produce by one two-hundredth of what there was previously—

has thereby sanctified it!

That is, he prohibited his fellow’s produce from benefit under the law of prohibited mixtures of a vineyard,

and he is liable

the one who spread the vine

for its responsibility,

and must pay for the loss,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

The produce of his fellow was not rendered forbidden.