Yevamot 83a — the Talmud in English

The Mishna is not [to be accepted],

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

in the face of the beraita,

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

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

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

And we raise an objection: From where do you have [grounds] to reject the Mishna on account of the beraita?

On the contrary,

let us say that

the beraita is not [to be accepted] in the face of the Mishna!

And we answer:

Since Rabbi Yosei left his partner

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

infer from it that he retracted,

Rabbi Yosei retracted what he said in the Mishna.

And Shmuel said: The beraita is not [to be accepted],

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

in the face of the Mishna,

from which it follows that according to Rabbi Yosei it is certainly male.

And we raise an objection:

On the contrary,

let us say:

the Mishna is not [to be accepted] in the face of the beraita!

For we have heard Shmuel say that “he takes account of the view of an individual.”

And if so, in this beraita, in which Rabbi Yosei’s words were taught alone, as the view of an individual, we should follow it!

And we answer:

These words apply when the Mishna is not uprooted

when no Mishna is uprooted],

but when the Mishna is uprooted,

in which it is explained that according to Rabbi Yosei’s view an androgynos is certainly male,

he does not take account

of the view of an individual, Shmuel.

They said in the house of Rav

they said in Rav’s academy, and below it explains that this means Rav Huna]

in the name of Rav:

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei concerning

the matter of

an androgynos and concerning

the matter of

grafting,

and he proceeds to explain them.

And Shmuel said:

the halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei

concerning

the matter of

“labor pains” and concerning

the matter of

consecration.

And we explain it:

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei concerning

an androgynos

means

that which we said,

that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei of the Mishna, and not as was explained above in the name of Rav: “The Mishna is not [to be accepted] in the face of the beraita.” The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei concerning

grafting

means that

which we learned:

One may not plant

a tree,

and one may not layer

bending a branch from the tree to the ground, and bringing it out elsewhere is called “layering”],

and one may not graft

on the eve of

on the eve of

the

seventh year, less than thirty days before Rosh Hashana,

since it takes root in the seventh year, for the period required for taking root is thirty days.

And if he planted, layered, or grafted

less than thirty days before the seventh year—the Sages penalized him, so this one

must uproot [it].

Rabbi Yehuda says: Every 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 suffice.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Two weeks

the period required for taking root continues, and this amount of time before the seventh year suffices.

And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

According to the one who says

the first tanna]

thirty

days—

thirty

days are required for taking root,

and

another

thirty

additional days before them.

That is, the taking root must be completed thirty days before the seventh year, because the entire thirty days before the seventh year are like the seventh year, and this is learned [Moed Katan 3b] from the verse, “You shall desist from plowing and harvesting,” which teaches that one must add from the profane to the sacred.

According to the one who says

Rabbi Yehuda]:

three

days,

three

days are required for taking root

and

another

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 taking root,

and

another

thirty

days.

And the halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei, that two weeks are required, with thirty days before them.

And Shmuel said:

the halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei

concerning labor pains and consecration,

and he proceeds to explain them.

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei concerning

labor pains,

namely, concerning that

which we learned:

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

And she becomes a zava if she sees the blood during the “period that is not her menstruation.”

Every woman has a fixed cycle of seven days that are “the period of her menstruation,” followed by eleven days that are “the period that is not her menstruation.”

Once these eighteen days have passed, the period in which the woman is fit to become a nida begins again; that is, from the time she again sees blood, it will be nida blood, and the cycle of seven days of menstruation begins again, followed by eleven days that are “the period that is not her menstruation,” during which, if she sees blood, she will be a zava.

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

And if she saw blood on three consecutive days during the eleven days following the seven days of menstruation, she becomes a “major zava,” and she requires counting seven clean days after the blood of ziva ceases. The period of eleven days following the seven days of menstruation is called “the eleven days between one menstruation and another.”

C. The blood of a woman giving birth that emerges during childbirth or before it, when she feels labor pains, does not convey the impurity of a zava. And this law—that the blood of labor pains of childbirth does not convey the impurity of ziva—is learned from the verse, “And if a woman’s blood flows for many days,” and the Sages expounded: “If her blood flows” on account of herself, but not when the flow of blood is on account of the birth of the child.

D. Defining the blood as blood of labor pains of childbirth, which does not render her impure as a zava, depends on its proximity to childbirth.

And the Sages disagreed concerning what period before childbirth is such that the woman will not be a zava even if she sees blood during the eleven days that are “the period that is not her menstruation,” provided that she has labor pains.

How long may her labor pains be,

that is, the distress a woman suffers close to childbirth and during which she sees blood—from when is the distress considered to be on account of the child, so that we can attribute her ziva to the child and she will not become a zava through the sighting?

Rabbi Meir says: Either forty or fifty days,

that is, even if she suffered labor pains and saw blood forty or fifty days before childbirth, we attribute the sighting of blood to the child, and she does not become a zava; rather, she is a nida on account of that blood.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Her month is sufficient,

that is: Only if she suffered labor pains and saw blood during the final month of her pregnancy do these drops of 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 is not on account of the child.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor pains

of childbirth last

no longer than two weeks,

from two weeks before childbirth.

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei concerning

consecration—

namely, that

which we learned: One who spreads his vine over his fellow’s grain

and the same applies to one who sows, Tosafot] and left the vine until it increased by one two-hundredth of what had been there previously—

this one has consecrated it!

That is, he prohibited his fellow’s produce from benefit by the law of “diverse kinds in a vineyard,”

and he is liable

the one who spread the vine

for its responsibility,

and he must pay the loss,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

His fellow’s produce was not prohibited.