Yevamot 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

Since

a person cannot render forbidden something that does not belong to him.

They raised a dilemma:

1.

Regarding an androgynos—

concerning which Rav said that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei—

what did Shmuel say

what was Shmuel's view, since he did not mention the law of an androgynos among his statements?

Come and hear

from this:

Shmuel said to Rav Anan, “The beraita is not valid,”

the beraita in which Rabbi Yosei said that an androgynos is a matter of uncertainty,

in the presence of the Mishna,

which states that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is certainly male.

It is thus proven that even according to Shmuel, the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to an androgynos.

2.

Grafting—

concerning which Rav said that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei—

what did Shmuel say,

since he did not mention the law of grafting among his statements?

Come and hear

from this:

Shmuel said to Rav Anan: “Teach in accordance with the one who says thirty-three,”

which is the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

3.

A difficult labor—

concerning which Shmuel said that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei—

what did Rav say,

since he did not mention the law of difficult labor among his statements?

The matter remains unresolved.

Betrothal—

concerning which Shmuel said that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei—

what did Rav say,

since he did not mention the law of difficult labor among his statements?

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear

from this:

Rav Huna said that Rav stated: “The halakha does not follow Rabbi Yosei”

with regard to betrothal.

He said he challenged

[he challenged]

him, Abaye,

to Rav Yosef:

“What have you seen that led you to rely on this?”

What did you see that led you to rely on Rav Huna in the name of Rav, who said that the halakha does not follow Rabbi Yosei with regard to betrothal?

Rely instead on this, which Rav Adda said in the name of Rav: ‘The halakha follows Rabbi Yosei’

with regard to betrothal?!

And we answer:

“They said in Rav's academy”—

the statement cited above in Rav's name, that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei with regard to an androgynos and grafting, on the basis of which the question was asked regarding Rav's view of betrothal—

who are they who said it? Surely

[Who could they be?] Surely

Rav Huna

is the one.

And Rav Huna

himself, after all,

said

in Rav's name that

the halakha does not follow

Rabbi Yosei with regard to betrothal.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A tumtum

whose sealed membrane was torn and who was found to be male may not perform ḥalitza, because he is like a eunuch:

Rabbi Ami said: What would Rabbi Yehuda do what would Rabbi Yehuda say regarding

[that is, what will he say about]

the tumtum of Biri a tumtum who lived in a city called Biri,

[a tumtum who lived in the city called Beiri]

whose legs they placed on two chairs,

placing one foot on each chair and pulling them apart,

and

thus

it was torn

the membrane covering his male organ,

and he fathered seven sons he married a woman and fathered seven sons?

[he married a woman and fathered seven sons]?

That is to say: How could Rabbi Yehuda say that a tumtum is like a eunuch, who cannot father children, when there was an actual case of a tumtum whose membrane was torn and who fathered children?!

And Rabbi Yehuda could say to you: Investigate his sons—where did they come from examine from which father they descended—for they were certainly mamzerim, since a tumtum whose membrane was torn cannot father children.

[examine from which father they came], for they are certainly mamzerim, since a tumtum whose covering was torn cannot father children.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

A tumtum whose membrane was torn and who was found to be male can father children; nevertheless,

a tumtum may not perform ḥalitza

when there are other brothers,

lest his membrane be torn and he be found that is, and it turn out that he is

[that is, and he turn out to be]

a eunuch from birth,

who is unfit to perform ḥalitza.

And we challenge this:

Is it so

does

everyone whose membrane is torn turn out to be male that every tumtum whose membrane is torn will be found to be male, so that you are concerned only that he may be found to be a eunuch, but are not concerned that he may be found to be female?!

[does every tumtum whose covering is torn turn out to be male], so that you are concerned only that he may be found to be a eunuch, but are not concerned that he may be found to be female?!

And we answer:

This is what he is saying:

A tumtum may not perform ḥalitza

lest his membrane be torn and he be found to be female—

And even

if his membrane is torn and he

is found to be male,

he may still not perform ḥalitza,

lest he be found to be a eunuch from birth.

What is the practical difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?

Rava said:

1.

To disqualify her when there are brothers,

if the tumtum performed ḥalitza and there were other brothers—

According to Rabbi Yehuda: Since his status is that of a definite eunuch, his ḥalitza is entirely ineffective, and he does not disqualify the yevama from marrying the other brothers.

According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: Since his status is only that of a possible eunuch, his ḥalitza disqualifies her from the brothers as a matter of doubt.

2.

And to perform ḥalitza when there are no brothers,

if he is the only brother and it is necessary for her to receive ḥalitza from him—according to Rabbi Yehuda, he is a definite eunuch, and she does not require ḥalitza from him.

According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he is a possible eunuch, and she requires ḥalitza.

In these two cases

there is a practical difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Abba, the brother of Rabbi Yehuda the brother of Rabbi Yehuda

[his brother was Rabbi Yehuda]

bar Zavdi, said that Rav Yehuda

said that Rav:

An androgynos,

who is certainly male,

one is liable to be stoned on his account

because of intercourse with a male,

from two places,

whether one engages in intercourse with him from the front or from behind.

They raised an objection

from a Tosefta:

Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to an androgynos, one is liable on his account,

for intercourse with his male organ,

to stoning, just as

with a male as is stated in our Mishna.

[as stated in our Mishna].

When are these words said? With regard to his male organ.

But with regard to his female organ—

he is exempt

from stoning, but liable to makkat mardut [Ritva]?!

And we answer:

He—

Rav—

follows the view of this tanna, as it was taught:

Rabbi Simai says: With regard to an androgynos, one is liable to be stoned on his account from two places.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Simai's reason?

Rava said: Bar Meduri the name of a sage

[the name of a sage]

explained it to me:

for it is written:

“And you shall not lie with a male as with the lyings of a woman.” What male has two modes of lying?

You must say that this is an androgynos,

and the Torah has stated that both of his modes of lying are forbidden.

And the Rabbis that is, Rabbi Eliezer —

who hold that one is liable only for intercourse with the male organ of an androgynos—their reason is that

although he possesses two modes of lying,

“male” is written.

And this is what the verse says: One who possesses two modes of lying—his male organ—“you shall not lie with.”

And

we challenge

the Rabbis: As for an ordinary male,

one who is only male and is not an androgynos,

from where do they derive

that one who engages in intercourse with him is liable to stoning? This works well according to Rabbi Simai, since “and you shall not lie with a male” includes all males.

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from the word “male” an exclusion of the female organs of an androgynos, from where does he derive that one is liable for an ordinary male, who does not possess two modes of lying?

And we explain:

From the word “and”

“and a male” [Baḥ].

We further challenge: According to both one sage and the other, since “the lyings of a woman” refers to an androgynos, if so,

from where do they derive liability for intercourse with a woman in an unnatural manner—

from where do they derive it?

For it cannot be derived from “the lyings of a woman,” which implies that a woman has two modes of lying, since the verse is needed with regard to an androgynos to teach that he possesses two modes of lying?!

And we answer:

From the word “woman.”

For the verse should have said, “And you shall not lie with a male in the lyings,” or, “You shall not lie with a male as with the lyings of a male.”

Why, then, did the verse add the word “woman” as well? Rather, the verse comes to include and impose liability for both modes of lying with a woman [Ritva].

Rav Shizbi said that Rav Ḥisda said: It was not with regard to every

law that

Rabbi Eliezer said

that an

androgynos is a fully male person.

Accordingly,

if you were to say so,

that in every respect he is a completely male person,

with regard to

the animal of

consecrated animals if one consecrated an androgynos animal for the altar,

[if one consecrated an androgynos animal for the altar]

it should become consecrated

to be offered!

Yet we learned that it does not become consecrated for offering, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And from where do we know that it does not become consecrated

when it is an androgynos among consecrated animals?

For the Sages taught:

1. A special distinction was stated regarding the carcass of a kosher bird: It imparts impurity to a person and to the garments he is wearing at the moment he swallows it in the throat, but it does not impart impurity in any other manner.

That is, only one who eats it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass, and his garments require immersion in a mikve, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:8]: “He shall not eat an animal that died of natural causes or one torn by beasts, to become impure through it.” The Sages received a tradition that this verse refers to the carcass of a kosher bird.

2. A nonconsecrated bird leaves the status of a carcass only through sheḥita, whereas a bird-offering leaves the status of a carcass through melika.

3. A bird that is disqualified as a consecrated offering, and whose head was severed by melika, is a carcass, and it “renders garments impure in the throat.”

Birds that are disqualified as offerings, for example—

an animal that engaged in intercourse

with a person,

an animal designated one set aside and designated as an offering to idolatry,

[one set aside and designated for idolatrous use],

an animal worshipped one to which a person bowed and thereby made it an object of idolatry,

[one to which someone bowed and made into an object of idolatry],

the payment to a prostitute an animal given to a prostitute as her fee,

[one given to a prostitute as her payment],

and the exchange

of a dog [an animal exchanged for a dog],

and a tumtum and an androgynos—

if one consecrated them as bird-offerings and performed melika on them—

all of these

render garments impure in the throat.

Since all of these are disqualified for offering, their melika renders them carcasses.

And the carcass of a kosher bird renders the person and the garments he is wearing impure when he swallows it in the throat.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Birds that are

a tumtum or an androgynos

and that were consecrated and had melika performed on them—

do not render garments impure in the throat,

because they are fit for an offering.

For Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever “male” and “female”

are stated,

you exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them,

because they must be certainly male or certainly female.

But

if it were

a bird, since “male” and “female”

are not stated with regard to it, you do not exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them.

You have therefore learned that an androgynos animal is disqualified for offering, proving that Rabbi Eliezer did not say with regard to every matter that an androgynos is male.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too have learned

that according to Rabbi Eliezer, an androgynos is disqualified as an animal for offering on the altar:

For this is what we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: