Yevamot 83b — the Talmud in English

Since

a person cannot prohibit something that is not his.

It was asked of them:

1.

Regarding an androgynos—

concerning which Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei—

what did Shmuel say?

What does Shmuel hold, since he did not mention among his statements the law of an androgynos?

Come and hear

from this

that Shmuel said to Rav Anan: The beraita is not [to be relied upon]—

in which Rabbi Yosei said that an androgynos is uncertain—

in the presence of the Mishna—

before the Mishna, in which it is explained that according to Rabbi Yosei an androgynos is certainly male.

And it is proven that according to Shmuel as well, the halakha regarding an androgynos is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

2.

Grafting—

concerning which Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei—

what did Shmuel say,

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

Come and hear

from this

that Shmuel said to Rav Anan: Teach in accordance with the one who says thirty-three—

which is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

3.

Difficulty—

concerning which Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei—

what did Rav say,

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

It is unresolved.

Betrothal—

concerning which Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei—

what did Rav say,

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

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear

from this

that Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

in betrothal.

He said

[he objected]

to him Abaye

to Rav Yosef:

What have you seen that you rely upon this,

what did you see that you rely upon Rav Huna in the name of Rav, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in betrothal?

Rely upon that which Rav Adda said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

in betrothal?!

And we answer:

“They say in the house of Rav”—

who said above in the name of Rav that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei regarding an androgynos and regarding grafting, and according to whose view the question was asked what Rav’s position is regarding betrothal—

who are they

[who are they]? Surely

Rav Huna

is he.

And Rav Huna

himself, after all,

said

in the name of Rav that

the halakha is not

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei regarding betrothal.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A tumtum

whose covering was torn and who was found to be male does not perform halitza, because he is like a eunuch:

Rabbi Ami said: What can he do

[what should

Rabbi Yehuda do with the

tumtum of Biri

whose two feet were placed upon chairs,

he placed his two feet upon two chairs and pulled them apart,

and

thus

was torn

the skin that covered his male organ,

and he 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, when there was an incident involving a tumtum whose covering was torn and who fathered?!

And Rabbi Yehuda could say to you: Investigate his sons, from where are they

[examine from which father they come], for they are certainly mamzerim, because a tumtum whose covering was torn does not father.

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

A tumtum whose covering was torn and who was found to be male can father, but nevertheless

a tumtum does not perform halitza

when there are other brothers,

lest he be torn and be found

[that is, and be found to be]

a eunuch by natural causes,

who is not fit for halitza.

And we object:

Is it so

that

everyone who is torn is found to be male

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

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: A tumtum does not perform halitza

—

lest he be torn and be found to be female—

and even if

his covering is torn and

he is found to be male,

he also does not perform halitza,

lest he be found to be a eunuch by natural causes.

What is the difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda?

Rava said:

a.

To disqualify her where there are brothers,

if the tumtum performed halitza and there were other brothers—

According to Rabbi Yehuda: Since his status is that of a definite eunuch, his halitza is nothing, and he does not disqualify the yevama with respect to the brothers.

According to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda: Since his status is only that of a possible eunuch, because of the uncertainty his halitza disqualifies her with respect to the brothers.

b.

And to perform halitza where there are no brothers,

if there is no brother there except him, and she requires halitza from him—according to Rabbi Yehuda: He is a definite eunuch, and she does not require halitza from him.

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

In these two cases

there is a difference between them,

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rav Shmuel son of Yehuda said, Rabbi Abba, the brother of Rabbi Yehuda

[his brother, Rabbi Yehuda]

bar Zavdi, said, Rav Yehuda

said in the name of Rav:

An androgynos,

who is certainly male,

they are liable for stoning on account of him

because of male intercourse

from two places,

whether he had intercourse with him from the front or from the back.

He objected

from a Tosefta:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are liable on account of an androgynos,

because of his male intercourse,

stoning, just as

for a male

[as is stated in our Mishna].

When do these words apply? With regard to his male organ.

But with regard to his female organ—

he is exempt

from stoning, but is liable for lashes of rebellion [Ritba]?!

And we answer:

He—

Rav—

speaks in accordance with this tanna, as it was taught:

Rabbi Simai says: They are liable for stoning on account of an androgynos from two places.

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Simai’s reason?

Rava said: Bar Maduri

[the name of a sage]

explained it to me:

for it is written,

“And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman”; what male is there who has two lyings?

You must say: This is an androgynos,

and the Torah has stated that both of his forms of intercourse are prohibited.

But the Rabbis

[that is, Rabbi Eliezer ]— who hold that one is liable only for the male organ of an androgynos—their reason is that

although he possesses two forms of intercourse,

“male” is written.

And thus the verse says: “The male organ of one who has two forms of intercourse—you shall not lie with.”

And

we object to

the Rabbis: An ordinary male

[one who is only male and is not an androgynos]

from where do they derive it,

from where do they know that one who has intercourse with him is liable for stoning? For this works out according to Rabbi Simai, since it is written, “And with a male you shall not lie,” all males are included.

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, who expounds “male” to exclude the female organ of an androgynos, from where does he derive that one is liable for a male who does not have two forms of intercourse?

And we explain:

From “and”

“with a male” [Bach].

We further object, both according to this master and according to that master: Since “the lyings of a woman” refers to an androgynos, then one should be liable for prohibited intercourse

with a woman unnaturally—

from where do they derive it?

For it cannot be learned from “the lyings of a woman,” which implies that a woman has two forms of intercourse, since the verse was needed for an androgynos, to teach that he has two forms of intercourse?!

And we answer:

From “woman.”

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

And why did the verse add also the word “woman”? Rather, the verse comes to include and make one liable for two forms of intercourse with a woman [Ritba].

Rav Shizbi said in the name of Rav Hisda: Rabbi Eliezer did not say for all

the laws

that

an

androgynos is a fully-fledged male.

According to

if you say so,

that in every matter he is like a completely male person,

with

an animal of

consecrated animals

[if he consecrated an androgynos animal for the altar]

it should become consecrated

to be offered!

But we learned that it is not consecrated to be offered, as will be explained and proceed.

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

—an androgynos among consecrated animals?

For the Sages taught:

1. A special novelty was stated regarding the impurity of the carcass of a pure bird: it renders a person and the garments upon him impure at the time he swallows it in the throat, and it does not render impure in any other manner.

That is to say: Only the one who eats it becomes impure with the impurity of carcasses, and his garments require immersion in a ritual bath, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:8]: “He shall not eat a carcass or a torn animal, becoming impure through it.” And the Sages received that this verse was stated regarding the carcass of a pure bird.

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

3. A bird that is invalid for consecrated animals, and they performed melika on it, is a carcass, and it “renders garments impure in the throat.”

Birds that are invalid for an offering, such as—

one that was used for intercourse

by a person,

one set aside

[he set it aside and designated it for an idolatrous offering],

and one worshipped

[he bowed down to it and made it an object of idolatry],

and the payment to a prostitute

[which was given to a prostitute as her fee],

and the price

of a dog [which was exchanged in return for a dog],

and a tumtum and an androgynos—

if he consecrated them to be a bird-offering and performed melika on them—

these

render garments impure in the throat.

For since all of these are invalid for offering, their melika makes them carcasses.

And the carcass of a pure bird renders the person and the garments upon him impure when he swallows it in the throat.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Birds that are

a tumtum and an androgynos

that were consecrated and on which melika was performed—

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—

only there do you exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them,

because they must be certainly male or certainly female.

And

if

it is a bird, since “male” and “female”

were not stated concerning it, you do not exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them.

You have therefore learned that an androgynos animal is invalid for offering, and it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer did not say with regard to everything that an androgynos is male.

Rav Nahman son of Yitzhak said: We too learned

that according to Rabbi Eliezer an androgynos is invalid in an animal for offering upon the altar:

For so we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: