Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 81a

is this, then, an objection to the view of R. Hamnuna who stated that a widow awaiting the decision of her levir who committed adultery¹  is disqualified [from marrying her] brother-in-law!²  — No; the same law³  is applicable to [the case of cohabitation with] another man also; Only because the first clause was taught in respect of himself,⁴  the latter clause also was taught in respect of himself.

SIMILARLY, WHERE BROTHERS SUBMITTED TO HALIZAH FROM A WOMAN INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION etc. The reason then [why when THEY COHABITED WITH HER THEY CAUSE HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED] is because they cohabited with her, but had they not cohabited with her they would not;⁵  in accordance with whose view [is this statement made]? — Not in accordance with that of R. Judah; for should it [be suggested that it is in agreement with] R. Judah, he, surely, [it might be objected,] stated that a woman incapable of procreation is regarded as a harlot.⁶

MISHNAH. IF A PRIEST WHO WAS A SARIS BY NATURE⁷  MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, HE CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH. R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON STATED: IF A PRIEST WHO WAS AN HERMAPHRODITE MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE, HE CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT TO EAT TERUMAH.

R. JUDAH STATED: IF A TUMTUM,⁸  WAS OPERATED UPON⁹  AND HE WAS FOUND TO BE A MALE, HE MUST NOT PARTICIPATE IN HALIZAH,¹⁰  BECAUSE HE HAS THE SAME STATUS AS A SARIS. THE HERMAPHRODITE MAY MARRY [A WIFE] BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN].¹¹  R. ELIEZER¹²  STATED: [FOR COPULATION] WITH AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE.¹³

GEMARA. [Is not this]¹⁴  obvious!¹⁵  — It might have been assumed that only one who is capable of propagation is entitled to bestow the right of eating¹⁶  and that he who is not capable of propagating is not entitled to bestow the right of eating; hence we were taught [that even the saris may bestow the right].

R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON STATED … HERMAPHRODITE. Resh Lakish said: He CONFERS UPON HER THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH but does not confer upon her the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder.¹⁷  R. Johanan, however, said: He also confers upon her the right to eat of the breast and shoulder.¹⁷

According to Resh Lakish,¹⁸  why is the breast and the shoulder different?¹⁹  [Obviously] because [it was] Pentateuchally [ordained].²⁰  [Was not] terumah, [however]. also Pentateuchally [ordained]? — We are dealing here with terumah at the present time,²¹  which [is only a] Rabbinical [ordinance].²²  What is the law, however, when the Sanctuary is in existence?²³  [Obviously that terumah may] not [be eaten]!²⁴  Why, then, did he state, 'But does not confer the right of eating the breast and the shoulder'?²⁵  He should rather have drawn the distinction in respect of the terumah itself, thus: This²⁶  applies only to Rabbinical terumah,²⁷  but not to terumah that has been Pentateuchally ordained!²⁸  — It is this, in fact, that he meant: When he²⁹  confers upon her³⁰  the right of eating, he enables her to eat terumah at the present time²⁷  only when it is a Rabbinical ordinance;³¹  he is not entitled, however, to confer upon her the right of eating terumah at the time when the law of the breast and the shoulder is in force,³²  even if the terumah is only Rabbinical,³³  for she might in consequence also come to eat of Pentateuchal terumah.³⁴

'R. Johanan, however, said: He also confers upon her the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder'. Said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: Do you³⁵  maintain that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance? — 'Yes', the other replied, 'for I read:³⁶  A cake of figs³⁷  among cakes of figs is neutralised'.³⁸  'But I', said the first, 'read, "A piece³⁹  among pieces⁴⁰  is neutralized";⁴¹  you obviously believe that the reading⁴²  is, "Whatsoever⁴³  one is wont to count",⁴⁴  the reading in fact is, "That which one is wont to count"'.⁴⁵

What [Mishnah⁴⁶  is] it? — That wherein we learned: If a man had bundles of fenugrec of kil'ayim⁴⁷  of the vineyard⁴⁸  they must be burned.⁴⁹  If these were mixed up with others,⁵⁰

1. With any man.
2. As any harlot. Consequently she would also be forbidden to marry a priest. But according to the implication of our Mishnah she is not disqualified from marrying a priest!
3. Of our Mishnah, that cohabitation with the widow causes her disqualification.
4. The levir.
5. Cause her to be disqualified.
6. Supra 61a. Cf. supra p. 548, n. 8, mutatis mutandis.
7. This excludes the man-made saris who stands under the prohibition of Deut. XXIII, 2, and cannot consequently confer upon his wife the right of eating.
8. V. Glos.
9. Lit., 'was torn asunder'.
10. If he has a brother who could participate in the ceremony instead of him.
11. He has the status of a male rather than that of a female, and his cohabitation with a male would be an act of sodomy.
12. 'Eleazar' according to [H]. Cf. however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] infra 84a.
13. On the difference between R. Eliezer and R. Judah. v. Gemara infra.
14. That the congenital saris bestows the right of eating terumah upon his wife.
15. His marriage being lawful; since he is not subject to the prohibition in Deut. XXIII, 2 (cf. supra note 3), he is obviously entitled to bestow the right.
16. Cf. Lev. XXII, 11. And such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread, emphasis on born in his house. Cf. Rashi, a.l.
17. The priest's due from certain sacrifices. Cf. Lev. VII, 34.
18. Who forbids the breast and the shoulder to the wife of the hermaphrodite.
19. From terumah which may be eaten by her.
20. Cf. supra n. 1.
21. After the destruction of the Temple.
22. Pentateuchally it is only due while the Temple is in existence.
23. Cf. supra note 6.
24. By the wife of an hermaphrodite.
25. Drawing a distinction between terumah and other priestly gifts.
26. That the hermaphrodite confers upon his wife the right of eating.
27. After the destruction of the Temple.
28. Cf. supra note 6.
29. The hermaphrodite.
30. His wife.
31. Pentateuchally it is only due while the Temple is in existence.
32. When the Temple is in existence.
33. Such as that given from the fruit of the trees, which is at all times a Rabbinical ordinance only.
34. That which is given from corn, wine and oil.
35. Since you restrict the right of consumption to terumah and exclude that of the breast and the shoulder.
36. In a Baraitha. Cf. the Mishnah cited infra and note 11.
37. A number of figs pressed together.
38. If such a cake of terumah was mixed up with a hundred non-consecrated cakes of the same size, or if a cake of terumah that was levitically unclean was mixed up with a hundred such cakes of clean terumah, the entire quantity is permitted. in the latter case, to clean priests and, in the former case, to Israelites also. This proves that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance, since such neutralization, had the ordinance been Pentateuchal, would not, owing to its comparative importance (its high commercial value, v. infra), have been permitted. Though the terumah of figs, like that of all other fruit of trees, is at all times a Rabbinical ordinance only, its neutralization would not have been permitted at the present time had there been any Pentateuchal terumah in existence at the same time. The neutralization of the former would have been forbidden as a preventive measure against the possible assumption that the 'latter also might be neutralized.
39. Of an unclean sin-offering which is Pentateuchally forbidden. V. the Baraitha infra 81b.
40. Of clean meat.
41. And is permitted to be eaten. As a piece of meat which is Pentateuchally forbidden (v. supra n. 5) may be neutralized, even though its importance, owing to its commercial value, may be as high as that of a cake of figs, so may any food be neutralized even though its prohibition is Pentateuchal.
42. Cf. the Mishnah cited infra.
43. Any objects which any person whatsoever sells by counting the units. V. infra n. 11.
44. Cannot be neutralized.
45. 'Whatsoever' is more comprehensive than 'that'. According to the former reading, neutralization is not permitted in the case of any objects which are regarded as of sufficiently high commercial value to be sold not in bulk but in units. According to the latter reading, neutralization is permitted in all cases except those where the units are of such a high value that they are not sold save by counting single units. Now, since cakes of figs are not invariably sold in units they may of course be neutralized even though they consist of Pentateuchal terumah (cf. supra n. 7). Resh Lakish, therefore, remains with no proof whatsoever that terumah at the present time is a mere Rabbinical ordinance. [This interpretation which follows Rashi does not account for the phrase 'one is wont etc', mentioned also with the latter reading. Me'iri explains the former as including whatever is being sold as a rule by counting among the poor, whereas the latter requires the sale by counting to be the general practice among the rich as well as the poor. On either reading it is the general practice rather than the invariable rule which is the determining factor].
46. Referred to by R. Johanan (cf. p. 551. n. 8).
47. V. Glos.
48. Cf. Deut. XXII, 9.
49. This is deduced from the expression [H], (ibid. R.V., forfeited; R.V. marg., consecrated), read as [H], 'shall be burned with fire'.
50. Permitted bundles of fenugrec.

they must all be burned;¹  so R. Meir. The Sages, however, stated: They are neutralized in [a mixture of] two hundred and one.²  R. Meir, [in his ruling,] is of the opinion that whatever³  might be counted causes forfeiture,⁴  while the Sages are of the opinion that only six things cause forfeiture.⁵  R. Akiba said: Seven. They are the following: Crack-nuts,⁶  the pomegranates of Badan,⁷  sealed jugs [of wine], young shoots of beet,⁸  cabbage roots and the Grecian gourd. R. Akiba adds also home made⁹  bread.¹⁰  Those which are subject to the law of 'orlah¹¹  [impart the prohibition of] 'orlah¹²  [and those which are subject] to the law of kil'ayim of the vineyard¹³  [impart¹²  that of the] kil'ayim of the vineyard.¹⁴  R. Johanan holds the view that the reading¹⁵  was, 'That which one is wont to count'¹⁶  while Resh Lakish holds the view that the reading was 'Whatsoever one is wont to count'.¹⁷

What [is the Baraitha about the] piece?¹⁸  — It was taught: A piece of a levitically unclean sin-offering that was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean sin-offerings and, similarly, a piece of levitically unclean shewbread¹⁹  that was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean shewbread is neutralized.²⁰  R. Judah said: It is not neutralized.²¹  If, however, a piece of a levitically clean sin offering was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean and unconsecrated meat, and similarly if a piece of levitically clean shewbread was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean unconsecrated bread, all agree that neutralization cannot take place.²²  Now in the first clause, at any rate, it was stated that it 'is neutralized'!²³  — R. Hiyya son of R. Huna replied: In [the case where it was] crushed.²⁴  If so,²⁴  what is R. Judah's reason?²⁵

1. The forbidden kil'ayim cannot be neutralized. The reason is given infra.
2. I.e., if the permitted food is two hundred times the quantity of the forbidden kil'ayim.
3. V. supra p. 551. n. 9.
4. Lit., consecrates'. (Cf. R.V. and J.T., Deut. XXII, 9, be forfeited). All the mixture is forbidden on account of the importance (cf. supra p. 551, n. 11) of the forbidden object it contained, which can never be neutralized.
5. Cf. supra n. 9.
6. [H] (cf. Jast. and Golds.). Rashi regards Perek as a place name. Parka (Perek) is situated in Samaria in the vicinity of Shechem.
7. A Samaritan town north-east of Shechem lying in the valley Wadi Baidan.
8. Or 'tomatoes.
9. Lit., 'of the master of the house'.
10. Lit., 'loaves'.
11. V. Glos. The nuts, pomegranates and jugs of wine.
12. Upon the entire mixture.
13. The beet, cabbage and gourd.
14. 'Orlah III, 6, Bezah 3b. Zeb. 72a.
15. In the Mishnah cited.
16. Cf. supra p. 551, n. 11. Only such objects cannot be neutralized. Cakes of figs and pieces of meat, however, since some people do not always sell them singly but in bulk, are of less commercial importance and may, therefore, be neutralized.
17. Cf. supra p. 551, nn. 7 and 8. As cakes of figs are sometimes sold by being counted singly. they are regarded as commercially important objects which, were they Pentateuchally forbidden, could never be neutralized. As it was stated, however, that a cake of figs of terumah may be neutralized, it follows, according to Resh Lakish, that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical, and not a Pentateuchal ordinance.
18. Mentioned by R. Johanan. Cf. supra p. 551. n. 5.
19. Cf. Ex. XXV, 30.
20. The entire mixture is regarded as clean sin-offering meat and clean shewbread respectively.
21. The reason is discussed infra.
22. Neutralization would have removed a Pentateuchal prohibition (that of eating consecrated food by a non-priest) from the piece of the sin-offering or from that of the shewbread. As, however, the entire mixture, which consists of pieces that are sometimes sold by number, may be eaten even without recourse to neutralization by a priest to whom it could be sold, though this might have to be done at a reduced cost, the law of neutralization, which is applied even in such circumstances whenever the prohibition is Rabbinical. as in the case of the cake of figs (supra). is not applied here where it is Pentateuchal.
23. Though these objects are sometimes sold in units. This obviously proves that the reading was, as R. Johanan stated. 'That which one is wont to count. How, then, could Resh Lakish maintain that the reading was 'Whatsoever one is wont to count?
24. When it is no longer sold in units but in bulk.
25. Why does he in such a case object to neutralization?