Parallel
יבמות 81
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
is this, then, an objection to the view of R. Hamnuna who stated that a widow awaiting the decision of her levir who committed adultery is disqualified [from marrying her] brother-in-law! — No; the same law is applicable to [the case of cohabitation with] another man also; Only because the first clause was taught in respect of himself, 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; 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. MISHNAH. IF A PRIEST WHO WAS A SARIS BY NATURE 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, WAS OPERATED UPON AND HE WAS FOUND TO BE A MALE, HE MUST NOT PARTICIPATE IN HALIZAH, BECAUSE HE HAS THE SAME STATUS AS A SARIS. THE HERMAPHRODITE MAY MARRY [A WIFE] BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN]. R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION] WITH AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. GEMARA. [Is not this] obvious! — It might have been assumed that only one who is capable of propagation is entitled to bestow the right of eating 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. R. Johanan, however, said: He also confers upon her the right to eat of the breast and shoulder. According to Resh Lakish, why is the breast and the shoulder different? [Obviously] because [it was] Pentateuchally [ordained]. [Was not] terumah, [however]. also Pentateuchally [ordained]? — We are dealing here with terumah at the present time, which [is only a] Rabbinical [ordinance]. What is the law, however, when the Sanctuary is in existence? [Obviously that terumah may] not [be eaten]! Why, then, did he state, 'But does not confer the right of eating the breast and the shoulder'? He should rather have drawn the distinction in respect of the terumah itself, thus: This applies only to Rabbinical terumah, but not to terumah that has been Pentateuchally ordained! — It is this, in fact, that he meant: When he confers upon her the right of eating, he enables her to eat terumah at the present time only when it is a Rabbinical ordinance; 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, even if the terumah is only Rabbinical, for she might in consequence also come to eat of Pentateuchal terumah. '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 you maintain that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance? — 'Yes', the other replied, 'for I read: A cake of figs among cakes of figs is neutralised'. 'But I', said the first, 'read, "A piece among pieces is neutralized"; you obviously believe that the reading is, "Whatsoever one is wont to count", the reading in fact is, "That which one is wont to count"'. What [Mishnah is] it? — That wherein we learned: If a man had bundles of fenugrec of kil'ayim of the vineyard they must be burned. If these were mixed up with others,
—
they must all be burned; so R. Meir. The Sages, however, stated: They are neutralized in [a mixture of] two hundred and one. R. Meir, [in his ruling,] is of the opinion that whatever might be counted causes forfeiture, while the Sages are of the opinion that only six things cause forfeiture. R. Akiba said: Seven. They are the following: Crack-nuts, the pomegranates of Badan, sealed jugs [of wine], young shoots of beet, cabbage roots and the Grecian gourd. R. Akiba adds also home made bread. Those which are subject to the law of 'orlah [impart the prohibition of] 'orlah [and those which are subject] to the law of kil'ayim of the vineyard [impart that of the] kil'ayim of the vineyard. R. Johanan holds the view that the reading was, 'That which one is wont to count' while Resh Lakish holds the view that the reading was 'Whatsoever one is wont to count'. What [is the Baraitha about the] piece? — 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 shewbread that was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean shewbread is neutralized. R. Judah said: It is not neutralized. 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. Now in the first clause, at any rate, it was stated that it 'is neutralized'! — R. Hiyya son of R. Huna replied: In [the case where it was] crushed. If so, what is R. Judah's reason?
—