Yevamot — Daf 82b

ואנא דאמרי כרבי יוסי

דתניא בסדר עולם (דברים ל, ה) אשר ירשו אבותיך וירשתה ירושה ראשונה ושניה יש להן ושלישית אין להן

וא"ר יוחנן מאן תנא סדר עולם רבי יוסי

וסבר רבי יוחנן בדרבנן לא בעינן רבויא והא תנן מקוה שיש בו ארבעים סאה מכוונות נתן סאה ונטל סאה כשר וא"ר יהודה בר שילא אמר ר' אסי א"ר יוחנן עד רובו

מאי לאו דנשתייר רובו לא דלא נשקול רובו

ואיבעית אימא שאני הכא דאיכא למימר שאני אומר

תנן אנדרוגינוס נושא תני אם נשא

והא נושא קתני וליטעמיך מאי אבל לא נישא אלא מאי נישא דיעבד נושא נמי דיעבד

אמרי לא נושא לכתחלה משמע אבל לא נישא דיעבד נמי לא

והא מדקתני סיפא רבי אליעזר אומר אנדרוגינוס חייבין עליו סקילה כזכר מכלל דת"ק ספוקי מספקא ליה

בין למר בין למר מפשט פשיטא ליה איכא בינייהו סקילה משני מקומות דמר סבר חייבין עליו סקילה משני מקומות ומר סבר כזכר

אמר רב

while I maintain the view of R. Jose'.  For it was taught in Seder 'Olam:  Which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it,  they had a first,  and a second  possession,  but they had no third one;  and R. Johanan stated, 'Who is the author of Seder 'Olam? R. Jose'. But is R. Johanan of the opinion that in respect of a Rabbinically forbidden object no excess is required?  Surely we learned: A ritual bath containing exactly forty se'ah [of water]  to which one se'ah  was added and from which one se'ah  was taken off, is deemed to be ritually fit.  And R. Judah b. Shila stated in the name of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan. 'As much as its greater part'.  Does not this mean that the greater part must remain?  — No; that the greater part must not be removed.  And if you prefer I might say: Here  it is different,  since it may be said, 'For it is assumed'. We learned, THE HERMAPHRODITE MAY MARRY [A WIFE]!  — Read, 'If he married',  But, surely, it was stated MAY MARRY!  — And even in accordance with your view what is the meaning of BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN]?  Consequently it must be granted that as MAY … BE MARRIED  implies an act that had already been performed, so also MAY MARRY implies an act that had already been performed. It may still be urged: No;  MAY MARRY implies that the act is permissible; but MAY NOT BE MARRIED  implies, not even if the act had already been performed.  But surely since it was taught in the final clause, R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE, it is to be inferred that the first Tanna was doubtful on the point!  — The law  was clear to the one Master as well as to the other Master; the only difference between them was the question of stoning for copulation through either of his two organs. One Master  was of the opinion that the penalty of stoning is incurred by copulation through either of the two organs,  while the other Master  was of the opinion [that it is incurred through the male organ only] AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. Rab said: