Yevamot

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,