יבמות 82 — Soncino English Talmud

¹— R. Judah follows his own view; for he stated: The law of neutralization takes no effect in homogeneous objects. [Had the piece] not been crushed, however, what [would have been the law]? Assumingly that it could not be neutralized! Why. then, was it taught. 'If, however, a piece of a levitically clean sin-offering was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean and unconsecrated meat … neutralization cannot take place'? Let the distinction be drawn in [the case of consecrated meat] itself, thus: This applies only where it was crushed; but when it was not crushed it may not be neutralized! — He preferred [to speak of] a mixture of clean with clean. According to Resh Lakish, wherein lies the difference between the first clause and the final clause? — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied: The first clause deals with uncleanness that was due to liquids, which is only Rabbinical, while the final clause [deals with a prohibition] which is Pentateuchal. What, however, [would be the law in the case of] uncleanness through a reptile? Assumingly that no neutralization is permitted! Why, then, did he state in the final clause, 'If, however, a piece of levitically clean sin-offering was mixed up with a hundred pieces of clean and unconsecrated meat … neutralization cannot take place'? Let the distinction rather be drawn in [respect of consecrated meat] itself, thus: This applies only to uncleanness due to liquids, but when it is due to a reptile it may not be neutralized! — He preferred [to speak] of a mixture of clean with clean. Rabbah replied: The first clause [deals with] a prohibition under a negative precept while the final clause [deals with] one that involves the penalty of kareth. But surely was it not Rabbah who stated that in all Pentateuchal prohibitions there is no difference between a prohibition that is due to a negative precept and one that involves kareth! — This is a difficulty. R. Ashi replied: [The law in the] final clause is due to the fact that [the consecrated food] is an object which may be made permissible, and any object which [in certain circumstances] becomes permitted cannot be neutralized even in a thousand. This statement of R. Ashi, however, is mere fiction. For to whom [would the mixture become permitted]! To the priest it is permitted [all the time]; to the Israelite it is for ever forbidden! The statement of R. Ashi must consequently be regarded as mere fiction. But is R. Johanan of the opinion that terumah at the present time is Pentateuchal? Surely it was taught: If in front of two baskets, one of which contained unconsecrated fruit and the other that of terumah, were two se'ah measures, one containing unconsecrated fruit and the other that of terumah, and the latter fell into the former, behold these are permitted, for it is assumed that the terumah fell into the terumah and the unconsecrated fruit fell into the unconsecrated fruit. And [in reference to this ruling] Resh Lakish stated: 'Only if the unconsecrated fruit was more than that of the terumah'; while R. Johanan stated, 'Even if the unconsecrated fruit were no more than the terumah'. Now, according to Resh Lakish the ruling may well be justified since he may hold the opinion that with Rabbinically [forbidden food] also it is necessary to have a larger quantity [of the permitted food]. According to R. Johanan. however, a difficulty arises! 'This' [R. Johanan may reply] 'is the view of the Rabbis,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ᵃnote:Zeb. 79a, Men. 22b.
^ᵇnote:Lit., 'a kind in its kind does not cease to exist'.
^ᶜnote:Thus drawing a distinction between a mixture of consecrated and unconsecrated meat.
^ᵈnote:That neutralization takes place.
^ᵉnote:The piece of the sin-offering.
^ᶠnote:To indicate that even in such a case, where the law of neutralization might have been expected to apply (cf. Ter. V. 3-4). the mixture remains forbidden.
^ᵍnote:Who explained the Baraitha under discussion to refer to a crushed piece.
^ʰnote:In either case the piece is Pentateuchally forbidden. As neutralization takes place in the case of the first clause owing to the insignificant value of the piece. neutralization should also take place, for the same reason, in the case of the final clause! According to R. Johanan, the reason for the difference between the two clauses has been explained supra p. 553, n. 6.
^ⁱnote:If the crushed mixture was contained, for instance. in a vessel that had been in contact with unclean liquids.
^ʲnote:Pentateuchally no unclean liquid can impart uncleanness to a vessel.
^ᵏnote:The consumption of consecrated food by a non-priest.
^ˡnote:Food Pentateuchally forbidden, if mixed with other food of the same kind, cannot be neutralized, according to this opinion. even if it is sold in bulk.
^ᵐnote:Pentateuchal uncleanness.
^ⁿnote:V. supra note 2.
^ᵒnote:That neutralization takes place.
^ᵖnote:V. supra p. 554, n. 5.
^ᵠnote:To the objection raised against Resh Lakish.
^ʳnote:That of eating consecrated meat which is unclean. V. Lev. VII, 19.
^ˢnote:Were the crushed mixture which contained a piece of consecrated meat to be regarded as neutralized and treated like unconsecrated meat, it might be eaten by an unclean person who would thus incur the penalty of kareth for eating consecrated meat during his uncleanness. Cf. Lev. VII, 20.
^ᵗnote:In respect of preventive measures enacted by the Rabbis.
^ᵘnote:Infra 219a, where, however, the reading is 'Raba'.
^ᵛnote:Disallowing neutralization.
^ʷnote:If the consumer is, for instance, a priest.
^ˣnote:Even though no neutralization were to take place.
^ʸnote:Times its quantity.
^ᶻnote:[H] v. B. M., Sonc. ed., p. 47. n. 1.
^ᵃᵃnote:The law which rules out neutralization in the case of objects which may attain to a state of permissibility without this process, is applicable only to such objects as become permissible, i.e., which emerge from a state of prohibition into one of permissibility. Cf. Bezah 3b.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., 'if to'.
^ᵃᶜnote:He may eat the piece of consecrated food even if it were never mixed up with the unconsecrated food.
^ᵃᵈnote:If no neutralization were to be allowed.
^ᵃᵉnote:After the destruction of the Temple.
^ᵃᶠnote:As stated supra 81a.
^ᵃᵍnote:Even an Israelite may eat from the basket that contained the unconsecrated fruit.
^ᵃʰnote:Tosef. Ter. VI end; Pes. 9b, 44a; Naz. 36b.
^ᵃⁱnote:In the basket.
^ᵃʲnote:In the se'ah measure. Only in such a case is the assumption mentioned made, because the terumah representing the smaller quantity might be regarded as neutralized even if it had fallen into the basket of the unconsecrated fruit.
^ᵃᵏnote:No excess of unconsecrated fruit is necessary since the assumption mentioned is alone sufficient to establish the permissibility of the unconsecrated fruit.
^ᵃˡnote:Who, as stated supra, regards terumah at the present time as Rabbinical.
^ᵃᵐnote:In the Baraitha cited.
^ᵃⁿnote:To make the mentioned assumption.
^ᵃᵒnote:In whose opinion terumah is Pentateuchal at the present time also.
^ᵃᵖnote:How could the assumption mentioned be made in the case of a prohibition which is Pentateuchal!
^ᵃᵠnote:The ruling in the Baraitha cited.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., 'this according to whom?'
^ᵃˢnote:Who hold that terumah at the present time is only Rabbinical.

²while 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: ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ

^ᵃᵗnote:Who stated in our Mishnah that the hermaphrodite may confer upon his wife the right of eating terumah. It was in reference to this that R. Johanan had stated that the hermaphrodite may also confer upon his wife the right of eating the breast and the shoulder, which are Pentateuchally ordained, since terumah also according to R. Jose is even at the present time a Pentateuchal ordinance.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., 'Order of the World', a chronological work compiled in the first half of the second century by R. Jose b. Halafta.
^ᵃᵛnote:Deut. XXX. 5, [H] the rt. of [H] is repeated.
^ᵃʷnote:After the conquest in the days of Joshua
^ᵃˣnote:In the days of Ezra.
^ᵃʸnote:The sanctity of Eretz Israel having ceased with the destruction of the first Temple and the Babylonian exile, a second 'posses sion was necessary to restore to the land its sanctity.
^ᵃᶻnote:Which was not necessary, the second sanctification having remained for all time. As the land thus remained sacred the Pentateuchal obligation of terumah also remained in force.
^ᵇᵃnote:V. Nid. 46b.
^ᵇᵇnote:To effect neutralization. It is now assumed that the reason why R. Johanan maintains that 'even if the unconsecrated fruit were no more than the terumah' it is permitted is because, in the case of a Rabbinical prohibition, neutralization is effected by the mere accident of the mixing of consecrated with unconsecrated fruit even though the latter did not form the larger part and not because he relies on the above mentioned assumption.
^ᵇᶜnote:The minimum quantity of water that constitutes a ritual bath.
^ᵇᵈnote:Of unsuitable liquid.
^ᵇᵉnote:Of the entire quantity of forty-one se'ah.
^ᵇᶠnote:Mik. VII, 2. The se'ah of unsuitable liquid is regarded as having been neutralized in the forty se'ah of water, so that when one se'ah of the mixture was subsequently removed, the minimum of forty se'ah of suitable liquid still remained in the bath.
^ᵇᵍnote:Zeb. 22a. This is explained presently.
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., se'ah after se'ah of unsuitable liquid may be added and an equal quantity of the mixture may be successively removed only until a minimum of twenty-one se'ah of suitable water remains in the bath. Should there remain less, so that the suitable liquid no longer represents the greater part of the mixture, the bath would become ritually unfit. This (the unsuitability of certain liquids in a ritual bath being only a Rabbinical provision) proves that according to R. Johanan an excess is required even in the case of Rabbinical ordinances!
^ᵇⁱnote:If only half of the suitable water remained the unsuitable liquid is neutralized, no excess being required.
^ᵇʲnote:The case in the Baraitha of Terumoth.
^ᵇᵏnote:From the case of the ritual bath or other Rabbinical ordinances where an excess may in fact be required.
^ᵇˡnote:'That the terumah fell into the terumah and the unconsecrated fruit etc.' (v. supra), so that no forbidden food had ever entered the basket of the unconsecrated fruit. Such an assumption is obviously inapplicable in the case of the bath.
^ᵇᵐnote:taub. This shews that he is regarded as a proper male. As such he should confer upon his wife the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder. How then could Resh Lakish maintain supra that he does not?
^ᵇⁿnote:[H] i.e., if marriage had already taken place it is valid in so far as to require a letter of divorce for its dissolution since it is possible that he is a male. Originally, however, no such marriage is permitted owing to the equal possibility that he is not a male but a female.
^ᵇᵒnote:Implying that marriage may be contracted in the first instance.CF. supra n. 1.
^ᵇᵖnote:[H]. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed?
^ᵇᵠnote:The two expressions are not identical.
^ᵇʳnote:The difficulty against the view of Resh Lakish consequently remains, while the opinion of R. Johanan receives confirmation.
^ᵇˢnote:Whether the hermaphrodite is to be regarded as a male. This, then, presents an objection against the view of R. Johanan.
^ᵇᵗnote:That the hermaphrodite is regarded as a male.
^ᵇᵘnote:The first Tanna.
^ᵇᵛnote:Even if it was effected through his female organ.
^ᵇʷnote:R. Eliezer.