Yevamot

A hybrid, terefah,  one that was extracted through the abdominal wall,  the tumtum and the hermaphrodite can neither become sacred nor can they impart sanctity to others;  and Samuel explained: They neither become sacred by means of exchange,  nor do they impart sanctity [to any other beast]  by causing it to become an exchange.  This proves [what has been said]. R. ELIEZER STATED … THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. It was taught: Rabbi related, 'When I went to learn Torah at [the school of] R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, his disciples combined against me like the cocks of Beth Bukya  and did not let me learn more than this single thing in our Mishnah: R. ELIEZER STATED: [FOR COPULATION WITH] AN HERMAPHRODITE THE PENALTY OF STONING IS INCURRED AS [IF HE WERE] A MALE. MISHNAH. SOME WOMEN ARE PERMITTED  TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBLDDEN  TO THEIR LEVIRS,  OTHERS ARE PERMITTED  TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN  TO THEIR HUSBANDS, OTHERS ARE PERMITTED TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER, WHILE OTHERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO THE FORMER AS WELL AS TO THE LATTER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE WOMEN  ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR LEVIRS: IF A COMMON PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST; IF A HALAL  WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS  HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS;  IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED  TO THEIR HUSBANDS AND FORBIDDEN  TO THEIR LEVIRS. THE FOLLOWING  ARE PERMITTED  TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN  TO THEIR HUSBANDS: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW  HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST; IF ONE OF LEGITIMATE STATUS  WHO MARRIED A HALALAH  HAD A BROTHER A HALAL;  IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED TO THEIR LEVIRS AND FORBIDDEN TO THEIR HUSBANDS. THE FOLLOWING  ARE FORBIDDEN  TO BOTH THE FORMER AND THE LATTER;  IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A HIGH PRIEST, OR IF A COMMON PRIEST OF LEGITIMATE STATUS  WHO MARRIED A HALALAH  HAD A BROTHER OF LEGITIMATE STATUS,  OR IF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED A BASTARD HAD A BROTHER AN ISRAELITE, OR IF A BASTARD WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE HAD A BROTHER A BASTARD, [IN ALL THESE CASES THE WOMEN] ARE FORBIDDEN  BOTH TO THE FORMER AND THE LATTER.  ALL OTHER WOMEN ARE PERMITTED  TO BOTH THEIR HUSBANDS AND THEIR LEVIRS. [IN RESPECT OF] RELATIVES OF THE SECOND GRADE, [WHO ARE FORBIDDEN] BY THE ORDINANCES OF THE SCRIBES,  A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR,  IS FORBIDDEN TO THE HUSBAND AND PERMITTED TO THE LEVIR; [A WOMAN WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE LEVIR BUT NOT WITHIN THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE HUSBAND IS FORBIDDEN TO THE LEVIR AND PERMITTED TO THE HUSBAND; [WHILE ONE WHO IS WITHIN] THE SECOND GRADE OF KINSHIP TO THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER. SHE CANNOT CLAIM EITHER KETHUBAH,  OR USUFRUCT,  OR ALIMONY, OR HER WORN CLOTHES.  [SHOULD A] CHILD [BE BORN HE] IS ELIGIBLE [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD]; BUT THE HUSBAND MUST BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. A WIDOW, HOWEVER, WHO WAS MARRIED TO A HIGH PRIEST, A DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH WHO WAS MARRIED TO A COMMON PRIEST, A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH  WHO WAS MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE, OR THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A NATHIN  OR A BASTARD IS ENTITLED TO HER KETHUBAH. GEMARA. What was the point in teaching MARRIED?  He could have taught: 'Betrothed'!  And were you to reply that the reason [for the prohibition  is only] because he MARRIED, since [in that case]  a positive  as well as a negative  precept is involved,  but where betrothal only took place the positive precept  does override the negative;  but [it could be retorted] the whole of our section deals with a positive,  versus a negative precept.  and the positive nevertheless does not override the negative! — As it was desired to state in the final clause, A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, [who is forbidden]  only where [the High Priest] MARRIED her, since in that case he caused her to be a halalah, but [not where he only] betrothed [her in which case] she is permitted [to his brother],  he taught in the first clause also: MARRIED. But why should the expression  be determined by  the final clause? Let it be determined by  the middle clause: IF A HIGH PRIEST WHO BETROTHED A WIDOW HAD A BROTHER A COMMON PRIEST!  — The determining factor,  rather, is the case immediately following in the same context.  As it was desired to teach, IF A HALAL WHO MARRIED A WOMAN OF LEGITIMATE STATUS, where the reason [for her prohibition  is] because [the halal] MARRIED her and thus caused her to become a halalah, but where he had only betrothed her she would have been permitted to him; MARRIED was, therefore, taught [here also]. What point, however, was there in teaching, A widow? He should have taught: 'A virgin'!