## Yevamot Daf 81a

###### Yevamot 81a:1
[Yevamot 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:1)

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינְּתָה פְּסוּלָה לִיבָמָהּ! לֹא: הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחֵר נָמֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא בְּדִידֵיהּ, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא בְּדִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shall we say** that this **is a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Hamnuna, who said: A widow waiting for her *yavam*, who engaged in an act of licentious relations, is disqualified from** entering into levirate marriage with **her *yavam*,** like an ordinary married woman who committed adultery? The Gemara rejects this argument: **No,** this presents no difficulty for Rav Hamnuna, as it is possible that **the same is true even** in a case where she had relations **with a different** man, that she **too** would be disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. **But since** the *tanna* **taught the first clause with regard to** the *yavam* **himself, he also taught the latter clause with regard to** the *yavam* **himself,** even though the same *halakha* applies if she cohabitated with another.


###### Yevamot 81a:2
[Yevamot 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:2)

וְכֵן אַיְילוֹנִית שֶׁחָלְצוּ לָהּ אַחִין כּוּ׳. טַעְמָא דִּבְעָלוּהָ. הָא לֹא בְּעָלוּהָ — לָא. כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: אַיְילוֹנִית זוֹנָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is taught in the mishna: **And similarly,** with regard to **a sexually underdeveloped woman,** if one of **the brothers performed *ḥalitza* with her** he has not disqualified her, but if he engaged in intercourse with her he has disqualified her. The Gemara infers from this wording that **the reason** for her disqualification **is that he had intercourse with her; but** if **he did not have intercourse with her** she is **not** disqualified. **According to whose** opinion was this clause of the mishna taught? One must say that it was **not** taught **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. As, if** one would claim that this teaching is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say** that **a sexually underdeveloped woman is** considered like **a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah [*zona*],** and so she is in any case disqualified from marrying into the priesthood?


###### Yevamot 81a:3
[Yevamot 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** סְרִיס חַמָּה כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **a priest who is a eunuch by natural causes married an Israelite woman,** he **enables her to eat *teruma*. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:** If **a priest who is a hermaphrodite,** possessing both male and female genitals, **married an Israelite woman,** he **enables her to eat *teruma*.**


###### Yevamot 81a:4
[Yevamot 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:4)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר — לֹא יַחְלוֹץ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּסָרִיס. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס נוֹשֵׂא אֲבָל לֹא נִישָּׂא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה כַּזָּכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says:** If **a *tumtum*,** whose external sexual organs are indeterminate, **was torn** open so that his genitals were exposed, **and he was found** to be **a male,** he **must not perform *ḥalitza*, because he is** treated **like a eunuch. A hermaphrodite may marry** a woman **but he may not be married** by a man, as he is considered a man. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If one had intercourse with **a hermaphrodite,** he **is liable to** receive the punishment of **stoning on his account as if** he had had relations with **a male.**


###### Yevamot 81a:5
[Yevamot 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מוֹלִיד — מַאֲכִיל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹלִיד — אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara questions the mishna’s teaching concerning a priest who was sexually impotent from birth: This **is obvious;** why should such a priest not enable his wife to partake of *teruma*? The Gemara answers: This *halakha* is necessary **lest you say** that since the verse states: “And such as are born in his house, they eat of his bread” (Leviticus 22:11), the allowance to eat *teruma* depends on the priest’s capacity to father children, i.e., that only **one who can father** children **enables** his wife **to eat** *teruma*, but **one who cannot father** children **does not enable** his wife **to eat** *teruma*. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that the priest’s capacity to have children is irrelevant.


###### Yevamot 81a:6
[Yevamot 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:6)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵין מַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אַף מַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. וּלְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי שְׁנָא חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק — דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is taught in the mishna that **Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:** If a priest who is **a hermaphrodite** married an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat *teruma*. **Reish Lakish said: He enables her to eat *teruma*, but he does not enable her to eat the breast and thigh** of peace-offerings. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He even enables her to eat the breast and thigh** of peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: **And according to Reish Lakish, what is different** about **the breast and thigh** of peace-offerings? If you say it is that they are **by Torah** law, ***teruma*** is **also by Torah** law. Why, then, is it permitted for her to eat *teruma*, but not the breast and thigh of peace-offerings?


###### Yevamot 81a:7
[Yevamot 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:7)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּתְרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים מַאי — לֹא? אַדְּתָנֵי ״אֵין מַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק״, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with *teruma* in the present,** after the destruction of the Temple, when *teruma* is in effect only **by rabbinic** law. The Gemara asks: **But when the Temple is standing, what** is the *halakha*? He does **not** enable his wife to eat *teruma*. But if so, there is a difficulty. **Instead of teaching** that **he does not enable her to eat the breast and thigh** of peace-offerings, **let him distinguish and teach** it **within** the case of *teruma* **itself** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to *teruma*** that is in effect only **by rabbinic** law, **but with regard to *teruma*** that is in effect **by Torah** law this ruling does **not** apply.


###### Yevamot 81a:8
[Yevamot 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַאֲכִילָהּ — מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, וְאֵין מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּזְמַן חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאוֹכֹלַהּ בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what he is saying.** In other words, this is actually what Reish Lakish means, as his statement should be understood as follows: **When he enables her to eat, he enables her to eat *teruma* in the present,** when *teruma* is in effect only **by rabbinic** law, **but he does not enable her to eat** *teruma* **at a time** that **the breast and thigh** are given to the priests, i.e., when the Temple is standing, not **even *teruma*** that is in effect only **by rabbinic** law. This is due to the concern that **perhaps he will bring her to eat *teruma*** that is in effect **by Torah** law.


###### Yevamot 81a:9
[Yevamot 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:9)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף מַאֲכִילָהּ בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה: עִיגּוּל בְּעִגּוּלִים עוֹלֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **Rabbi Yoḥanan** disagrees and **says** that **he even enables her to eat the breast and thigh** of peace-offerings. With respect to this dispute, **Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish:** Since you distinguish between *teruma* and the breast and thigh, **do you maintain** that ***teruma* in the present** is mandated only **by rabbinic** law? **He said to him: Yes,** and the proof is **that I teach** that **a cake** of dried figs that became intermingled **with** other **cakes is nullified.** If a cake of *teruma* figs became intermingled with one hundred ordinary cakes, the cake is nullified and it is not necessary to treat them all as *teruma*. If the cake, which is a food of importance in its own right, is nullified, this must be because the *teruma* is only by rabbinic law.


###### Yevamot 81a:10
[Yevamot 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וַהֲלֹא אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה: חֲתִיכָה בַּחֲתִיכוֹת — עוֹלָה. מִי סָבְרַתְּ ״כׇּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ? ״אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: But don’t I teach** that even **a piece** of a sin-offering that became intermingled **with** other **pieces** of meat **is nullified,** as I maintain that the *halakha* of nullification applies even to Torah prohibitions? **Do you maintain** that **we learned** that **any** object **that it is usual to count,** i.e., any object that is even occasionally sold by unit, rather than by weight or measure, is considered to be important and therefore cannot be nullified? This is not so, as in fact **we learned** that only **that which it is usual to count,** i.e., an object that is always sold by unit and in no other manner, is considered to be important and is therefore not subject to nullification; and cakes of dried figs are not always sold by unit.


###### Yevamot 81a:11
[Yevamot 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/81a:11)

מַאי הִיא — דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲבִילֵי תִלְתָּן שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם — יִדְלְקוּ. נִתְעָרְבוּ בַּאֲחֵרוֹת —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** this *halakha* to which Rabbi Yoḥanan alludes? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Orla* 3:6–7): In the case of **one who had bundles of clover,** a type of legume, **of** a forbidden mixture of **food crops in a vineyard,** i.e., clover plants that grew in a vineyard, these bundles **must be burned,** as it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard. If the forbidden bundles **became intermingled with others** that are permitted,