## Yevamot Daf 82a

###### Yevamot 82a:1
[Yevamot 82a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:1)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yehuda** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he stated** a principle that if a particular **type** of food is mixed **with** food of **its** own **type,** it **cannot be nullified** under any circumstances.


###### Yevamot 82a:2
[Yevamot 82a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:2)

אֲבָל לֹא נִימּוֹחָה מַאי — לֹא תַּעֲלֶה, אַדְּתָנֵי: אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל חוּלִּין טְהוֹרוֹת לֹא תַּעֲלֶה, נִיפְלוֹג וְנִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּשֶׁנִּימּוֹחָה, אֲבָל לֹא נִימּוֹחָה — לֹא תַּעֲלֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **But** had the piece of meat **not** been **crushed, what** would the *halakha* be? Presumably, it would **not** be **nullified.** If so, there is a difficulty, as **instead of teaching** a case involving non-sacred meat in the second half of the *baraita*, as follows: **However, if a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred** meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering **is not nullified; let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach** it **in** the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is in a case **where** the piece of meat **has been crushed** and broken into small parts, **but** if it **has not been crushed,** it is **not nullified.**


###### Yevamot 82a:3
[Yevamot 82a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:3)

טְהוֹרוֹת בִּטְהוֹרוֹת עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Even so, the *tanna* **prefers** to address the case of an intermingling of **ritually pure** items **with** other **ritually pure** items and thereby teach a novel *halakha*, notwithstanding the fact that he could have made a distinction within the case of a ritually impure piece itself.


###### Yevamot 82a:4
[Yevamot 82a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:4)

וּלְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: רֵישָׁא, בְּטוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּרַבָּנַן. סֵיפָא, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Reish Lakish,** who establishes the *baraita* as referring to a piece of meat that has been crushed, **what is different** in **the first clause** of the *baraita* **and what is different** in **the latter clause?** Why is nullification possible in the case of impure pieces, but not in the case of pure ones? **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The first clause** is dealing with a piece of a sin-offering that contracted **ritual impurity due to liquids,** which is imparted **by rabbinic** law. Since the sacred food contracted impurity that is only rabbinic in origin, it may be nullified rather than allowed to go to waste. **The latter clause,** on the other hand, deals with sacred food that became intermingled with ordinary non-sacred food. The sacred food is forbidden to non-priests **by Torah** law, and therefore it is not nullified.


###### Yevamot 82a:5
[Yevamot 82a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:5)

אֲבָל טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ מַאי — לֹא תַּעֲלֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** had the piece of meat mentioned in the first clause of the *baraita* contracted **ritual impurity through** contact with **a creeping animal,** which is imparted by Torah law, **what** would the *halakha* be? Presumably, it would **not** be **nullified.**


###### Yevamot 82a:6
[Yevamot 82a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:6)

אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל חוּלִּין טְהוֹרוֹת לֹא תַּעֲלֶה, נִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּטוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ — לֹא! טְהוֹרָה בִּטְהוֹרוֹת עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, there is a difficulty, as **instead of teaching** a case involving non-sacred meat in the **latter clause** of the *baraita*, as follows: **However,** if **a piece of a ritually pure sin-offering became intermingled with one hundred pieces of ritually pure non-sacred** meat, the impure piece of a sin-offering **is not nullified; let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach** it **in** the case involving only sacred meat, as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** the piece of meat contracted **ritual impurity due to liquids, but where** it contracted **ritual impurity through a creeping animal** it is **not** nullified. The Gemara answers: Even so, the *tanna* **prefers** to address the novel case of an intermingling of **ritually pure** items **with** other **ritually pure** items.


###### Yevamot 82a:7
[Yevamot 82a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:7)

רַבָּה אָמַר: רֵישָׁא — אִיסּוּר לָאו, סֵיפָא — אִיסּוּר כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said** that an alternative explanation may be suggested for the difference between the two clauses of the *baraita*: In **the first clause** of the *baraita*, which deals with the intermingling of impure sacred meat with pure sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of **a standard prohibition,** i.e., the prohibition against eating impure sacred meat; therefore, the piece of meat is nullified. In **the latter clause** of the *baraita*, which deals with the intermingling of sacred meat and non-sacred meat, there is concern about the violation of **a prohibition** that bears the punishment **of *karet*,** which bars a non-priest from eating pure sacrificial food; therefore, the piece of meat is not nullified.


###### Yevamot 82a:8
[Yevamot 82a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:8)

וְהָא רַבָּה הוּא דְּאָמַר: כֹּל בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא, לָא שְׁנָא אִיסּוּר לָאו, וְלָא שְׁנָא אִיסּוּר כָּרֵת! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But wasn’t it Rabba** himself **who said:** With regard to the nullification of **any** item forbidden **by Torah** law that became intermingled with a permitted substance, there is **no difference between** that which is forbidden due to a **standard prohibition** and that which is forbidden due to **a prohibition** that entails the punishment **of *karet*.** The Gemara concludes: This is **difficult** for Rabba.


###### Yevamot 82a:9
[Yevamot 82a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:9)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: סֵיפָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי לֵיהּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין — אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** yet another explanation: In **the latter clause,** where ritually pure sacred meat became intermingled with ritually pure non-sacred meat, the sacred meat does not become nullified **because it is an object whose prohibition is temporary.** The piece of sacred meat is not absolutely forbidden, as it is permitted for a priest to eat it. **And** the *halakha* is that **any object whose prohibition is temporary cannot be nullified,** no matter how great the amount of permitted substance, **even in** a mixture of one to **one thousand.**


###### Yevamot 82a:10
[Yevamot 82a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:10)

וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּדוּתָא הִיא. לְמַאן? אִי לְכֹהֵן — מִישְׁרָא שְׁרֵי. אִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר! אֶלָּא הָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּדוּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Now, that** teaching ascribed **to Rav Ashi is** certainly **a mistake [*beduta*],** as the application of this principle to the case at hand can easily be shown to be erroneous. With regard **to whom** is the prohibition temporary? **If** one would say that it is **for a priest,** the sacred meat **was** always **permitted** to him, even before it became intermingled, as a priest may eat both sacred and non-sacred food, and therefore it was never a forbidden mixture with respect to him. And **if** one would say that it is **for an Israelite,** the meat will **always** be **forbidden** to him. **Rather, that** teaching attributed **to Rav Ashi is** clearly **a mistake.**


###### Yevamot 82a:11
[Yevamot 82a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:11)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרוּמָה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְלִפְנֵיהֶם שְׁתֵּי סְאִין, אַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְנָפְלוּ אֵלּוּ בְּתוֹךְ אֵלּוּ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִים, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה, וְחוּלִּין בְּתוֹךְ חוּלִּין נָפְלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: **And** does **Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that *teruma* in the present** applies **by Torah** law? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: There were **two** large **baskets, one** filled with **non-sacred** produce **and** the other **one** filled with ***teruma*, and before them** were **two** one-***se’a*** vessels, **one** filled with **non-sacred** produce **and** the other **one** filled with ***teruma*. And these,** the contents of each of the *se’a* vessels, **fell into those,** each of the baskets. It is possible that the *teruma* fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of *teruma* and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the produce found in the basket containing the non-sacred produce **is permitted, as I say** that **the *teruma* fell into the *teruma* and the non-sacred** produce **fell into the non-sacred** produce.


###### Yevamot 82a:12
[Yevamot 82a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:12)

וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְהוּא שֶׁרַבּוּ חוּלִּין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רַבּוּ חוּלִּין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish said** that **this** is only the case **if the non-sacred** produce in the basket **was greater** in quantity **than the *teruma*** in the one-*se’a* vessel, so that even if the *teruma* fell into the non-sacred produce, it is nullified. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The mixture is permitted **even if the non-sacred** produce **was not greater** in quantity **than the *teruma*,** as one may rely on the assumption that each type of produce fell into its own type.


###### Yevamot 82a:13
[Yevamot 82a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:13)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, קָסָבַר בִּדְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי רִבּוּיָא הוּא דְּבָעֵינַן. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according to Reish Lakish,** who maintains that *teruma* nowadays applies by rabbinic law, this is logical, as **he maintains** that even **with regard to** *teruma* that is in effect only **by rabbinic** law, **we also require** the permitted portion of the mixture to be **greater** in quantity so that it can nullify the forbidden part. **But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** it is **difficult** because if he maintains that even nowadays *teruma* is mandated by Torah law, how can one disregard the concern and permit the mixture based merely on the assumption that the events occurred in a way that preserves the produce in its permitted state?


###### Yevamot 82a:14
[Yevamot 82a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/82a:14)

הָא מַנִּי — רַבָּנַן הִיא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan can say: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* taught? **It** is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that *teruma* nowadays is in effect only by rabbinic law.