## Yevamot Daf 83b

###### Yevamot 83b:1
[Yevamot 83b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:1)

אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A person cannot render forbidden an item that is not his.** Since the grain does not belong to him, he cannot render it forbidden. According to Shmuel, the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.


###### Yevamot 83b:2
[Yevamot 83b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מָה לִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב עָנָן: לֵיתַהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא מִקַּמֵּי מַתְנִיתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **As for a hermaphrodite, what did Shmuel say?** It was stated in the name of Rav that the *halakha* is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to a hermaphrodite, but no ruling was attributed to Shmuel concerning this case. The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan: The *baraita* is not** to be relied upon **in the presence of the mishna.** This indicates that Shmuel rejects Rabbi Yosei’s opinion as stated in the *baraita* that a hermaphrodite is considered a creature unto himself.


###### Yevamot 83b:3
[Yevamot 83b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:3)

הַרְכָּבָה מָה לִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל? תָּא שְׁמַע, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב עָנָן: תְּנִי כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: Concerning **grafting, what did Shmuel say?** The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan** that he should **teach in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who said** that it is prohibited to plant for **thirty-three** days before Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Evidently, he ruled on this matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not that of Rabbi Yosei.


###### Yevamot 83b:4
[Yevamot 83b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:4)

קוֹשִׁי מָה לִי אָמַר רַב? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to ask along these lines: With regard to the case of **protracted labor, what did Rav say?** Does he accept Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, as does Shmuel? No resolution was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes that this dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Yevamot 83b:5
[Yevamot 83b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:5)

קִידּוּשׁ מָה לִי אָמַר רַב? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי חָזֵית דְּסָמְכַתְּ אַהָא? סְמוֹךְ אַהָא! דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. ״אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב״ — מַנּוּ? רַב הוּנָא, וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵין הֲלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further inquires: With regard to **proscription, what did Rav say? Rav Yosef said: Come** and **hear, as Rav Huna said** that **Rav said** that the ***halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. Abaye said to him: What did you see that** led **you** to **rely on that** source? **Rely on this** source; **as Rav Adda said** that **Rav said** that the ***halakha* is** in fact **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** There is, then, a tradition that Rav accepted Rabbi Yosei’s view. The Gemara responds: When it is stated that the Sages of **the school of Rav said** a teaching, to **whom** is it referring? The reference is to **Rav Huna. And** it was **Rav Huna** who **said** that the ***halakha* is not** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It may be presumed, then, that Rav Adda’s version of Rav’s ruling is in error, as preference is given to the report of Rav’s preeminent disciple, Rav Huna.


###### Yevamot 83b:6
[Yevamot 83b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:6)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטוּמְטוּם דְּבֵירֵי, דְּאוֹתְבוּהּ אַבֵּי כּוּרְסְיָה וְאִיקְּרַע, וְאוֹלֵיד שְׁבַע בְּנִין! וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: חַזֵּר עַל בָּנָיו מֵאַיִן הֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna that **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. **Rabbi Ami said: What** would **Rabbi Yehuda do with the *tumtum*** living in the town **of Biri, who was placed in a seat** for an operation, **and** the tissue covering his genitals **was torn** open **and** he later **fathered seven children?** Evidently, a *tumtum* who was torn open is not necessarily sexually impotent. The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Yehuda** could have **said to you:** Go and **inquire about his children** and find out **from where they came.** He did not believe that they were fathered by this man but rather by someone else.


###### Yevamot 83b:7
[Yevamot 83b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:7)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם לֹא יַחְלוֹץ, שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְנִמְצָא סְרִיס חַמָּה. אַטּוּ כֹּל דְּמִקְּרַע זָכָר הָוֵי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְנִמְצָא נְקֵבָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִמְצָא זָכָר — שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא סָרִיס חַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A *tumtum* must not perform *ḥalitza*,** as **perhaps he will be torn** open **and found** to be **a eunuch by natural causes.** The Gemara asks: Why did he formulate his teaching in this manner? **Is that to say** that **every** *tumtum* who is torn open is **a male?** It is certainly possible for a *tumtum* to be found to be a female. The Gemara explains: **This is what he said:** A *tumtum* must not perform *ḥalitza*, as **perhaps he will be torn** open **and found** to be **a female,** who certainly cannot perform *ḥalitza*, **and even** if **he is found** to be **a male, perhaps he will be found** to be **a eunuch by natural causes.**


###### Yevamot 83b:8
[Yevamot 83b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:8)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: לִפְסוֹל בִּמְקוֹם אַחִין וְלַחְלוֹץ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אַחִין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical halakhic difference **between** the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei? **Rava said: There is** a practical difference **between them** as to whether the *ḥalitza* performed by a *tumtum* **disqualifies** the brothers in a case **where there are** other **brothers** in addition to the *tumtum*. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a *tumtum* is regarded as definitely sexually impotent, and therefore his *ḥalitza* is of no consequence. Therefore, if the *tumtum* went ahead and performed *ḥalitza*, he has not disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. According to Rabbi Yosei, however, he is only doubtfully sexually impotent, and therefore he has disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. **And** there is also a difference between them as to whether the *tumtum* must **perform *ḥalitza* where there are no** other **brothers** besides him. According to Rabbi Yehuda he need not do so, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei he must perform *ḥalitza* owing to his uncertain status.


###### Yevamot 83b:9
[Yevamot 83b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:9)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אֲחוּהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זַבְדִּי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה, מִשְּׁתֵּי מְקוֹמוֹת. מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה כַּזָּכָר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּזַכְרוּת שֶׁלּוֹ, אֲבָל בְּנַקְבוּת שֶׁלּוֹ — פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said** that **Rabbi Abba, brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi, said** that **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** With regard to **a hermaphrodite, one is liable to** receive the punishment of **stoning on his account** for intercourse **at two places,** whether one penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. The Gemara **raises an objection** against this from the following teaching. **Rabbi Eliezer said:** If one had intercourse with **a hermaphrodite,** he **is liable to** be punished with **stoning on his account as if** he had relations **with a male. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is if he had relations with him **through his male** organ, i.e., in the manner of homosexual intercourse, **but** if he engaged in intercourse with him **through his female** organ, he is **exempt.**


###### Yevamot 83b:10
[Yevamot 83b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:10)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה מִשְּׁתֵּי מְקוֹמוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: בַּר הַמְדּוּרֵי אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי: ״וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״, אֵי זֶהוּ זָכָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rav **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in the following *baraita*: **Rabbi Simai says:** With regard to **a hermaphrodite, one is liable to** be punished with **stoning on his account** for intercourse **at two places.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Simai? Rava said:** The Sage **bar Hamedurei explained** the matter **to me,** based on an allusion to this *halakha* found in the Bible. The verse states: **“And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman [*mishkevei isha*]”** (Leviticus 18:22). The phrase *mishkevei isha*, referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. Now, **what male has two** manners of **lying? You must say** that **this** is referring to **a hermaphrodite,** and the plural form *mishkevei*, meaning: Lyings, indicates that there is liability for both manners of intercourse with him.


###### Yevamot 83b:11
[Yevamot 83b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:11)

וְרַבָּנַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית בֵּיהּ שְׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת — ״אֶת זָכָר״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis** who disagree with Rabbi Simai counter this argument? The Gemara explains: **Although he has two** manners of **lying, it is** nevertheless **written: “With a male,”** indicating that one is liable to be stoned on a hermaphrodite’s account only if he had relations with him in the manner of a male.


###### Yevamot 83b:12
[Yevamot 83b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:12)

וְרַבָּנַן, זָכָר גְּרֵידָא מְנָא לְהוּ? מֵ״אִשָּׁה״. בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ מְנָא לְהוּ? מִ״וְּאִשָּׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** who explain this entire verse as referring to a hermaphrodite, **from where do they** derive that a man is prohibited from engaging in relations with **an ordinary male?** The Gemara answers: They derive it **from** the words **“a woman.”** The Gemara asks further: And **from where do** the Rabbis derive that one is liable to be punished for engaging in intercourse with **a woman** who is forbidden to him even if he engaged in relations **in an unnatural manner,** i.e., anal intercourse? The Gemara responds: They derive it **from** the inclusive “and” in **“and…with a woman.”**


###### Yevamot 83b:13
[Yevamot 83b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:13)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁזְבִי אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא לַכֹּל אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס זָכָר מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין — יִקְדַּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Shezvi said** that **Rav Ḥisda said: Not in all** regards did **Rabbi Eliezer say** that **a hermaphrodite is a proper male. As, if you say so,** that a hermaphrodite is a proper male in every aspect, then **with regard to consecrated** animals an animal that is a hermaphrodite **should become sacred** if one consecrated it.


###### Yevamot 83b:14
[Yevamot 83b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:14)

וּמְנָלַן דְּלָא קָדֵשׁ — דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמּוּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד וְהָאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do we** derive **that it does not become sacred? As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a bird **used for sexual relations** with a human being, **and one set aside** for idolatrous purposes, **and one** that itself was **worshipped** as an idol, **and one** given as **payment** to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19), **and one** that was **the price of a dog** received in exchange for the sale of a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:19), **and** similarly, a bird that is **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite,** if one killed any of these birds by pinching their necks in the manner of an offering rather than by ritual slaughter, the birds **render** him and the **garments** he is wearing **ritually impure,** when the birds are eaten and come into contact **with** his **throat.** The reason is that pinching is valid only for sacrificial birds; any other bird that is killed by pinching is deemed an unslaughtered carcass. Since none of these birds are fit to be sacrificed, pinching their necks renders them unslaughtered carcasses, and the unslaughtered carcass of a clean bird imparts ritual impurity when it is eaten and reaches the individual’s throat.


###### Yevamot 83b:15
[Yevamot 83b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:15)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אַתָּה מוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִבֵּינֵיהֶם. וְעוֹף, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אִי אַתָּה מוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִבֵּינֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says:** If one pinched the neck of a bird that is **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite, it does not render** him and the **garments** he is wearing **ritually impure** when it is eaten and comes into contact **with** his **throat,** as the sanctity of an offering does in fact apply to it. **As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is** explicitly **stated** in the Torah **“male” and “female,” you** are to **remove a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite from among them,** as their gender status is in doubt. This is true of animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses the terms male and female. In the case of **a bird-**offering, however, **since male and female are not stated with regard to it,** but instead the Torah simply mentions turtledoves and young pigeons, **you** are **not** to **remove a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite from among them,** as they are fit for the altar. It is evident then that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a hermaphrodite is not considered a proper male with respect to offerings.


###### Yevamot 83b:16
[Yevamot 83b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/83b:16)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too learned** this explicitly in a *baraita* that states: **Rabbi Eliezer says:**