Talmud - Yevamot 81a יבמות פ״א א׳

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Yevamot 81a examines levirate marriage disqualifications involving illicit relations and sexual underdevelopment, plus a priest's status affecting his wife's right to eat teruma.