Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
(Rabbi Yochanan maintains that Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon hold that an androgynous is a definite male. Rish Lakish held that they maintain that he is possibly a male.)The Mishna had stated: An androgynous may marry a woman. This would indicate that he is a definite male and his marriage is a full-fledged one.
.
The Gemora answers: Let us learn the Mishna to mean that if an androgynous marries, the marriage takes effect (to the extent that she will need a divorce to get married again, because an androgynous is a possible male).
The Gemora asks: But the Mishna says that the androgynous may marry outright?
Rish Lakish counters: And according to you, what does the next statement of the mean when it states the following: An androgynous may not be taken in marriage by a man? It obviously is referring to even after the fact; the androgynous may not remain married to the male. Just as the second statement refers to after the fact, so too, the first statement of the Mishna means after the fact.
The Gemora objects to this explanation: They said: No. The first statement of the Mishna means that the androgynous may marry a woman outright, and the second statement means that the androgynous may not be married to a male even after the fact. (This would be inconsistent with Rish Lakish’s viewpoint.)
The Gemora asks on Rabbi Yochanan: The Mishna concluded with the following ruling: Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable to stoning on account of cohabiting with an androgynous, as with a male. This would indicate that the Tanna Kamma was uncertain as to the status of an androgynous.
The Gemora answers: Both the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that an androgynous is certainly a male. The difference between the two opinions is whether a male will be liable to stoning for cohabiting with the androgynous in two places (through his anus or his female organ). The Tanna Kamma maintains that he will be liable for stoning from either of two places. Rabbi Eliezer holds that he will be liable for stoning only when he cohabits with the androgynous in the manner of a male (through his anus, for only then will it be classifies as homosexual relations). (82b)
Rav said: Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the Mishna (that an androgynous entitles his wife to eat terumah) cannot be correct because Rabbi Yosi taught differently in the following braisa: Rabbi Yosi said: An androgynous is a being unto itself, and the Chachamim could not determine whether it is a male or a female.
The Gemora asks: On the contrary? Let Rav say that Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the braisa is not correct because he taught differently in the Mishna?
The Gemora answers: By the fact that Rabbi Yosi deserted his partner Rabbi Shimon in the braisa, this would indicate that he retracted from his ruling of the Mishna.
Shmuel said: Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the braisa cannot be correct because Rabbi Yosi taught differently in the Mishna.
The Gemora asks: On the contrary? Let Shmuel say that Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the Mishna is not correct because he taught differently in the braisa, since we have heard that Shmuel is concerned for the individual opinion when it is a stricter one (even when it is opposed to a majority opinion)?
The Gemora answers: He is only concerned for an individual stricter opinion if a Mishna will not be uprooted because of it; here, where we would be compelled to uproot a Mishna, Shmuel is not concerned for the individual opinion. (82b – 83a)
.
The Gemora answers: Let us learn the Mishna to mean that if an androgynous marries, the marriage takes effect (to the extent that she will need a divorce to get married again, because an androgynous is a possible male).
The Gemora asks: But the Mishna says that the androgynous may marry outright?
Rish Lakish counters: And according to you, what does the next statement of the mean when it states the following: An androgynous may not be taken in marriage by a man? It obviously is referring to even after the fact; the androgynous may not remain married to the male. Just as the second statement refers to after the fact, so too, the first statement of the Mishna means after the fact.
The Gemora objects to this explanation: They said: No. The first statement of the Mishna means that the androgynous may marry a woman outright, and the second statement means that the androgynous may not be married to a male even after the fact. (This would be inconsistent with Rish Lakish’s viewpoint.)
The Gemora asks on Rabbi Yochanan: The Mishna concluded with the following ruling: Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable to stoning on account of cohabiting with an androgynous, as with a male. This would indicate that the Tanna Kamma was uncertain as to the status of an androgynous.
The Gemora answers: Both the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that an androgynous is certainly a male. The difference between the two opinions is whether a male will be liable to stoning for cohabiting with the androgynous in two places (through his anus or his female organ). The Tanna Kamma maintains that he will be liable for stoning from either of two places. Rabbi Eliezer holds that he will be liable for stoning only when he cohabits with the androgynous in the manner of a male (through his anus, for only then will it be classifies as homosexual relations). (82b)
Rav said: Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the Mishna (that an androgynous entitles his wife to eat terumah) cannot be correct because Rabbi Yosi taught differently in the following braisa: Rabbi Yosi said: An androgynous is a being unto itself, and the Chachamim could not determine whether it is a male or a female.
The Gemora asks: On the contrary? Let Rav say that Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the braisa is not correct because he taught differently in the Mishna?
The Gemora answers: By the fact that Rabbi Yosi deserted his partner Rabbi Shimon in the braisa, this would indicate that he retracted from his ruling of the Mishna.
Shmuel said: Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the braisa cannot be correct because Rabbi Yosi taught differently in the Mishna.
The Gemora asks: On the contrary? Let Shmuel say that Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the Mishna is not correct because he taught differently in the braisa, since we have heard that Shmuel is concerned for the individual opinion when it is a stricter one (even when it is opposed to a majority opinion)?
The Gemora answers: He is only concerned for an individual stricter opinion if a Mishna will not be uprooted because of it; here, where we would be compelled to uproot a Mishna, Shmuel is not concerned for the individual opinion. (82b – 83a)
They said in the Beis Medrash of Rav in the name of Rav: The halacha follows Rabbi Yosi with respect to an androgynous and with respect to grafting. Shmuel said: The halacha follows Rabbi Yosi with respect to a woman bleeding in labor and with respect to rendering unfit.
The Gemora explains: When Rav said that the halacha follows Rabbi Yosi with respect to an androgynous, he is referring to the halacha cited above (an androgynous entitles his wife to eat terumah).
When Rav said that the halacha follows Rabbi Yosi with respect to grafting, he was referring to the following Mishna: One is not permitted to plant a tree, nor bend a vine and insert it into the ground, nor graft during the year preceding Shemitah, less than thirty days before Rosh Hashanah (since it takes thirty days for all types of planting to take root). If one does plant a tree within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah prior to a Shemitah year, the tree must be uprooted. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a tree takes root within three days. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon hold that a tree takes root within two weeks of its being planted. Rav Nachman rules in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha that according to all these opinions, you must add an additional thirty days to satisfy the requirement of adding from the ordinary onto the holy.
The Gemora now explains Shmuel’s statement: When Shmuel said that the halacha follows Rabbi Yosi with respect to a woman bleeding in labor, he was referring to the following Mishna: How many days can a woman’s labor last in order that we will attribute her discharges to the impending childbirth (and not render her a zavah, which would make her tamei)? Rabbi Meir says: Even forty or fifty days before childbirth. Rabbi Yehudah says: Only a month prior to childbirth. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor will never be longer than two weeks.
When Shmuel said that the halacha follows Rabbi Yosi with respect to rendering unfit, he was referring to the following Mishna: One who spreads his vines over the grain of his friend, has rendered the grain unfit on account of kilayim of the vineyard and he will be liable to pay; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon say: A person cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him. (83a – 83b)
The Gemora inquires: What would Shmuel hold regarding an androgynous?
The Gemora answers: Come and hear from what Shmuel said to Rav Anan: Rabbi Yosi’s ruling in the braisa cannot be correct because Rabbi Yosi taught differently in the Mishna.
The Gemora inquires: What would Shmuel hold regarding grafting?
The Gemora answers: Come and hear from what Shmuel said to Rav Anan: The law should be taught according to the one that said: “three and thirty.”
The Gemora inquires: What would Rav hold regarding a woman in labor?
The Gemora says: Let this matter remain unresolved (until Eliyahu comes).
The Gemora inquires: What would Rav hold regarding rendering unfit?
Rav Yosef says: Come and hear from that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The halacha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosi. (83b)
The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Yehudah says: A tumtum (undetermined sex) that was torn and was found to be a male, does not submit to chalitzah, because he is classified as a saris.
Rav Ami said: What would Rabbi Yehuday say regarding the tumtum of Biri, whom they performed a surgery and tore open his genital covering, and afterwards, he fathered seven children?
The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yehudah would say to you: Go check and see from where his children came (his wife probably committed adultery). (83b)
The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehudah said: A tumtum should not perform a chalitzah because he might be torn open and found to be a saris-chamah.
The Gemora asks: Is every tumtum that is torn open a male?
The Gemora answers: The following is what he meant to say: A tumtum should not perform a chalitzah because he might be torn open and found to be a female; and even if he is found to be a male, perhaps he will be found to be a saris-chamah. (83b)
Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Abba the brother of Rabbi Yehudah bar Zavdi, who said the name of Rabbi Yehudah, who said it in the name of Rav: A male will be liable for stoning for cohabiting with an androgynous from either of two places (his anus or his female organ).
The Gemora asks from the following braisa: Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable to stoning on account of cohabiting with an androgynous, as with a male. When is this ruling applicable? Only when a male cohabits with the androgynous through his male organ; however, if he cohabits with the androgynous through his female organ, he will be exempt from punishment.
The Gemora answers: This is a matter of a Tannaic dispute, and Rav said his statement according to the Tanna who maintains that he will be liable for either of two places. (83b)
[END]
0 comments:
Post a Comment