Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 81

1) WHAT TYPE OF TERUMAH MAY AN ANDROGINUS GIVE TO HIS WIFE?

QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about the intention of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon state that if a Kohen who is an Androginus marries a Bas Yisrael, the Androginus entitles the woman to eat Terumah. Rebbi Yochanan says that they are referring to Terumah d'Oraisa, because the Androginus is certainly a male. Reish Lakish says that they are referring only to Terumah in nowadays (Terumah b'Zman ha'Zeh, after the Beis ha'Mikdash has been destroyed) which is only d'Rabanan, because it is unclear whether the Androginus is a male and thus we must be Machmir when it comes to Terumah d'Oraisa.

Rebbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish and asks how he knows that Terumah in our time is d'Rabanan. Reish Lakish cites a source from a Beraisa. The Beraisa says that if a pressed date-cake ("Igul") of Terumah gets mixed up with pressed date-cakes of Chulin (or a date-cake of Terumah Temei'ah gets mixed up with date-cakes of Terumah Tehorah), then that Terumah date-cake becomes Batel b'Me'ah (if there is at least one hundred times more Chulin in the mixture than there is Terumah). Normally, in a situation of an Isur d'Oraisa, if the Isur is a "Davar Chashuv" (such as a "Davar sheb'Minyan," something which is sold by count and not by estimate) then the laws of Bitul do *not* apply. Reish Lakish asserts that from the fact that the laws of Bitul do apply in the case of the Igul of Terumah (which is discussing Terumah nowadays), it must be that the Isur of eating Terumah nowadays is only mid'Rabanan.

Rebbi Yochanan responds that Reish Lakish is incorrect about the reason why the Igul is Batel. It is Batel *not* because it is a Davar sheb'Minyan and only d'Rabanan, but because it is not a Davar sheb'Minyan! Only something that is *always* sold by number ("Es she'Darko Limanos") is a Davar sheb'Minyan which is not Batel, while pressed date-cakes are only *sometimes* sold by number ("Kol she'Darko Limanos"). Rebbi Yochanan proves this from another Beraisa in which the Tana Kama says that if a piece of meat ("Chatichah") of a Korban Chatas which is Tamei becomes mixed with a hundred Chatichos that are Tahor, it is Batel, even though eating the meat of a Chatas is an Isur d'Oraisa. It is Batel because a Chatichah of Chatas is not something that is *always* counted (it is not "Es she'Darko"), and so, too, this is the reason why Bitul applies in the case of the Igul. The Gemara eventually concludes that Reish Lakish answers that the reason the Chatichah of Chatas is Batel is because it is completely disintegrated, and therefore it is not something that is even *sometimes* counted ("Kol she'Darko").

There are a number of unclear points in the Gemara. Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan are arguing about the statement of Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah, and not necessarily about the practical Halachah of the status of Terumah nowadays, nor about the opinions of the other Tana'im. They are addressing the question of what did Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon mean when they said that the Androginus Kohen may feed Terumah to his wife.

(a) Why does Reish Lakish insist that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon permit the Androginus to give his wife only Terumah d'Rabanan? Even if it is true that Rebbi Yosi holds that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, what indication is there in the Mishnah to that effect? How does Reish Lakish know that Rebbi Yosi was *not* saying that an Androginus may give Terumah *d'Oraisa* to his wife?

(b) Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan attempt to prove from different Beraisos (discussing the Bitul of Igul and of Chatas) whether Terumah nowadays is d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan. How can we prove what Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon hold from those Beraisos? Those Beraisos do not mention Rebbi Yosi nor Rebbi Shimon! What connection do they have to the statement of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah? It is clear that there are opinions among the Tana'im that say that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, and others that say that it is mid'Rabanan; that does not have to be proven. What, then, do we see from the Beraisa of Igul and of Chatas about the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah?

(c) Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue further regarding the opinion of Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Orlah (3:6) cited by the Gemara here. Rebbi Yochanan holds that Rebbi Meir's opinion is that something that is "Es she'Darko Limanos" is Batel, while Reish Lakish holds that Rebbi Meir maintains "Kol she'Darko Limanos" is Batel.

What does Rebbi Meir's opinion in Orlah have to do with our Mishnah? Our Mishnah is expressing the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon, and it has nothing to do with the opinion of Rebbi Meir! Perhaps Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon agree with the Chachamim in Orlah, who argue with Rebbi Meir and say that there are only six items which qualify as a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and are not Batel!

Moreover, according to Reish Lakish, how do we see from the Beraisa of Igul that the Igul is Batel because Terumah today is only mid'Rabanan? Perhaps the Igul is indeed Terumah mid'Oraisa, and that Beraisa allows it to become Batel because it follows the opinion of the Chachamim who do not apply the principle of "Davar sheb'Minyan" to anything other than six specific items!

ANSWERS:

(1) The simplest approach to these questions is that of TOSFOS, who addresses these questions and explains the Sugya as follows:

(a) The reason Reish Lakish insists that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon do not permit Terumah d'Oraisa is because of the Beraisa later (83a) in which Rebbi Yosi states that the Chachamim did not come to a conclusion whether an Androginus is considered a male or female. From there it is clear that Rebbi Yosi holds that an Androginus is indeed a Safek male. That is why Reish Lakish said that Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah here must be saying that an Androginus Kohen may only feed Terumah d'Rabanan to his wife. We are lenient and consider the Androginus to be a male with regard to an Isur d'Rabanan. We must be Machmir, though, with Terumah d'Oraisa, because it would be a Safek Isur d'Oraisa.

Rebbi Yochanan, who says that Rebbi Yosi considers an Androginus to be a definite male, maintains that it is preferable to learn the Mishnah in the most straightfoward sense, that an Androginus may feed all Terumah to his wife, even Terumah d'Oraisa. He holds that the Beraisa that quotes Rebbi Yosi as saying that an Androginus is a Safek was taught before (or after) Rebbi Yosi changed his mind (Gemara 82b, 83a). In additino, he preferred to learn the Mishnah this way because he had proof from elsewhere that Rebbi Yosi holds that Terumah bi'Zman ha'Zeh is indeed mid'Oraisa (as the Gemara says at the top of 82b). (TOSFOS DH v'Ein)

(b) TOSFOS (DH Amar Lei) explains that when Reish Lakish quotes the Beraisa that an Igul is Batel, he had received a tradition that the Beraisa represents the view of Rebbi Yosi. He proves from the Beraisa that since Rebbi Yosi says that the Igul is Batel, Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah must inded hold that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, and that is the only type of Terumah which RebbiYosi permits the Androginus to give to his wife.

When Rebbi Yochanan responded with the Beraisa which says that a Chatichah of Chatas is Batel, he was also saying that this Beraisa is expressing the view of Rebbi Yosi. Even though the Beraisa is mentioned in its entirety later (81b) and the part that he is quoting here appears to be the anonymous view of the TaNa Kama, nevertheless, since the Tana who argues with the Tana Kama in the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah, and we find that it is Rebbi Yosi who always argues with Rebbi Yehudah, it may be safely assumed that the Tana Kama of that Beraisa is indeed Rebbi Yosi.

(The TOSFOS HA'ROSH suggests a similar but slightly different explanation for how Rebbi Yochanan knew that the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah was Rebbi Yosi. Instead of positing that Rebbi Yehudah's counterpart in Halachic debates is usually Rebbi Yosi, he asserts that it is usually Rebbi Meir who is assumed to be the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah -- an assertion which indeed is evident from many Sugyos in Shas. Since we are assuming that Rebbi Yosi agrees to the ruling of Rebbi Meir regarding "Davar sheb'Minyan," if we can prove that *Rebbi Meir* holds "Es she'Darko," it may be safely assumed that Rebbi Yosi also holds of "Es she'Darko" -- as opposed to Kol she'Darko.)

(c) But still, why do Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan say that their argument depends on what Rebbi Meir means in the Mishnah in Orlah? Perhaps Rebbi Yosi holds like the Chachamim there who say that everything is Batel, and that is why the Igul and the Chatichah are Batel, even if they are Isurim d'Oraisa!

TOSFOS (DH v'ha'Lo) answers that Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan inferred from the fact that the Beraisos (which they assert are according to Rebbi Yosi) discuss specifically the Bitul of *Igul* and *Chatichah* that Rebbi Yosi holds that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is not Batel. If he held like the Chachamim who say that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is Batel, then why did he choose the case of Igul, which is something which is "Kol she'Darko Limanos," in order to teach that even a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is Batel? If he held like the Chachamim, then he should have taught a case of "Es she'Darko" -- that even though it is *always* counted, nevertheless it is still Batel! Also, why did he discuss the case of a Chatichah of Chatas which is "Kol she'Darko" -- he should have discussed a case of something which is "Es she'Darko," which is always counted, to teach that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is Batel! It must be that he held that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" indeed is *not* Batel, like Rebbi Meir. The only reason that the Igul and the Chatichah of Chatas are Batel is because they are items which are *sometimes* sold by count, but not always.

This is the gist of Rebbi Yochanan's inference that Rebbi Yosi, who discusses the Bitul of a Chatichah of Chatas, holds "Es she'Darko" and not "Kol she'Darko;" "Es she'Darko" is a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and is not Batel, and "Kol she'Darko" is not a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and thus it is Batel.

Reish Lakish asserts that from the Beraisa that says that an Igul is Batel, we see that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan. Reish Lakish, like Rebbi Yochanan, inferred from the fact that Rebbi Yosi chose to teach about the case of an Igul, which is "Kol she'Darko," that he must hold that if it were "Es she'Darko," then it would *not* be Batel (even though it is only an Isur d'Rabanan), because it is "Davar sheb'Minyan." Rebbi Yosi holds that since such an item is always counted, we are not lenient even in the case of an Isur d'Rabanan. Had the Igul been an Isur mid'Oraisa, though, it should not have been Batel, because regarding Isurim mid'Oraisa the rule is that "Es she'Darko Limanos" is not Batel, according to Reish Lakish. It is only the combination of the factors, that an item is "Kol she'Darko" (and not "Es she'Darko"), and that it is only an Isur d'Rabanan, that allows the Igul to become Batel (see Chart).

(2) The TOSFOS YESHANIM cites another approach to all of these questions, in the name of RABEINU NESANEL.

(a) He explains that according to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Yosi is discussing Terumah d'Rabanan because, mid'Rabanan, an Androginus has the status of a male (mid'Oraisa he is either a Safek male, or he has the status of a "Biryah Bifnei Atzmo").

(Rabeinu Nesanel does not explain how Reish Lakish knows that this is Rebbi Yosi's opinion. Apparently Reish Lakish inferred this from the end of the Mishnah, in which Rebbi Yosi says Androginus Nosei...," as the Gemara points out later in the Sugya, 82b.)

Reish Lakish inferred from this that since Rebbi Yosi, in the Mishnah, hold that Terumah today is mid'Rabanan, and the Mishnah does not mention any opinion that argues with Rebbi Yosi saying that Terumah b'Zman ha'Zeh is d'Oraisa, the Mishnah is showing that the Halachah is that Terumah b'Zman ha'Zeh is d'Rabanan.

Thus, Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan are having a Halachic argument concerning whether, l'Halachah, Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa.

(b) When Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan attempt to prove from the Beraisos of Igul and Chatichah whether Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa, their intention is to bring proofs to the Halachah from *Stam Mishnayos* (the case of Igul appears in the Mishnah in Terumos 4:10, and the case of Chatichah was apparently part of a Beraisa which added to the Mishnah in Terumos, the beginning of which is cited in Beitzah 3b).

(c) The reason the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah which discusses Igul is following the opinion of Rebbi Meir is because in Beitzah (3b), the Beraisa cited by the Gemara explains that the Mishnah in Terumos 4:10, which Reish Lakish is quoting, is expressing the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

81b