(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yevamos 83



(a) We have just seen that Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah consider an Androginus to be a Vaday Zachar. In a Beraisa however - he considers an Androginus to be an independent creature (i.e. a Safek - see Tosfos DH 'Beryah'), about whom Chazal remained undecided.

(b) Rav accepted the opinion of Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa in preference to what he said in the Mishnah - because, since he states his opinion there independently of Rebbi Shimon, it appears that he retracted, and went his own way.

(c) Shmuel, on the other hand - accepts the opinion of Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, rather than that in the Beraisa.

(d) We reconcile Shmuel here with Shmuel himself who rules like the individual opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (on 41a), like Rav does in this case - by pointing out that it is only when the individual opinion *does not clash with a Mishnah* that he will rule like it, but not when it *does* (as is the case here).

(a) Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yossi in the cases of 'Androginus' and 'Harkavah'. Amri Bei Rav - is Rav Huna.

(b) We presume that Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah (unlike Rav above, who ruled like Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa) - because the other three cases mentioned by Rav and Shmuel refer to the combined opinion of Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon (as opposed to Rebbi Yossi on his own), which then fits with Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah (but not with Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa).

(c) In the case of Harkavah, the Tana Kama forbids planting, converting the branch into a new tree or grafting, within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah of the Sh'mitah-year. The opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah is - that any tree that has not taken root in three days will never take root.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon is - two weeks.
(d) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah adds - the thirty days of Elul to all three opinions (i.e. thirty plus thirty days, three plus thirty days, and two weeks plus thirty days).
(a) Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi regarding 'Koshi' and 'Kidush'. 'Koshi' - is the birth pains to which one ascribes the blood of Zivus (should the birth take place during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah, and the woman has three sightings of blood whilst giving birth). We will not however, ascribe to it the blood of Nidus (to consider it to be a birth be'Taharah).

(b) When ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir says that Koshi is forty or fifty days - he means that, as long as the pains begin within the forty or fifty days preceding the birth, they will negate the Zivus at childbirth (but not before that).
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah says 'Dayah Chodshah' - he means that any pains that began on the calendar month in which the women gave birth (as little as one day if she gave birth at the beginning of the month - but pains from before that will not negate the Zivus - and the entire month, if she gave birth at the end of the month).
(c) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon say - two weeks.
(a) Rebbi Meir says - that someone who covers his neighbor's produce with his own vines renders the produce forbidden.

(b) He is also obligated to pay for the loss.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon - one person cannot render forbidden something that belongs to somebody else.




(a) Shmuel ...
1. ... agrees with Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav regardingAndroginus - as he told Rav Ana (and as we saw on the previous Amud).
2. ... does not agree with Rav with regard to Harkavah - because he told Rav Anan that he follows the opinion of the Tana who holds thirty and three days (Rebbi Yehudah).
(b) We remain with a 'Teiku' as to whether Rav agrees with Shmuel regarding Koshi. With regard to Kidush, Rav Huna quotes Rav as saying 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi' (not like Shmuel); whereas Rav Ada Amar Rav quotes him as saying 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi'. We accept Rav Huna's opinion however - because our She'eilah is really whether *Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav* agrees with Shmuel, and Amri Bei Rav is actually Rav Huna (as we stated above).

(c) The Gemara in Sanhedrin, which declares Amri Bei Rav to be Rav Hamnuna - is speaking specifically when Rav Huna quotes Amri Bei Rav.

(a) Had Rebbi Yehudah (who declares a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a male a Saris), been there in the time of the Tumtum of Biri, whose wife bore him seven sons after that happened to him - he would have suggested that they make enquiries as to whose children they really were.

(b) We amend Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids a Tumtum to perform Chalitzah because 'Shema Yikra ve'Nimtza Saris' - to read 'Shema Yikra ve'Nimtza Nekeivah, ve'Im Nimtza Zachar, Shema Yimatzei S'ris Chamah'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a Zachar is a Vaday Saris - whereas according to his son Rebbi Yossi, he is only a Safek Saris.

(d) One difference between them is whether, if he *did* perform Chalitzah, he invalidates the other brothers or not - the other difference is when there are no other brothers, in which case, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, he will have to perform Chalitzah, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, he will not.

(a) When Rav says that an Androginus is Chayav S'kilah from two places - he means that someone who has relations with him as if he was a woman, is Chayav.

(b) Rav justifies this in face of a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer explicitly says that he is only Chayav be'Makom Zachrus, but not be'Makom Nakvus - by establishing his own opinion like that of Rebbi Sima'i in another Beraisa.

(c) bar Hamduri explained to Rava that Rebbi Sima'i's source was the Pasuk "ve'es Zachar Lo Sishkav Mishkevei Ishah" - which clearly refers to an Androginus, he says, who has two Mishkavos (whereas other people have only one).

(d) The Rabbanan (Rebbi Eliezer) counter that D'rashah from the same Pasuk - from the word "ve'es Zachar", implying that he is only Chayav for the Makom Zachar.

(a) The Rabbanan learn from ...
1. ... "*ve'es* Zachar ... " - that one is Chayav for performing homosexuality.
2. ... "Mishkevei *Ishah* - that one is Chayav for having unnatural relations with a woman.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer agrees that an Androginus does not have the Din of a Vaday Zachar - with regard to Kodshei Beheimah, inasmuch as one cannot sanctify an Androginus as Kodshei Mizbei'ach.

(c) His reason is - because when the Torah writes "Zachar" or "Nekeivah", it means a Vaday Zachar and a Vaday Nekeivah.

(a) ha'Nirva, ve'ha'Muktzah, ve'ha'Ne'evad, ve'ha'Esnan, u'M'chir, ve'Tumtum ve'Androginus Metam'in Begadim a'Beis ha'B'li'ah' - is talking about a bird of Kodshim which was 'Shechted' by means of Melikah (i.e. nipping it in the neck, which would have permitted it to be eaten if it had Kasher Kodshim).

(b) 'Metam'in a'Beis ha'B'li'ah' means - that, if someone eats one of the above, he becomes Tamei the moment he swallows it (as is the case with the Neveilah of a Chulin bird, which does not render one Tamei in any other way).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer differentiates between Kodshim of animals and Kodshim of birds with regard to Tumtum and Androginus - because it is only by animals that the Torah mentions Zachar and Nekeivah, but not by birds.

(d) A Muktzah is an animal that has been designated to worship, whereas a Ne'evad is one that was actually worshipped.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings a further proof (for our interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer) from a Mishnah in Temurah. According to Rebbi Eliezer there, Kil'ayim, Tereifah, Yotzei Dofen, Tumtum and Androginus have in common - the fact that they cannot become Kadosh, nor can they cause others to become Kadosh.

(b) Shmuel explains ...

1. ... 'Lo Kedoshin' - to mean that they cannot even become Kadosh in the form of a Temurah.
2. ... 've'Lo Makdishin' - that if someone tries to swap another animal for them, the swap is not effective.
(c) 've'Lo Makdishin' will apply in a case of someone who sanctified an animal which then became a Tereifah, or in a case of an Ubar, which then came out by means of a cesarean (on both of which the Kedushah takes effect). And it will apply to an animal of Kil'ayim, Tumtum or Androginus that were babies of Kodshim.

(d) A Ba'al Mum whose blemish preceded its declaration of Kedushah - would become Kadosh if it was declared a Temurah, even though it would not, if it was declared Kadosh initially.

(a) If one *does* declare any of the above, Hekdesh - Kedushas Mizbei'ach does not take effect, only Kedushas Damim, which means that they may be redeemed even without a Mum, and following their redemption, they may be shorn or worked with.

(b) If, on the other hand, someone declared Hekdesh an animal that was a Rovei'a or a Nirva, a Muktzah or a Ne'evad, an Esnan or a M'chir Kelev - his Hekdesh would be effective, and they would adopt Kedushas ha'Guf, to require a Mum before they could be redeemed; and after their redemption, it would still be forbidden to shear and to work with them; only eating them would be permitted.

(c) Tereifah Kodshim - must be buried.

(a) When Rebbi went to learn Torah by Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, he describes how Rebbi Elazar's Talmidim surrounded him like a rooster of Beis Buki'ah, and only permitted him to learn one thing. Roosters of Beis Buki'ah - were very protective of their domain and would not allow any strange rooster to join their ranks.

(b) The one thing that they permitted him to learn - was the quote from our Mishnah: 'Rebbi Eliezer Omer, Androginus Chayavin Alav S'kilah ke'Zachar'.

***** Hadran Alach, ha'Areil *****

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,