The EB-Sit edition of the audio series on the Talmud Bavli continues with Daf Peh Gimmel of Yevamot. This session has been dedicated and sponsored by our dear friend Mr. Isaac Jamal and his wife, in honor of his family. We pray for their success and well-being in all their endeavors, and may he be blessed to raise his children in the ways of the Torah, bringing him much nachat. May he and his family enjoy health, happiness, grace, and kindness in the eyes of both God and man, and may they be blessed in all aspects of life. Amen.
Today's daf has also been dedicated by Mr. Elliot Chasho, whom we pray that God protects and sustains. May he be granted blessings, success, health, happiness, and peace of mind for himself, his wife, and his family. With God’s help, may he enjoy prosperity and good things. Amen.
We begin on Peh Bet Amud Bet, starting right at the bottom line. Amar Rav, he states, “There is no matnitin preceding the baraita.” We learned in the mishnah that Rabbi Yosei held that an androgynos can feed his wife terumah. If an androgynos can feed his wife terumah, it indicates he is considered a definite male zachar vaday. However, Rav asserts that we do not follow the ruling of the mishnah because we have a baraita that contradicts it, and we will prioritize the baraita over the mishnah.
What is the baraita? It states, “Rabbi Yosei says an androgynos is a creation unto itself, and the sages have not determined whether he is a male or female.” This clearly shows a contradiction between Rabbi Yosei's position in the mishnah and his position in the baraita. Thus, Rav concludes that we will take the baraita over the mishnah and consider him a safek.
The Gemara responds, “On the contrary, we should say that we do not follow the baraita in light of the mishnah.” The Gemara defends this by stating, “Since Rabbi Yosei retracted his position from his partner, we learn from this that he has indeed retracted.” In the mishnah, Rabbi Yosei expressed his opinion alongside Rabbi Shimon. If this were merely a debate among later scholars regarding what was said, the statement would have indicated that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon said the androgynos is a definite male. However, the fact that the baraita only mentions Rabbi Yosei implies that he himself has retracted and thus considers the androgynos to be a safek.
The Gemara continues to analyze this point. “If Rabbi Yosei has retracted from Rabbi Shimon, we conclude that Rabbi Yosei himself has changed his stance.” It is important to note that the Gemara emphasizes that Rabbi Yosei did not express his position alone, but rather alongside Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, when we see that the baraita mentions only Rabbi Yosei, it implies a retraction from his previous stance.
Now, Shmuel states the opposite: “We do not accept the baraita in place of the mishnah.” The Gemara raises the same question: “On the contrary, we should not take the mishnah, but rather the baraita.” The Gemara answers, “We have a principle that Shmuel usually is concerned with the opinion of a single authority. Therefore, since the baraita represents a singular opinion, we should be concerned with it.”
The Gemara provides an example where Shmuel was concerned about a single authority’s opinion. He states that in the case of a shomeret yavam who is married to a brother’s sister, the brother cannot perform yibum because the yivamah is considered the sister of his wife. This principle illustrates that Shmuel follows the opinion of a single authority.
The Gemara raises a point regarding the cases at hand. “When does Shmuel follow a singular authority? When it does not uproot the opinion of a mishnah. However, when it contradicts the mishnah, he does not follow it.” In this case, since the mishnah is more stringent, Shmuel does not accept the baraita that contradicts it.
Returning to our discussion, Rav states, “The halacha follows Rabbi Yosei regarding the androgynos and the case of harkavah.” The Gemara clarifies these cases, emphasizing that Rabbi Yosei is followed in these discussions.
In the case of androgynos, we have already established that he is considered a definite male regarding marriage to a daughter of Israel. He can feed terumah and is therefore treated as a definite male in this context.
Next, we delve into the case of harkavah. The Gemara states that one is not allowed to plant or graft in the year of shemitah. The novelty of this statement is that one cannot even perform these actions within thirty days before shemitah begins. If one has done so, the plants must be uprooted.
Rabbi Yehuda offers a more lenient view, stating that if the roots take hold within three days before Rosh Hashanah, it is permissible. However, Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon assert that one has until two weeks before shemitah begins.
The Gemara explains that everyone agrees that shemitah begins on Rosh Chodesh Elul, thirty days prior. The question arises regarding the exact timeline for these prohibitions. The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yosei holds that one cannot engage in these activities from thirty days before shemitah.
Returning to Rav, he states that we follow the view of Rabbi Yosei regarding the androgynos. Thus, the prohibition extends to forty-four days before shemitah, which aligns with the two-week period.
Shmuel states that we follow Rabbi Yosei in the cases of kushi and kiddush. The Gemara elaborates on these cases, discussing the implications of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon in these contexts.
As the discussion continues, the Gemara explores the intricacies of kushi, focusing on labor pains and their implications. The Gemara concludes that a woman experiencing labor pains within the specified time frame does not become a zavah.
In the case of kiddush, the Gemara discusses the implications of kilayim and the responsibilities that arise. Here, the question of whether one can impose restrictions on another's property arises.
Finally, the Gemara recounts a personal experience of Rabbi, who learned about the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the androgynos from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamuah. The students were sharp and persistent in their inquiries, ensuring that the teachings were conveyed accurately. The conclusion drawn is that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that an androgynos is considered a definite male, and thus if a male engages with him, he is liable for sekilah as if he were a male.
In conclusion, we reaffirm our understanding of the complexities surrounding the androgynos and the various halachic implications, while recognizing the importance of the distinctions made in the mishnah and baraita discussions.