ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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.
(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).
2. ... Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon is - two weeks.
(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
(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).
(c) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon say - two weeks.
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).
(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).
(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).
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
(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
(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
(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
(a) The Rabbanan learn from ...
1. ... "*ve'es* Zachar ... " - that one is Chayav for performing
(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.
2. ... "Mishkevei *Ishah* - that one is Chayav for having unnatural
relations with a woman.
(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
(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.
(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.
2. ... 've'Lo Makdishin' - that if someone tries to swap another animal for
them, the swap is not effective.
(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
(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.
***** Hadran Alach, ha'Areil *****
(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'.