Yevamos - Daf 82
- The case of two boxes of grain, one of chullin and one of terumah falling into two boxes
On Daf 81a, Rebbe Yochanan made a statement that implied that he holds that terumah nowadays is a d’Oraysa. The Gemara here questions if that is really his position, for it was taught in a Baraisa: שתי קופות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה – If there were two boxes, one of chullin grain and one of terumah grain, and in front of them there were two se’ah containers of grain, one of chullin and one of terumah, and they fell into each other, where one box of the former fell into the other box of the latter, הרי אלו מותרין – behold they are permissible for I say that the terumah fell into the terumah and the chullin fell into the chullin. Reish Lakish said: והוא שרבו חולין על התרומה – this is provided that the chullin grain in the chullin box was more than the terumah in the se’ah container. That way, if the terumah fell into the chullin box, mid’Oraysa it would be batul mid’Oraysa. But Rebbe Yochanan says: אף על פי שלא רבו חולין על התרומה – This law applies even if the chullin grain in the chullin box was not more than the terumah in the se’ah container. If Rebbe Yochanan holds that terumah nowadays is d’Oraysa, how can he not require rov to be mevatel? Rebbe Yochanan answers that the Baraisa is the d’Rabbanon who hold terumah nowadays is only d’Rabbanon, and his earlier statement was in accordance with Rebbe Yose who says that nowadays, terumah is a d’Oraysa.
- Adding a se’ah of liquid to a mikveh and then removing a se’ah of mikveh water
The Gemara asks if Rebbe Yochanan really holds that rov is not required to be mevatel a d’Rabbanon issur, for it was taught in a Mishnah: מקוה שיש בו ארבעים סאה מכוונות – If a mikveh contains exactly forty se’ah of water, and one put in a se’ah of other liquids and then removed a se’ah of the mixture, the mikveh is still valid, and it was said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan: This procedure of adding a se’ah of water and removing a se’ah may be repeated עד רובו – up until the majority of the mikveh. Does this not mean that a majority of the mikveh water remained? And since מים שאובים – drawn water, is only a d’Rabbanon pesul for a mikveh, this implies that Rebbe Yochanan requires rov to be mevatel a d’Rabbanon issur. The Gemara answers that what is meant is that we should not remove a majority of the mikveh water. But an equal amount of mikveh water is enough to be mevatel the d’Rabbanon pesul. Alternatively, we could say that Rebbe Yochanan does require rov, but in the case of the boxes of grain and chullin we may rely on the lenient assumption that the chullin fell into the chullin and the terumah fell into the terumah.
- Determining the status of an androgynous
On Daf 81a, Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued whether Rebbe Yose and Rebbe Shimon hold that an androgynous is a definite male or a safek male. The Gemara challenges Reish Lakish’s opinion that he is a safek male, for the Mishnah stated: אנדרוגינוס נושא – An androgynous marries a woman, which implies l’chatchilah, and the Rebbe Yose and Rebbe Shimon hold he is a definite male. The Gemara also challenges Rebbe Yochanan, for the Mishnah stated: Rebbe Eliezer says that a male is chayav skilah (stoning) if he had relations with an androgynous as with a male. This implies that the Tanna Kamma who holds that he is not chayav skilah holds that an androgynous is a safek male. The Gemara answers that both Rebbe Eliezer and the Tanna Kamma hold that he is a זכר ודאי, and the difference is that the Tanna Kamma holds he is chayav stoning if he had relations in the male or female place, whereas Rebbe Eliezer holds that he is only chayav stoning if he had relations in the male place.
