וַאֲנָא דְּאָמְרִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי But I, Rabbi Yoḥanan, said what I said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a priest who is a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat teruma, and Rabbi Yosei himself maintains that even nowadays the halakha of teruma is in effect by Torah law. Accordingly, I argued that a hermaphrodite enables his wife to eat not only teruma, but even the breast and thigh of peace-offerings.
דְּתַנְיָא בְּסֵדֶר עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר יָרְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה יֵשׁ לָהֶן וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֵין לָהֶן As it is taught in a baraita in the anthology called Seder Olam, with regard to a verse that speaks of the Jewish people’s return to Eretz Yisrael following their exile: “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it” (Deuteronomy 30:5). These two expressions of inheritance teach that they had a first inheritance of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua and a second inheritance at the time of the return from the Babylonian exile. That is to say, since the sanctity of the land had lapsed when the First Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people exiled to Babylonia, a second sanctification was necessary when they returned to their land. But they will not have a third inheritance. In other words, it will never be necessary to sanctify the land for a third time, as the second sanctification was permanent.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאן תְּנָא סֵדֶר עוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Who is the tanna who taught Seder Olam? It is Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei maintains that the second sanctification of Eretz Yisrael never lapsed even after the destruction of the Second Temple, he also holds that teruma nowadays is in effect by Torah law.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא בָּעֵינַן רִבּוּיָא וְהָא תְּנַן מִקְוֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה מְכֻוּוֹנוֹת נָתַן סְאָה וְנָטַל סְאָה כָּשֵׁר וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד רוּבּוֹ The Gemara raises another objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: But does Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that with regard to a mixture containing an item that is forbidden by rabbinic law, we do not require the permitted portion of the mixture to be greater in quantity so that it can nullify the prohibited part? Didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:2): With regard to a ritual bath that contains exactly forty se’a of water, the minimal measure of a fit ritual bath, and one added to it a se’a of liquid other than water, and then removed from it a se’a of the mixture, the ritual bath remains fit, as the liquid that was added was nullified in the forty se’a of water, so that when one se’a of the mixture was removed there still remained the requisite forty se’a of fit water. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that this halakha applies up to the greater part of the ritual bath.
מַאי לָאו דְּנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר רוּבּוֹ לָא דְּלָא נִשְׁקוֹל רוּבּוֹ The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: What, is it not that its greater part must remain, i.e., that most of the original forty se’a of water must remain in the ritual bath? In other words, up to nineteen se’a of other liquids may be added to the ritual bath, with an equal quantity of the mixture then removed from it, and these other liquids are nullified by the ritual bath water. But if twenty se’a are removed, so that fit water no longer constitutes the majority, the ritual bath is no longer fit for use. Since certain liquids are unfit for a ritual bath only by rabbinic law, this shows that even with respect to rabbinic prohibitions the permitted portion of a mixture must be greater in quantity, so that it can nullify the prohibited part. The Gemara refutes this proof: No, it means that its greater part must not be removed, but if the water and other liquids are present in equal proportion, the ritual bath remains fit.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר And if you wish, say an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: It is different here, with regard to the case of two baskets, one of which contains teruma, since it may be said: As I say that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce, it is therefore assumed that that is what actually took place, and therefore the permitted portion need not be the greater part of the mixture.
תְּנַן אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס נוֹשֵׂא תְּנִי אִם נָשָׂא § We learned in the mishna: A hermaphrodite may marry a woman. This formulation indicates that he may do so ab initio, as he is considered a full-fledged male. Accordingly, a hermaphrodite who is a priest should enable his wife to eat the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, as is maintained by Rabbi Yoḥanan, and against the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara rejects this argument and suggests that the text be emended: Teach in the mishna: If he married. That is to say, if he married a woman, the marriage is valid and a bill of divorce is required, as it is possible that he is a male. But even if he married, he does not enable his wife to eat teruma, as he may be a female.
וְהָא נוֹשֵׂא קָתָנֵי וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ מַאי אֲבָל לֹא נִישָּׂא אֶלָּא מַאי נִישָּׂא דִּיעֲבַד נוֹשֵׂא נָמֵי דִּיעֲבַד The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the mishna teach that he may marry a woman, which indicates that he may do so ab initio? The Gemara rejects this argument: And according to your reasoning, what is the meaning of the next clause: But he may not be married to a man? This teaching is certainly referring to a case after the fact, as, if he is a full-fledged male there would be no reason to say that he may not be married to a man ab initio. Rather, what is the meaning of: He may not be married to a man? It means that even after the fact the marriage is not valid. This being the case, when the mishna states that a hermaphrodite may marry a woman, it is also speaking after the fact.
אָמְרִי לָא נוֹשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה מַשְׁמַע אֲבָל לֹא נִישָּׂא דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא It may be said in response: No; the words: May marry, indicate that a hermaphrodite may marry a woman ab initio, whereas the words: But he may not be married, mean that his marriage to a man is not valid even after the fact. Accordingly, the difficulty raised against Reish Lakish remains.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה כַּזָּכָר מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ The Gemara challenges this understanding: But from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Rabbi Eliezer says that if a man had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male, this proves by inference that the first tanna is uncertain as to whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a full-fledged male, and this presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion.
בֵּין לְמָר בֵּין לְמָר מִפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ סְקִילָה מִשְּׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת דְּמָר סָבַר חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה מִשְּׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת וּמָר סָבַר כְּזָכָר The Gemara answers: No, it is obvious both to this Master and to that Master that a hermaphrodite is deemed a full-fledged male. The practical difference between them relates to the question of whether one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning for intercourse with him at only one place or at two places. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning on a hermaphrodite’s account for intercourse at two places, whether he penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. Since the hermaphrodite is deemed a male, one is liable to be punished with stoning for intercourse at either place. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one is liable to be punished with stoning for relations with a hermaphrodite only if he penetrated him anally, as if he were a male.
אָמַר רַב Rav said: