Yevamot 81 - May 27, 26 Iyar

Today’s daf is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter, Anoushka. “Congratulations to our amazing daughter Anoushka who is today officially an MD. May you be blessed to heal many people and be a source of comfort to all those in need. Ima and Abba.” Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the Kolodny family on the occasion of Avidan's Bar Mitzva.  The end of the Mishna mentioned actions taken by a saris or to an aylonit that would disqualify the woman from marrying a kohen. By inferring certain things from these statements, can one say that the Mishna disagrees with certain positions held by Rav Hamnuna (an amora) or Rabbi Yehuda (a tanna)? A saris from birth can marry and therefore if he is a kohen, his wife can eat truma. What is the status of an androgynous regarding marriage to a woman/man? Are they treated like a male or a female? Can they permit their wife to eat truma, if they are a kohen? Are they liable for engaging in relations with a man? There is a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon's position that an andrgynous can permit his wife to eat truma. Reish Lakish holds that this applies only to truma and not to the breast and calf (chaze v’shok) of the animal. Rabbi Yochanan holds that she can eat both. Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish’s assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple and since that is permitted, so is the chaze v’shok, which is also a Torah law. Reish Lakish proves that truma is a rabbinic law by bringing a source regarding a mixture of truma and chulin fig cakes and showing that laws of nullification apply even though the item is a dvar chashuv, something of significance (as the object usually sell by the unit), that laws of nullification should not apply to. Thus he infers, truma must be only a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this argument by bringing a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is mixed with other meat and is nullified, even though it is an important item (generally sold by the unit) and sacrificial meat is obviously a Torah law! Additionally, he claims that the Mishna that teaches that laws of nullification do not apply to objects sold by the unit (Orla 3:6-7), was referring only to objects exclusively sold by the item and not ones that are usually sold by the item but sometimes sold by weight or estimation. How does Reish Lakish explain that Mishna? The Gemara goes back to the braita quoted by Rabbi Yochanan about a piece of meat and quotes the braita in its entirety and then asks how Reish Lakish can reconcile his opinion with that braita.