Yevamot II 82: Nullifying Sanctified Food/Liquid; Androginos, Marriage & Teruma

The rabbis continue to untangle the argument between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding whether an androginos entitles his wife to partake of the thigh and the breast of the offering (which are specifically offered to priests under Torah law).  They have moved into an argument about parts of the whole: when is a sanctified food nullified because it is intermingled with large numbers of similar, non-sanctified foods?  They examine laws regarding contact with liquids, solid foods, temporary or permanent prohibitions, and creeping animals.  They consider whether or not the food in question has been crushed into pieces or whether it remains whole.  There are disagreements as to whether or not some of these laws are Torah law or rabbinic law.

A principle: only a small majority of a permitted substance nullifies a forbidden substance.  Due to this chazaka (established presumption), the rabbis can argue that when a forbidden substance touches the permitted substance, it is as if it has always been that way - permitted.  In fact, Rabbi Yochanan rules that when we are in doubt, we assume that like has intermingled with like, regardless of the amounts, and thus the substances are always permitted.

Rabbi Yochanan goes on to argue that Rabbi Yosei's Seder Olam Rabba teaches that we carry on the sanctification of eretz Yisrael since the time of the second Temple (when the land was last sanctified).  In that way, we are still operating under Torah law regarding teruma, as well, and thus the wives of androginos are entitled to teruma.

The rabbis turn their attention to the 40 se'a of liquid required for a mikva.  When does is a non-sanctified se'a nullified?  And how would one remove an intermingled se'a of liquid?

At the end of today's daf, the Gemara refocuses on the question at hand.  The original verse says that "if the kohen who is androginos marries an Israelite woman, he enables her to eat teruma".  The rabbis argue that "If he marries" suggests that he may remain married ab initio.  However, the following verse states that "he may not marry a man," suggesting that he might not marry a woman but a man, for he might be a woman himself.  And if this is the case, teruma would not be made available at all as the marriage would not be valid ab initio.

The rabbis are arguing about whether or not an androginos is a true male.  They state that they believe his is a true male, and that the punishment of stoning for a man having intercourse with an androginos   is in fact a question: is the punishment completed once, for anal intercourse, or twice, for both anal and forbidden vaginal intercourse?  

Of course, it is telling that an androginos is considered to be male.  What does it mean that female genitalia are ignored when describing such a person's gender?  The rabbis are eager to classify this person as either male or female.  Tomorrow's daf begins with further questions about these two categories.