1) WHAT TYPE OF TERUMAH MAY AN ANDROGINUS GIVE TO HIS WIFE?
QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the intent of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon state that when a Kohen who is an Androginus marries a Bas Yisrael, he entitles his wife to eat Terumah. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Tana'im in the Mishnah refer to Terumah d'Oraisa. Since there is no doubt that the Androginus is a male, he has the right to eat Terumah and to grant that right to his wife. Reish Lakish disagrees and says that the Tana'im refer only to Terumah d'Rabanan, such as Terumah nowadays when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. They maintain that there is a doubt whether the Androginus is a male or female, and because of this doubt the Androginus does not enable his wife to eat Terumah d'Oraisa.
Rebbi Yochanan asks how Reish Lakish knows that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan. Reish Lakish cites a source from a Beraisa which states that if a pressed date-cake ("Igul") of Terumah becomes mixed with pressed date-cakes of Chulin (or a date-cake of Terumah Teme'ah becomes mixed with date-cakes of Terumah Tehorah), the Terumah date-cake becomes Batel b'Me'ah (if there is at least one hundred times more Chulin than Terumah in the mixture). Normally, in a situation of an Isur d'Oraisa, if the object of Isur is a "Davar Chashuv" (such as a "Davar sheb'Minyan," something which is sold by count and not by estimate), the laws of Bitul do not apply. Reish Lakish derives from the Beraisa -- which discusses Terumah nowadays and rules that the laws of Bitul do apply in the case of the date-cake of Terumah -- that the Isur of a non-Kohen eating Terumah nowadays is only mid'Rabanan.
Rebbi Yochanan responds that Reish Lakish is mistaken about the reason why the Igul is Batel. It is Batel not because it is a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and only mid'Rabanan, but because it is not a "Davar sheb'Minyan" at all. Only something which is always sold by number ("Es she'Darko Limanos") is a "Davar sheb'Minyan" which is not Batel, while pressed date-cakes are only sometimes sold by number ("Kol she'Darko Limanos"). Rebbi Yochanan proves this from another Beraisa in which the Tana Kama says that if a piece of meat ("Chatichah") of a Korban Chatas that is Tamei becomes mixed with a hundred Chatichos that are Tahor, it is Batel even though eating the meat of a Chatas is forbidden by an Isur d'Oraisa. It is Batel because a Chatichah of Chatas is not something that is always counted (it is not "Es she'Darko"). Similarly, the reason why Bitul applies in the case of the pressed date-cake is because it is not something that is always counted.
The Gemara eventually concludes that according to Reish Lakish the reason why the Chatichah of Chatas is Batel is because it is completely disintegrated. As such, it is not something that is even sometimes counted ("Kol she'Darko").
A number of points in the Gemara are unclear.
(a) Why does Reish Lakish insist that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon permit the Androginus to give his wife only Terumah d'Rabanan? Even if it is true that Rebbi Yosi maintains that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, what indication is there in the Mishnah to that effect? How does Reish Lakish know that Rebbi Yosi does not mean that an Androginus may give Terumah d'Oraisa to his wife?
(b) Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan attempt to prove from different Beraisos (which discuss the Bitul of an Igul and of Chatas) whether Terumah nowadays is d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan. How can they prove the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon from those Beraisos, when those Beraisos make no mention of Rebbi Yosi or Rebbi Shimon? How are those Beraisos related in any way to the statement of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah? It is clear that there are different opinions among the Tana'im: some maintain that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa, and others maintain that it is mid'Rabanan. The Beraisos do not prove anything about the opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon.
(c) Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan also disagree about the opinion of Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Orlah (3:6) which the Gemara here cites. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir maintains that something that is "Es she'Darko Limanos" is Batel. According to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Meir maintains "Kol she'Darko Limanos" is Batel.
In what way is Rebbi Meir's opinion in Orlah related to the Mishnah here? The Mishnah here expresses the view of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon, not the view of Rebbi Meir. Perhaps Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon disagree with Rebbi Meir and follow the view of the Chachamim in Orlah who rule that only six items qualify as a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and are not Batel.
Moreover, according to Reish Lakish, how does the Beraisa of Igul prove that the Igul of Terumah is Batel because Terumah today is only d'Rabanan? Perhaps the Igul indeed is Terumah d'Oraisa, and the Beraisa allows it to become Batel because the Beraisa follows the opinion of the Chachamim who do not apply the principle of "Davar sheb'Minyan" to anything other than six specific items.
1. The most straightforward approach to these questions is that of TOSFOS, who explains the Sugya as follows.
(a) Reish Lakish insists that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon do not permit Terumah d'Oraisa because a Beraisa later (83a) quotes Rebbi Yosi who states that the Chachamim did not come to a conclusive decision about whether an Androginus is considered a male or a female. Rebbi Yosi's statement implies that he maintains that an Androginus indeed is a Safek-male. For this reason, Reish Lakish says that Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah here must maintain that an Androginus Kohen may feed only Terumah d'Rabanan to his wife. The Halachah is lenient and considers the Androginus to be a male with regard to an Isur d'Rabanan. In contrast, with regard to Terumah d'Oraisa, the Halachah requires that one be stringent because of the principle that a Safek Isur d'Oraisa must be treated stringently.
Rebbi Yochanan, who says that Rebbi Yosi considers an Androginus to be a definite male, maintains that it is preferable to learn the Mishnah in its most straightforward sense -- that an Androginus may feed all Terumah to his wife, including Terumah d'Oraisa. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Beraisa which quotes Rebbi Yosi's statement that an Androginus is a Safek was taught before (or after) Rebbi Yosi changed his mind about the matter (82b, 83a). Moreover, he prefers to interpret the Mishnah in this way because he has proof from another source that Rebbi Yosi maintains that Terumah nowadays is mid'Oraisa (as the Gemara says at the beginning of 82b). (TOSFOS DH v'Ein)
(b) TOSFOS (DH Amar Lei) explains that Reish Lakish had a tradition that the Beraisa which says that an Igul is Batel represents the view of Rebbi Yosi. He proves from the Beraisa that since Rebbi Yosi says that an Igul is Batel, Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah here must maintain that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, and that is the only type of Terumah which Rebbi Yosi permits the Androginus to give to his wife.
When Rebbi Yochanan responds by quoting the Beraisa which states that a Chatichah of Chatas is Batel, he means to say that this Beraisa expresses the view of Rebbi Yosi. The Beraisa he quotes is actually only the first part of a Beraisa recorded in its entirety later (81b). The first part of the Beraisa (the part which Rebbi Yochanan quotes) expresses the view of the Tana Kama. That Tana Kama presumably is Rebbi Yosi, because in the second part of the Beraisa the Tana who argues with the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yosi is often the Tana with whom Rebbi Yehudah argues.
(The TOSFOS HA'ROSH suggests a slightly different explanation for how Rebbi Yochanan knows that the Tana Kama with whom Rebbi Yehudah argues is Rebbi Yosi. The Tosfos ha'Rosh disagrees with the assumption that Rebbi Yehudah's counterpart in Halachic debates is usually Rebbi Yosi. Rather, he asserts that Rebbi Meir is usually the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah, an assertion which is evident from many Sugyos in Shas. Since Rebbi Yosi presumably agrees with the ruling of Rebbi Meir with regard to "Davar sheb'Minyan," if it can be proven that Rebbi Meir maintains "Es she'Darko," it may be assumed that Rebbi Yosi also maintains "Es she'Darko" and not "Kol she'Darko.")
(c) Still, however, why do Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan say that their argument depends on the intention of Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Orlah? Perhaps Rebbi Yosi follows the view of the Chachamim there who maintain that any item becomes Batel, even if it is an Isur d'Oraisa, and that is why the Igul and the Chatichah are Batel.
TOSFOS (DH v'ha'Lo) answers that Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan infer from the fact that the two Beraisos (which they assert express the view of Rebbi Yosi) discuss specifically the Bitul of Igul and Chatichah that Rebbi Yosi maintains that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is not Batel. If Rebbi Yosi follows the view of the Chachamim who say that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is Batel, why does he choose to discuss the case of Igul -- an object which is "Kol she'Darko Limanos" -- in order to teach that even a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is Batel? If he follows the view of the Chachamim, he should discuss a case of "Es she'Darko" and teach that even though it is always counted, it is still Batel. Also, why does he discuss the case of a Chatichah of Chatas which is "Kol she'Darko"? He should discuss an object which is "Es she'Darko" (always counted) in order to teach that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" is Batel. It must be that he maintains that a "Davar sheb'Minyan" indeed is not Batel, like Rebbi Meir. The only reason why the Igul and the Chatichah of Chatas are Batel is that they are items which are sometimes, but not always, sold by count.
This is the essence of Rebbi Yochanan's inference that Rebbi Yosi, who discusses the Bitul of a Chatichah of Chatas, maintains "Es she'Darko" and not "Kol she'Darko." "Es she'Darko" is a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and is not Batel, and "Kol she'Darko" is not a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and thus is Batel.
Reish Lakish asserts that the Beraisa which says that an Igul is Batel teaches that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan. Reish Lakish, like Rebbi Yochanan, infers from the fact that Rebbi Yosi chooses to discuss the case of an Igul (which is "Kol she'Darko") that he must maintain that an object which is "Es she'Darko" would not be Batel (even though it is only an Isur d'Rabanan), because it is a "Davar sheb'Minyan." Rebbi Yosi maintains that since such an item is always counted, one may not be lenient even in the case of an Isur d'Rabanan. Had the Igul been an Isur mid'Oraisa, it would not have been Batel because the rule with regard to an Isur d'Oraisa is that "Es she'Darko Limanos" is not Batel (according to Reish Lakish). It is only the combination of the two factors (that the object is "Kol she'Darko" and not "Es she'Darko," and that it is only an Isur d'Rabanan) which allows the Igul to become Batel (see Chart).
2. The TOSFOS YESHANIM cites a different approach in the name of RABEINU NESANEL to answer these questions.
(a) He explains that according to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Yosi discusses Terumah d'Rabanan because mid'Rabanan an Androginus has the status of a male (mid'Oraisa he is either a Safek male, or he has the status of a "Biryah Bifnei Atzmo").
(Rabeinu Nesanel does not explain how Reish Lakish knows that this is Rebbi Yosi's opinion. Apparently, Reish Lakish infers this from the end of the Mishnah in which Rebbi Yosi says, "Androginus Nosei...," as the Gemara points out later, 82b.)
Reish Lakish infers from this that since Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah maintains that Terumah today is mid'Rabanan, and the Mishnah does not mention any dissenting opinion that Terumah today is d'Oraisa, the Mishnah's intent is to teach that the Halachah is that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan.
Accordingly, the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan is whether, l'Halachah, Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa.
(b) When Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan attempt to prove from the Beraisos of Igul and Chatichah whether Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa, their intention is to prove the Halachah from Stam Mishnayos (the case of Igul appears in the Mishnah in Terumos 4:10, and the case of Chatichah was apparently part of a Beraisa which supplemented the Mishnah in Terumos (the beginning of which is cited in Beitzah 3b)).
(c) The reason why the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah which discusses Igul follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir is because the Beraisa cited by the Gemara in Beitzah (3b) explains that the Mishnah in Terumos (4:10) which Reish Lakish quotes expresses the opinion of Rebbi Meir.