Yerushalmi Yevamot 8:6 ירושלמי יבמות ח׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: A congenital castrate priest who married an Israel daughter enables her to eat heave²²⁴He has a penis but no visible testicles. He is not injured in his testicles and, therefore, able to marry in the congregation.. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, an hermaphrodite²²⁵Since he has a penis and testicles, he is a male and may marry. That he also has female breasts and a vagina is irrelevant. priest who married an Israel daughter enables her to eat heave. Rebbi Jehudah says, a seemingly sexless²²⁶He was born without apparent penis or vagina. If it turns out that he has a penis, covered by skin, that can be laid bare, he still is congenitally infertile. who was cut open and found to be a male does not perform ḥalîṣah since he is like a castrate. The hermaphrodite marries but is not married²²⁷A male marries, a female is married.. Rebbi Eleazar says [a male] is guilty to be stoned for [homosexual intercourse] with an hermaphrodite as with a male.

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh²²⁸The part of breast and right front thigh from a well-being offering which has to be given to the Cohen and is eaten by him and his family; Lev. 7:34. In the interpretation of the Babli, 81a, “breast and thigh” stands for all gifts to the Cohen which are biblical; “heave” is today’s heave which is only a rabbinical obligation. The following discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that this cannot be the Yerushalmi’s interpretation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh²²⁹In the Babli, 81a, this position is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish, the opposite statement to R. Joḥanan. Since practice in general follows R. Joḥanan, the two Talmudim take opposite positions in practice. According to the Babli, the entire discussion is about the hermaphrodite Cohen, not the one born without testicles. It seems from the second paragraph following that the Yerushalmi also has to be read in this sense.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. ²³⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 17(5). R. Simeon ben Laqish intimates that there may be more (amoraic) arguments in the vein of the tannaitic statement to be quoted.“Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel²³¹It is not clear what the argument is. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Sifra gives two possible explanations. (1) Before the sin of the Golden Calf, first-borns exercised the priestly functions. (2) In the obligatory sacrifices of Passover and animal tithes, the Cohen gets nothing. (In profane slaughter he should get some other parts, Deut. 18:3. During the stay in the desert, profane slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:3–4). Since this shows that there is nothing intrinsic in the nature of a sacrifice which requires a part to be given to the Cohen, the Cohen’s parts are in some sense robbed from the Israel and given to the Cohen.? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse²³²Lev.7:34. says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said the argument is about the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen²³³The problem is not that of a handicapped Cohen but arises anytime a perfectly normal Cohen marries outsides his clan. There is no mention of such a problem anywhere else in the Talmudim.: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. “Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse says, ‘I gave them to Aaron the priest²³⁴This is the correct quote. and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

Is there nobody who disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah? Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila, one marries his²³⁵The hermaphrodite’s. wife in levirate, that means that nobody disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah. If he betrothed, his betrothal is not problematic. If he was betrothed, his betrothal is problematic²³⁶Since she is forbidden to her male partner, she needs a divorce.. If he was copulated with, he becomes disabled from heave like a woman²³⁷Like any woman having intercourse with a man she could not marry.. That is difficult. Rebbi Niḥa bar Rebbi Sava²³⁸A student of Rebbis Jonah and Yose of the fourth generation., Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even with his own kind in any case²³⁹Intercourse of two hermaphrodites disables both of them, whether homosexual or heterosexual.. That is difficult, if he is a male, no male disables a male²⁴⁰It is inferred from Lev. 21:7,14 that the intercourse of a Cohen with a woman forbidden to him in marriage desecrates the woman and her children but not the man [Sifra Emor Pereq (7)].. If she is a female, no female disables a female²⁴¹In the tradition of the Yerushalmi (Giṭṭin 8:10, fol. 49c) a lesbian relationship disables from heave for the House of Shammai but not for the House of Hillel. In the opinion of the Babli, Yebamot 76a, lesbianism is undesirable but not sanctionable. [Rabbinic practice follows an obscure baraita(Sifra Emor Parasha 9(8)), the House of Shammai in the Yerushalmi, and Paul in Romans 1:26.]. The male aspect of one disables the female aspect of the other²³⁷Like any woman having intercourse with a man she could not marry.. He enables his wives to eat but does not enable his slaves. He enables his wives to eat by his male aspect. But he does not enable his slaves because of his double aspect; his female aspect was desecrated²⁴²His female aspect is desecrated and his slaves barred from heave only if he ever had a sexual relationship with either a male or another hermaphrodite..

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity²⁴³Here starts the discussion of the last sentence in this Mishnah, the assertion of R. Eleazar ben Shamua (in the Babli, R. Eliezer) that for the definition of homosexuality an hermaphrodite is a full male. The position of R. Joḥanan here is an explicit statement of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in Tosephta 10:2.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place²⁴⁴For him, heterosexual intercourse of a male with an hermaphrodite is still homosexuality. In the Babli, 83b, that is the opinion of Rav.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse²⁴⁵Lev. 18:22. As the Babli explains, on the face of it, the verse seems to support the first opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi, but a second look shows that the prohibition is to lie with a male, i. e., the male aspect of the hermaphrodite.: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me²⁴⁶Babli 84a; there, “the students of R. Eleazar ben Shamua ganged up on him like chickens in a chicken coop.”. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public²⁴⁷The uncommon form לגלע instead of the common לגלות seems so be an Arabism, from جلع “to uncover indecently”. It seems that the teachings of R. Eleazar ben Shamua’s students were esoteric., the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits²⁴⁸If there are 2 children, a hermaphrodite and a daughter, at the death of the father the daughter has a claim on the estate for a dowry but the only heir is the hermaphrodite.
The Babli, 83b, which attributes the Mishnah to R. Eliezer, proves from parallel statements that the hermaphrodite is considered a full male only in respect to homosexuality. In all other respects, it is considered a case of doubt whether he is male or female., he testifies²⁴⁹He can testify formally in cases where a male witness is required (such as the validity of certain legal acts.), his grain offering is burnt completely²⁵⁰The grain offering of a Cohen is burned completely (Lev. 6:16); the grain offering of the daughter of a Cohen is treated like the offering of an Israel and most of it is eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct., one says grace with him as with a male.