Gemara Clarity

Yevamos 82a

יבמות פ״ב ע״א

Yevamot 82a

Learn Yevamos 82a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Yevamos 82a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When sacred meat in a mixture can be nullified (בטל), and whether רבי יוחנן holds תרומה nowadays is דאורייתא

Overview

This amud continues the discussion of a ברייתא about a piece of חטאת meat mixed into one hundred other pieces. ריש לקיש explained that the ברייתא allows nullification only when the piece was crushed. The גמרא first explains that רבי יהודה disagrees because of his rule מין במינו לא בטיל. It then asks why the ברייתא switched to a case of חולין, and answers that the תנא preferred to teach a pure-in-pure case. Next it asks why the first clause allows nullification and the second does not. רב שישא בריה דרב אידי answers that the first clause is only a rabbinic impurity of liquids, while the second clause involves a Torah prohibition. רבה's answer (לאו versus כרת) is left as a קשיא, and רב אשי's answer (דבר שיש לו מתירין) is rejected as a mistake. Finally, the גמרא asks whether רבי יוחנן really holds that תרומה nowadays is from the Torah, given his lenient view in the two-baskets ברייתא. It answers that the ברייתא follows the רבנן.

Opening lines

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ,

Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning,

דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל.

as he said: a type mixed with its own type is not nullified.

אֲבָל לֹא נִימּוֹחָה מַאי — לֹא תַּעֲלֶה,

But if it was not crushed, what? It is not nullified.

אַדְּתָנֵי: אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְהוֹרָה

Instead of teaching: but a piece of pure sin-offering

The steps (16)

  1. ResolutionWhy רבי יהודה disagrees: same kind is never nullified
  2. ChallengeWhy didn't the ברייתא contrast crushed and uncrushed pieces?
  3. ResolutionThe תנא preferred to teach a pure-in-pure case
  4. ChallengeAccording to ריש לקיש, why do the two clauses differ?
  5. Resolutionרב שישא: rabbinic impurity versus a Torah prohibition
  6. QuestionWhat if the impurity came from a creeping animal?
  7. ChallengeThe ברייתא should have taught the contrast inside its first case
  8. ResolutionThe תנא preferred the case of pure mixed with pure
  9. Resolutionרבה: the first clause is a לאו, the second is כרת
  10. Challengeרבה contradicts his own rule, and the difficulty stays
  11. Resolutionרב אשי: the sacred meat has a way to become permitted
  12. Rejectionרב אשי's explanation is rejected as a mistake
  13. ChallengeDoes רבי יוחנן hold תרומה today is from the Torah? The two-baskets case
  14. Statementריש לקיש and רבי יוחנן argue on the two-baskets case
  15. ChallengeThe ברייתא fits ריש לקיש but seems difficult for רבי יוחנן
  16. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows the רבנן