042a - על אלו מומין פרק ששי בכורות דף מב, ע"א

Then why was it taught (Vayikra 27):^[1] ‘The male’ – and not a tumtum or an androginus?!^[2]

אלמה תניא הזכר - [the verse says] “your valuation shall be: the male,” and we derive from the extra letter hei [of hazachar]: and not a tumtum.

Strike tumtum out from here.^[3]

Come and hear: One might think [such a person] would not have the valuation of a man but would have the valuation of a woman; therefore the verse says: ‘the male... and if a female’ – and not a tumtum or an androginus.

ערך איש ואשה - are not equal, as is explained in the parsha of Behar Sinai.

אם נקבה - we derive it from the extra ‘if’: and not a tumtum. The verse would not exclude him because of doubt, for before Heaven there is no doubt; rather, it certainly excludes him because he is a separate kind of being (beriyah).^[4]

Strike tumtum out from here.

סמי מכאן טומטום - the verse excludes only the androginus, because he is a separate being; but a tumtum is valued, and to be stringent he is valued as a male.

Come and hear (Vayikra 3): ‘If male, if female’ – a definite male, a definite female, and not a tumtum or an androginus.^[5]

אם זכר אם נקבה - this is written about shelamim (Vayikra 7), and the verse does not exclude because of doubt; moreover, both male and female are valid for shelamim. Rather, he is certainly a separate being.

Strike tumtum out from here.

Come and hear: ‘The male’ – and not a female. When it says ‘male’ further on, there was no need to say it; why does the verse say it? To exclude a tumtum and an androginus.^[6]

הזכר ולא נקבה - this is the [beraisa] about the olah that I explained above, [which comes] to exclude a tumtum; and since the verse excludes him, he is a separate being, for the verse does not exclude because of doubt. ‘Harove’a’ is not in our text [of the next beraisa], since it does not apply to birds.^[7]

Strike tumtum out from here.

Come and hear: An animal that was worshipped, one set aside [for idolatry], a harlot’s fee and the price [of a dog],^[8] and a tumtum and an androginus – all of them make garments tamei in the gullet.^[9]

הנעבד - the whole [beraisa] speaks of bird offerings.

מטמאים בגדים אבית הבליעה - like any other neveilah of a kosher bird, for its melikah is not a valid melikah and it is a neveilah. Now if [a tumtum] were not a separate being, why would its melikah be invalid? Either way: if it is male it is valid, and if it is female it is valid, for with birds the Torah made no distinction. Furthermore, one can refute [Rav Chisda] from Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Wherever you find male and female, you exclude a tumtum – would the verse exclude a doubt? Rather, he is certainly a separate being; where [the Torah] excluded him, it excluded him, but with birds, where it did not exclude him, it did not.

Rabbi Eliezer says: A tumtum and an androginus do not make garments tamei in the gullet; for Rabbi Eliezer used to say: Wherever male and female is stated, you exclude a tumtum and an androginus from among them; but a bird, since male and female is not stated about it, you do not exclude a tumtum and an androginus from among them.

Strike tumtum out from here.

Come and hear: Rabbi Elazar says: A tereifah, a kilayim, a yotzei dofen,^[10] a tumtum and an androginus neither become holy nor make holy.

And Shmuel said: They do not become holy through temurah,^[11] and they do not make holy so as to effect temurah.

לא קדושין בתמורה - that is, even temurah, which takes effect on [an animal] with a permanent blemish, does not take effect on them; and the reason is explained in Maseches Temurah, in the chapter Yesh Bekorbanos (17a).

ולא מקדשין בעושי תמורה - for if they are holy, they do not effect temurah. And how can it be that they themselves are holy? For example, if they were the offspring of consecrated animals, which become holy by virtue of their mother. And if a tumtum is a doubt, why is it not holy either way?

Strike tumtum out from here.

Come and hear: Rabbi Elazar says: Five neither become holy nor make holy, and these are they: a tereifah, a kilayim, a yotzei dofen, a tumtum and an androginus.

And if you say: here too, strike tumtum out from here – they are [only] four!

Take out tumtum and put in yasom.

יתום - it resembles these, which are disqualified from birth. And what is a yasom? As is explained in Shechitas Chullin, in the second chapter (38b): its mother died at the time of birth – this one departs for death and that one departs for life.

Shall we say it is [a dispute of] Tannaim? Rabbi Il’ai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: An androginus is a bechor, and its blemish is with it.^[12]

לימא כתנאי - [shall we say that] Rav Chisda’s [statement depends on Tannaim], since there is one who holds he is a doubt?

And the Sages say: Holiness does not take effect on it.

אין קדושה חלה עליו - for he is a separate being; but about a tumtum they do not disagree, for he is a doubt.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It says ‘the male,’ and wherever ‘male’ is stated, it is only to exclude a tumtum and an androginus.

להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס - for a tumtum too is a separate being.

And if you say: strike tumtum out from here – then Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah is the same as the Sages!

Rather, is it not that tumtum is [the difference] between them: the Tanna Kamma holds holiness does not take effect on it regarding an androginus, but a tumtum is a doubt and is holy out of doubt; and Rabbi Shimon came

דכ"ע טומטום בבריה לא מספקא^[13] - [the Gemara answers no] lest you establish Rav Chisda’s [statement] as [a dispute of] Tannaim, saying that the Tanna who holds he is a separate being holds like the later Rabbis.

אלא הני תנאי - of the beraisa disagree about this: all agree that [a tumtum] that passes water from the place of the male organ is male and holy.

ות"ק סבר חיישינן שמא נהפכה זכרותו - its organ folded inward, and it passes water from the place where females usually do, [and so it is held] to be female^[14]

אלמה תניא הזכר ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס - He expounds this from the extra [letter]; from ‘male’ alone he would not exclude [them], as is said at the end of [the chapter] Hamapeles (Niddah 28b). And it follows Rabbi Yehudah, as is evident in Shabbos at the end of the chapter Im Lo Hevi Kli (136b), where Rav Chisda said: Rabbi Yehudah did not say that an androginus is a male for all purposes, for if you say so, he would be valued in erchin, and it was taught: ‘the male’ and not a tumtum etc. That is, an anonymous Sifra is Rabbi Yehudah (below, 61a).^[15] And Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: We too learned so, for Rabbi Yehudah disqualifies a woman and an androginus for the sanctifying of the chatas waters.^[16] And how is circumcision different, where it is written (Bereishis 17): Every male among you shall be circumcised? One may wonder: why in erchin is an extra [word] needed to exclude an androginus, while for sanctifying no exclusion is needed, but we exclude him from the place we exclude a woman – from ‘and he shall put’ and not ‘and she shall put,’ as we say in the chapter Taraf Bekalpi (Yoma 43a) – and for circumcision, on the contrary, an extra [word] is needed to include them in the law of a male? As for sanctifying, we could say that perhaps there is an exclusion, but circumcision is difficult. The answer is that Rabbi Yehudah holds that an androginus is taken out of the category of male by reasoning, without any exclusion; therefore he disqualifies him from sanctifying, and for circumcision the extra ‘every male’ is needed to include him. And the reason an exclusion is needed in erchin is that by reasoning I would have set him at least at a female’s valuation, had [the verse] not excluded him from ‘female’ (to set him in a valuation). And the beraisa about the olah above, where a verse was needed to exclude [them] from ‘male,’ is not according to Rabbi Yehudah, even though it is an anonymous Sifra, for in sanctifying Rabbi Yehudah disqualifies him without any extra word. Nevertheless, [the Gemara] takes it as obvious that the [beraisa] of erchin (4a) is Rabbi Yehudah, since wherever an anonymous Sifra can be set like him, we set it so. Moreover, it was taught explicitly in the first chapter of Erchin (5b) that Rabbi Yehudah says: A tumtum and an androginus may pledge a valuation but are not valued. But according to the approach I have explained, there is a difficulty from the chapter Ha’arel (Yevamos 72b), which implies that Rabbi Yehudah disqualifies him for sanctifying only out of doubt, since he is possibly a man and possibly a woman, as it was taught: Rabbi Yehudah says: Even an androginus who sanctified – his sanctifying is invalid, because he is possibly a woman, and a woman is invalid to sanctify. It seems one should explain that for Rabbi Yehudah he is a doubt; for circumcision, even [if he were] a complete woman, the verse included him from ‘every male,’ which implies any maleness; and for erchin, the verse excluded him from the valuation of man and woman because he is different.

טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה - the same applies, that they are valid for offering, as the reason is explained; but since the Tanna Kamma said ‘tamei,’ Rabbi Eliezer said ‘do not make tamei.’

ואתא ר"ש בן רבי יהודה משום ר"ש למימר טומטום נמי בריה הוא - this implies here that he holds an androginus is a separate being, like the reasoning about a tumtum. And even though [the Gemara] concludes that for him a tumtum is excluded because he is female when he passes water from the female place, nevertheless an androginus is always [excluded] because he is a separate being. It is puzzling, for the chapter Ha’arel (81a) implies that Rabbi Shimon considers him certainly male, according to Rabbi Yochanan, who said there: he may even eat chazeh veshok.^[17] The answer is that even if he is certainly male, ‘male’ excludes him; but a tumtum who passes water from the female place is certainly excluded [as] female, according to the conclusion that he is even certainly female, since [Rabbi Shimon] is not concerned that the male organ turned into a female one.

Notes

1. 1. Erchin (valuations): one who vows “my valuation” or “the valuation of so-and-so” pays the Temple treasury a fixed sum set by the Torah according to age and sex (Vayikra 27) – for ages twenty to sixty, fifty shekels for a male and thirty for a female – not the person’s market worth.
2. 2. A tumtum is one whose genitals are covered, so it is unknown whether he is male or female; an androginus has both male and female organs. Rav Chisda said [Bechoros 41b] that the Tannaim disagree only about the androginus, but a tumtum is according to all a doubt. The Gemara asks: if so, how can a verse exclude him? A verse does not come to exclude a mere doubt.
3. 3. That is, emend the beraisa: delete “tumtum” and leave only the androginus excluded. The Gemara gives this answer to each beraisa that follows.
4. 4. A beriyah is a being in its own right, neither male nor female. A doubt, by contrast, is really male or female; we simply do not know which. The Torah would not exclude a doubt, so an exclusion shows the Tanna holds he is a beriyah.
5. 5. Shelamim (peace offerings) may come from males or females. Since the verse says “if male, if female,” the beraisa reads it as a definite male or a definite female, which leaves out the tumtum and the androginus.
6. 6. The olah (burnt offering) comes only from males. The verse says “male” for cattle and again for sheep and goats (Vayikra 1:3, 1:10); the second “male” is extra and is read as excluding the tumtum and the androginus.
7. 7. Rashi deletes the word “harove’a” (an animal that lay with a person) from the list in the next beraisa, since that beraisa speaks of birds.
8. 8. Ne’evad: an animal worshipped as an idol. Muktzeh: one set aside for idol worship. Esnan: an animal given to a harlot as her fee. Mechir: an animal received in exchange for a dog. All are unfit for the altar.
9. 9. The neveilah of a kosher bird makes the one who eats it, and his garments, tamei as it is swallowed. Melikah is the way a bird offering is killed, by nipping the back of the neck with the kohen’s fingernail. If the bird was unfit for the altar, the melikah does not count as slaughter, and the bird is a neveilah.
10. 10. Tereifah: an animal with a fatal defect. Kilayim: the offspring of two species. Yotzei dofen: an animal born through the side of its mother (by caesarean section).
11. 11. Temurah: if one tries to exchange an ordinary animal for a consecrated one, both become holy (Vayikra 27:10).
12. 12. That is, the holiness of a bechor takes effect on him, but an androginus counts as blemished, so he is slaughtered for his blemish and eaten by the kohen.
13. 13. This Rashi and the two after it explain the words of the Gemara at the top of the next amud [Bechoros 42b].
14. 14. Rashi’s comment continues at the top of the next amud [Bechoros 42b].
15. 15. The Sifra is the Tannaitic midrash on Vayikra. A teaching stated there without a name is attributed to Rabbi Yehudah.
16. 16. Sanctifying the chatas waters: putting the ashes of the red heifer into spring water in a vessel, for sprinkling on one who is tamei from a corpse.
17. 17. Chazeh veshok (breast and thigh) are the kohen’s portions from shelamim, eaten by kohanim and their families.