Bekhorot 41b (מא:) — the Talmud in English

Rava raised a dilemma: What is the rationale of Rabbi Yishmael?

Is it that

it is obvious to him that an androgynos is a firstborn,

as it is a male,

and its disqualification is with it,

as it is “grooved” in the place of the female organs;

or perhaps, it is uncertain to him

whether it is male or female?

And as for that which he says, “You have no greater disqualification than this,”

he is stating: “If you should conclude,”

meaning,

if you should conclude that it is a firstborn,

as it is male,

its disqualification is with it.

What practical difference is there?

Whether it is certainly a firstborn animal with a disqualification, or whether it is possibly female.

The practical difference is with regard to receiving lashes for it because of the prohibition against

the prohibition of

shearing and labor

with a firstborn androgynos: If it is certainly male, he receives lashes, since even a firstborn animal with a disqualification is prohibited for shearing and labor; but if it is possibly female, he does not receive lashes.

Alternatively, the practical difference is with regard to giving it to a priest,

as a firstborn animal with a disqualification is given to a priest. But in a case of uncertainty, he is not obligated to give it, as the claimant bears the burden of proof.

Come and hear:

as it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Ilai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: An androgynos is a firstborn, and its disqualification is with it.

Infer from here: It is obvious to him

that it is a firstborn.

And we reject this:

Perhaps he is stating: “If you should conclude,”

if you should conclude that it is a firstborn, its disqualification is with it.

Come and hear,

as it is taught in a beraita: It is written with regard to a cattle burnt-offering:

“Male,”

and we infer that it must be male

and not female.

When it says below,

with regard to a sheep burnt-offering,

“male,” which is unnecessary to state,

as there is no need to exclude a female, since it has already been excluded with regard to the cattle burnt-offering, rather it serves

to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

Who is

the tanna of this beraita, such that a verse is necessary to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos?

If we say it is the first tanna

of the Mishna,

according to the first tanna, a tumtum and an androgynos

are matters of uncertainty.

And does

a verse come to exclude a case of uncertainty?

But there is no uncertainty from the perspective of Heaven. For if it is male, it is fit as an olah offering, and if it is female, it has already been excluded by the first mention of “male.”

Rather, it is the later Sages

of the Mishna, who are certain that it is a distinct creature, as they say that it may be shorn and used for labor, and therefore the verse excludes it. Nevertheless, the difficulty remains:

Let it be derived from a single verse,

and let both a female and a tumtum and an androgynos be excluded through it.

For with regard to a firstborn as well, only one “male” is written, and we exclude all of them through it,

so why is an additional “male” necessary with regard to a sheep burnt-offering to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos?

Rather, it is obvious that it is Rabbi Yishmael.

And if it is understandable that Rabbi Yishmael is certain

that an androgynos is male and its disqualification is with it,

this is why a verse is necessary to exclude

[the androgynos. And the tumtum mentioned by the beraita is not meant literally], for although it is male, if one consecrates it, it does not become consecrated at all. This disqualification of femaleness is more severe than other disqualifications, for sanctity takes effect upon it, so that it requires redemption, and it is prohibited for shearing and labor even after its redemption [as it cannot be excluded by the first “male” written with regard to the cattle burnt-offering, since with regard to a firstborn, for which only one “male” is written, the androgynos is not entirely excluded from sanctity. Rather, it is slaughtered outside the Temple because of its disqualification, but it remains prohibited for shearing and labor].

But if you say that it is uncertain

to Rabbi Yishmael whether it is male or female, the difficulty remains: Is

a verse necessary to exclude a case of uncertainty?

And we reject this:

Actually, it is the later Sages

of the Mishna. And as for the difficulty raised against you—why do we need two verses, when we could exclude them through one, as with regard to a firstborn they derive it from a single verse—

we answer:

With regard to a firstborn as well, two verses are written!

a.

“The male”—“Every firstborn that is born among your cattle and among your flocks,

the

the male

you shall consecrate” (Deuteronomy 15:19).

b.

“The males”—“And every first issue of an animal that you have,

the

the males

shall be for the Lord” (Exodus 13:12). Through one we exclude a female, and through the other we exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: It is not a firstborn

but may be shorn and used for labor.

Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute

in which the Sages say that it is a distinct creature and is not a firstborn at all

concerns an androgynos. But with regard to a tumtum, everyone agrees that it is a case of uncertainty.

And it is consecrated due to the uncertainty,

and it is prohibited for shearing and labor, and it may not be slaughtered either in the Temple or outside it.

Rava said to him: If that is so,

that it is a case of uncertainty,

with regard to valuations—

would

a person who is a tumtum be valued according to the valuation of a man or of a woman?