Bekhorot 41b — the Talmud in English

Rava asked: What is the reason of Rabbi Ishmael?

Is it that

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

for it is of the male species,

and its defect is with it,

for it is “split” in the place of the female organs?

Or perhaps it is doubtful to him

whether it is male or whether it is female.

And that which he says, “You have no greater defect than this” —

he is saying, “If you should determine to say,”

namely,

if you should determine to say that it is a firstborn,

for it is male,

then its defect is with it.

What practical difference is there?

Whether it is certainly a blemished firstborn, or a female of doubtful status.

As to receiving lashes for it on account of

the prohibition of

shearing and labor

with an androgynos firstborn: for if it is certainly male, he receives lashes, since even a blemished firstborn is forbidden in shearing and labor; but if it is a female of doubtful status, he does not receive lashes.

Alternatively, as to giving it to a priest,

for a blemished firstborn is given to a priest. But in a case of doubt he is not obligated to give it, for the one who extracts from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

Come and hear:

as it was taught in a beraita:

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

Learn from it: It is obvious to him

that it is a firstborn.

And we reject this:

Perhaps he is saying, “If you should determine to say,”

if you should determine to say that it is a firstborn, then its defect is with it.

Come and hear,

as it was taught: It is written concerning a cattle burnt-offering,

“male,”

and we exclude,

“and not a female.”

When it says below,

concerning a sheep burnt-offering,

“male,” which is unnecessary to be stated,

for there is no need to exclude a female, since it was already excluded concerning the cattle burnt-offering, but rather

to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

And we inquire concerning it:

Who is

this beraita, which requires a verse to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos?

If you say it is the first tanna

of the Mishna—

According to the first tanna, a tumtum and an androgynos

are a matter of doubt.

And does

a verse come to exclude a matter of doubt?

But there is no doubt before Heaven: if it is male, it is fit for a burnt-offering; and if it is female, it was already excluded by the first “male.”

Rather, it is the later Sages

of the Mishna, for it is obvious to them that it is an entity in its own right, as they say that it may be shorn and used for labor, and therefore the verse excludes it. Nevertheless, this remains difficult —

let it emerge from one verse,

and let us exclude from it both a female and a tumtum and an androgynos.

For concerning a firstborn as well, only one “male” is written, and we exclude all of them from it,

so why is an additional “male” needed concerning a sheep burnt-offering to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos?

Rather, it is obvious that it is Rabbi Ishmael.

And if you say that it is well: Rabbi Ishmael finds it obvious

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

this is why the verse is required to exclude

[the androgynos. And the tumtum mentioned by the beraita is not דווקא; for even though it is male, if one consecrates it, it is not consecrated at all. And this defect of femaleness is inferior to other defects, for sanctity takes effect upon it, so that it must be redeemed, and it is forbidden in shearing and labor even after its redemption [for it is impossible to exclude it by the first “male” that is written concerning the cattle burnt-offering, since concerning a firstborn, about which only one “male” is written, the androgynos was not entirely excluded from sanctity; rather, it is slaughtered outside the Temple because of its defect, but it remains forbidden in shearing and labor].

But if you say that it is doubtful to him,

to Rabbi Ishmael, whether it is male or female, this is difficult — does

the verse need to be stated to exclude a matter of doubt?

And we reject this:

Actually, it is the later Sages

of the Mishna. And as for what is difficult for you, why do we need two verses—let us exclude them from one, since concerning a firstborn they derive it from one verse—

We answer: for

concerning a firstborn as well, two verses are written!

a.

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

the

male

you shall consecrate” [Deuteronomy 15:19].

b.

“And the males” — “And every first issue of an animal that will be yours,

the

males

belong to the Lord” [Exodus 13:12]. From one we exclude a female, and from 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 Hisda said: The disagreement

in which the Sages say that it is an entity in its own right and is not a firstborn at all

concerns an androgynos. But concerning a tumtum, everyone agrees that it is a matter of doubt.

And it is consecrated because of the doubt,

and it is forbidden in shearing and labor, and it is not slaughtered either in the Temple or outside the Temple.

Rava said to him: But if that is so,

that it is a matter of doubt,

concerning valuations —

shall

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