Bekhorot 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

Is that so? It is taught in a beraita:

It is written: “And his valuation shall be”

“the male,”

and from the additional letter heh we derive:

but not a tumtum or an androgynos.

One might have thought that he is not subject to the valuation for a man, but is subject to the valuation for a woman.

The verse states: “the male,”

“and

if she is a female

woman.” And we exclude them from the extra wording of “and if” —

but not a tumtum or an androgynos. [unclear: the source text is corrupted]

But the verse cannot have come to exclude a case of doubt, since there is no doubt before Heaven. How, then, can it exclude a tumtum? Rather, infer from this that a tumtum too is a distinct creature, like an androgynos, and therefore was excluded from the laws of valuations.

The Gemara answers:

Delete tumtum from here,

as the beraita did not speak of it; indeed, he is subject to valuation .

Come and hear:

for it is taught in a beraita: It is stated in the passage concerning a peace-offering: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings; if he offers it from cattle,”

“whether male or female.”

And we derive:

to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

But the verse cannot have come to address a case of doubt. Furthermore, both a male and a female are fit for a peace-offering. In either event, it should be fit; why, then, does it exclude a tumtum? Rather, infer from this that a tumtum is a distinct creature.

This too is answered:

Delete tumtum from here!

Come and hear:

for it is taught in a beraita: It is written in the passage concerning the burnt-offering of cattle,

“male.”

And we exclude:

but not a female.

When it says below,

with regard to the burnt-offering of sheep,

“male,” which need not be stated,

since a female has already been excluded with regard to the burnt-offering of cattle, we derive from it:

to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos. [unclear: the source text is corrupted]

And since the verse does not exclude a case of doubt, infer from this that a tumtum is a distinct creature.

The Gemara answers:

Delete tumtum from here.

Come and hear:

for it is taught with regard to the laws of bird-offerings:

an animal worshipped,

one that was made into an object of idol worship and worshipped;

an animal set aside,

one that was set aside for idol worship;

the payment of a prostitute,

one that was given as payment for prostitution;

and the exchange-price,

one that was given in exchange for a dog;

and a tumtum and an androgynos.

If they were bird-offerings and were not slaughtered but were pinched in accordance with the law of a bird-offering, they

all render garments impure in the throat

like the carcass of a kosher bird. Since all of these are unfit as offerings, pinching them is, with regard to them, like pinching an ordinary bird, which does not remove the status of a carcass.

And if you say that a tumtum is a case of doubt, why does it impart the impurity of carcasses? After all, it is fit as an offering, since in the case of birds both a male and a female are fit.

Rabbi Elazar says: A tumtum and an androgynos

among birds

do not render garments impure in the throat!

Since they are fit as bird-offerings, pinching is equivalent to slaughter with regard to them.

For Rabbi Elazar would say: Wherever “male and female” is stated, you exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them. But in the case of a bird, since “male and female” was not stated with regard to it, you do not exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them,

and they too are fit as offerings.

And from Rabbi Elazar as well, it may be resolved that a tumtum is a distinct creature, for otherwise, elsewhere too, the verse would not exclude a case of doubt.

The Gemara answers:

Delete tumtum from here.

According to everyone, it is fit; they disagree only with regard to an androgynos, which is a distinct creature, as to whether it is excluded in the case of a bird-offering.

Come and hear:

as it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Elazar says: A tereifa, a hybrid, and a creature born by caesarean section,

which was born through the side, and likewise

a tumtum and an androgynos, are neither sanctified nor do they sanctify.

And Shmuel said:

That which it teaches, “are not sanctified,” means

they are not sanctified through substitution,

for if one exchanged a consecrated animal for them, the substitution does not take effect upon them and they remain unconsecrated; they are inferior even to an animal with a blemish, upon which substitution takes effect, and it is thereby sanctified with the sanctity of an offering possessing a blemish.

And that which it teaches, “nor do they sanctify,” means

nor do they effect substitution,

if they were themselves consecrated [for example, they were consecrated and only afterward became tereifot. The cases of a hybrid, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgynos refer to offspring of consecrated animals whose mother possessed sanctity, since the sanctity of an offering does not take effect upon the offspring themselves], and one exchanged an unconsecrated animal for them, they do not effect substitution.

And if a tumtum is a case of doubt, why is it not sanctified in either event? After all, whether it is male or female, it is fit to be an offering and to effect the substitution of an offering.

The Gemara answers:

Delete tumtum from here.

Come and hear:

as it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Elazar says: There are five that are neither sanctified nor do they sanctify. And these are they: a tereifa, a hybrid, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgynos.

And if you would say that here too, delete tumtum from here,

if so,

there would be four,

whereas Rabbi Elazar stated five.

The Gemara answers:

Remove tumtum

from Rabbi Elazar’s statement

and insert an orphan,

whose mother died at the time of birth. It is unfit as an offering [and resembles the other disqualified animals, since it too is disqualified from the time of birth].

Shall we say

that the question of whether a tumtum is a distinct creature

is subject to a dispute between tannaim:

For it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Ila’ai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: An androgynos is a firstborn, and its blemish is with it.

And the Sages say: Sanctity does not take effect upon it,

because it is a distinct creature. But with regard to a tumtum, they do not disagree that it is a case of doubt.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It says

with regard to a firstborn:

“the male.” And wherever “male” is stated, it serves only to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos,

for a tumtum too is a distinct creature. And sanctity does not take effect upon it.

And if so, we have found tannaim who disagree as to whether a tumtum is a distinct creature or not.

And if you would say, delete tumtum from here,

if so,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda would be identical with the Sages.

And on what point would they disagree?

Rather, is it not that a tumtum is the difference between them?

The first tanna

[the Sages]

holds that sanctity does not take effect upon it —

with regard to an androgynos

alone.

But a tumtum is a case of doubt, and it is sanctified because of the doubt.