Bekhorot 42a — the Talmud in English

Therefore it is taught:

It is written, “And your valuation shall be

the male,”

and from the extra letter heh we derive:

and not a tumtum or an androgynos.

One might have thought: he shall not be in the valuation of a man, but he shall be in the valuation of a woman?

The verse says: “the male,” “

and

if female

she is.” And we exclude from the extra wording of “and if

not a tumtum or an androgynos.”

But this verse does not come to exclude a doubtful case, for there is no doubt before Heaven. And how does it exclude a tumtum? Rather, learn from this that a tumtum too is a creature, like an androgynos, and therefore it was excluded from the law of valuations.

And we answer:

Remove tumtum from here,

for the beraita did not speak of it, and indeed it is subject to valuation.

Come and hear:

as it was taught: It is stated in the section of peace-offerings: “And if his sacrifice is a sacrifice of peace-offerings; if from cattle he brings it,

whether male or female.”

And we derive:

to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

But this verse does not come for a doubtful case. Furthermore, both a male and a female are fit for peace-offerings. Whichever way you look at it, it should be fit; and why does it exclude a tumtum? Rather, learn from this that a tumtum is a creature.

And this too we answer:

Remove tumtum from here!

Come and hear:

as it was taught: It is written in the section of the burnt-offering of cattle, “

male.”

And we exclude:

and not a female.

When it says below,

in the burnt-offering of sheep,

“male,” which need not be stated,

for a female has already been excluded in the burnt-offering of cattle, we derive from it:

to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

And since the verse does not exclude a doubtful case, learn from this that a tumtum is a creature.

And we answer:

Remove tumtum from here.

Come and hear:

as it was taught concerning the laws of bird-offerings:

one worshipped,

which one made into an object of idolatry and worshipped.

And one set aside,

which one set aside for idolatry.

And the payment of a prostitute,

which one gave in exchange for prostitution.

And the exchange,

which one gave as an exchange for a dog.

And a tumtum and an androgynos.

If they were bird-offerings, and they were not slaughtered but rather their necks were pinched according to the law of a bird-offering, they

all render garments impure in the house of swallowing

according to the law of the carcass of a kosher bird; for since all these are unfit for an offering, pinching their necks is, with regard to them, like pinching the neck of an ordinary bird, which does not purify it from the status of a carcass.

And if you say that a tumtum is doubtful, why does it convey the impurity of carcasses? For it is fit for an offering, since among 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 house of swallowing!

Since they are fit for a bird-offering, and pinching the neck is, with regard to them, like slaughtering.

For Rabbi Elazar would say: Wherever “male and female” is stated, you exclude a tumtum and an androgynos from among them. But 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 for an offering.

And from Rabbi Elazar too it could be resolved that a tumtum is a creature; for if not, elsewhere too the verse would not exclude a doubtful case.

And we answer:

Remove tumtum from here.

According to everyone it is fit, and they disagreed only concerning an androgynos, which is a creature, whether it is excluded from a bird-offering.

Come and hear:

as it was taught:

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

which was born through the side, and likewise

a tumtum and an androgynos—do not become sacred and do not consecrate.

And Shmuel said:

That which it teaches, “do not become sacred,” means

do not become sacred through substitution,

for if one substituted them for an offering-animal, the substitution does not take effect upon them, and they are ordinary; and they are inferior to an animal with a blemish, upon which substitution does take effect, and it is sacred as an offering-animal with a blemish.

And that which it teaches, “and do not consecrate,” means

and they do not consecrate by making a substitution,

if they were sacred [for example, they were consecrated and afterward became a tereifa. And the hybrid, the one born by caesarean section, the tumtum, and the androgynos are being discussed with regard to consecrated offspring whose mother was sacred, for the sanctity of an offering did not take effect upon them themselves] and one substituted an ordinary animal for them, they do not effect substitution.

And if a tumtum is doubtful, why does it not become sacred, whichever way you look at it? For whether male or female, it is fit to be an offering and to be the substitute of an offering.

And we answer:

Remove tumtum from here.

Come and hear:

as it was taught:

Rabbi Elazar says: Five neither become sacred nor consecrate. And these are they: a tereifa, a hybrid, one born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgynos.

And if you would say: here too, remove tumtum from here.

If so,

there are four,

whereas Rabbi Elazar said five.

And we answer:

Take out tumtum

from Rabbi Elazar’s statement

and bring in an orphan,

whose mother died at the time of birth. And it is unfit for an offering [and it is similar to the other disqualified ones, for it too is disqualified from the time of birth].

Let us say

that the law of whether a tumtum is a creature in its own right

is subject to a dispute between tannaim:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Ilaai 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,

for it is a creature. But concerning a tumtum they do not disagree, for it is doubtful.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Behold, it says

with regard to a firstborn,

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

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

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

And if you would say: Remove tumtum from here.

If so,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is the same as the Rabbis.

And over what do they disagree?

Rather, is it not that a tumtum is the point of difference between them.

The first tanna

[the Sages]

holds: Sanctity does not take effect upon it—

upon an androgynos

alone.

But a tumtum is doubtful, and it is sacred because of the doubt.