Bechorot Daf 42 (בכורות דף מ״ב)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (42a)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא (רבא)

Rava presses on: the arakhin baraita excludes a tumtum from ‘the male’ — answer: delete the tumtum from the baraita

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: ״הַזָּכָר״ — וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

English Translation:

Why, then, is it taught in a baraita that the verse: “Then your valuation shall be for the male” (Leviticus 27:3), includes one whose status as a male is certain but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite? The Gemara answers: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum, as it is referring only to a hermaphrodite, which is a distinct entity.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava continues his challenge to Rav Chisda from the end of 41b. A baraita on valuations reads ‘the male’ (Vayikra 27:3) as limited to a certain male, excluding both a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. If a tumtum is merely a male or a female whose organs are hidden, why would he not owe at least the valuation of a woman? The Gemara answers with a bold textual move: strike the tumtum from the baraita (סמי מיכן טומטום), leaving only the hermaphrodite, whom the Rabbis treat as a distinct entity. This answer becomes the refrain of the entire amud.

Key Terms:

• סְמִי מִיכָּן = remove from here — a textual emendation deleting a word from a tannaitic source
• טוּמְטוּם = tumtum — a person or animal whose genitals are covered by skin, so its sex cannot be determined
• אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס = hermaphrodite — one with both male and female organs
• עֲרָכִין = valuations — fixed sums pledged to the Temple by age and sex (Vayikra 27)

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

The continuation of the same baraita: not even a woman’s valuation applies — again, delete the tumtum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִישׁ, אֲבָל יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַזָּכָר… אִם נְקֵבָה״, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the continuation of that baraita: One might have thought that these shall not be valuated according to the valuation of a man, but they shall be valuated according to the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: “The male,” and in the following verse it states: “And if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels” (Leviticus 27:4), indicating only one whose status as a male or female is certain, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, which are categorized as neither male nor female. The Gemara again answers: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum, as it is referring only to a hermaphrodite.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now cites the continuation of the baraita, which closes the obvious loophole. One might have thought that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite escape the man’s valuation but at least owe the woman’s. The juxtaposition of ‘the male’ with ‘if she is a female’ teaches that only a certain male or a certain female is valuated. This is sharper than the first clause, since a tumtum who is surely one or the other should owe at least the lower sum. Yet the same emendation is applied: delete the tumtum.

Key Terms:

• יָכוֹל = one might have thought — introduces a hypothesis the verse then rejects
• בְּעֵרֶךְ אִישׁ / בְּעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה = the valuation of a man / of a woman
• תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse teaches

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא

Shelamim: ‘whether male or female’ means a definite male or a definite female — delete the tumtum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita discussing the peace offering, with regard to which it states: “Whether male or female” (Leviticus 3:1). This indicates: Only a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. Yet again the Gemara responds: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum.

קלאוד על הדף:

A third source, this time from the peace offering (Vayikra 3:1), which may be either a male or a female. If a tumtum is surely one of the two, it should be fit as a shelamim regardless of which sex it turns out to be. The baraita’s exclusion of the tumtum therefore implies that he is a third category. Once again the Gemara deletes the tumtum, leaving only the hermaphrodite as a being apart.

Key Terms:

• שְׁלָמִים = peace offering — may be brought from a male or a female animal
• זָכָר וַדַּאי נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית = a definite male, a definite female

Segment 4

TYPE: קושיא

The burnt offering’s second ‘male’ excludes tumtum and hermaphrodite — delete the tumtum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הַזָּכָר״ — וְלֹא נְקֵבָה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּהּ ״זָכָר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: It states with regard to a burnt offering from cattle: “A male” (Leviticus 1:3), from which it can be inferred: But not a female. When it says below, with regard to a burnt offering from sheep: “A male” (Leviticus 1:10), a second time, it is difficult to understand, as there is no need for the verse to state this. Why must the verse state “a male” again? This serves to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, which are disqualified as burnt offerings. The Gemara answers: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum.

קלאוד על הדף:

This is the same baraita discussed on 41b: the first ‘male’ (Vayikra 1:3) excludes a female, and the superfluous second ‘male’ (Vayikra 1:10) excludes a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. As the Gemara noted there, a doubtful case does not need a verse to exclude it, since an animal of uncertain sex is not known to be a male anyway. The need for a verse suggests that the tumtum is a distinct entity. The Gemara answers as before: delete the tumtum.

Key Terms:

• עוֹלָה = burnt offering — must be a male
• שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = for which there is no need for the verse to state — signals a superfluous phrase used for a derivation

Segment 5

TYPE: ברייתא

Birds disqualified as offerings — including a tumtum and a hermaphrodite — impart impurity in the throat even after melika

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita discussing the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a bird in the throat: Any bird that was not slaughtered in the proper manner, i.e., in its neck with a knife, has the status of a carcass. This carcass renders the one who eats it impure when it is in his throat. Bird offerings, which are killed by pinching the nape of the neck with a fingernail, are the exception to this principle, and they do not impart impurity. With regard to a bird that is worshipped as a deity, or one set aside for idol worship, or one given as payment to a prostitute, or one that was given as the price of a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and similarly with regard to a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, if one killed any of them by pinching, they are ritually impure, as they are disqualified as offerings, and the pinching does not purify them. Therefore, they all render a person and the garments he is wearing ritually impure if an olive-bulk of them comes into contact with the throat while eating.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to the laws of bird carcasses. A bird that dies without proper slaughter is a neveilah, and a kosher bird’s carcass imparts impurity only when an olive-bulk is in the eater’s throat (בית הבליעה). Melika, the priestly pinching of the nape, permits a bird offering and spares it this impurity, but only if the bird is fit for the altar. The baraita lists birds that are unfit and therefore remain impure despite melika: one worshipped as an idol, one set aside for idolatry, a harlot’s fee and the price of a dog, and also a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Since bird offerings have no sex requirement, why is a tumtum bird unfit? That question surfaces in the following segments.

Key Terms:

• בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה = the throat — the place where a bird carcass imparts impurity to the eater and his garments
• מְלִיקָה = pinching the nape with the priest’s fingernail — the method of killing a bird offering
• נֶעֱבָד / מוּקְצֶה = an animal worshipped as a deity / one set aside for idol worship
• אֶתְנַן / מְחִיר = a harlot’s fee / the price of a dog (Devarim 23:19), both barred from the altar

Segment 6

TYPE: מחלוקת (רבי אליעזר)

Rabbi Eliezer: a tumtum or hermaphrodite bird is fit, since tumtum and androginos are excluded only where ‘male and female’ is written

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״ אַתָּה מוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִבֵּינֵיהֶם.

English Translation:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If one pinched the neck of a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, it does not render the person and the garments he is wearing ritually impure when they are in the throat, as they are in fact fit to be sacrificed. As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is stated explicitly in the Torah: “Male,” and: “Female,” you should exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as their status is uncertain. This applies to animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah states “male” and “female.”

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Eliezer disagrees regarding the last two items. In his view, the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite is a textual one: wherever the Torah specifies ‘male’ or ‘female,’ as with animal offerings, these uncertain beings fall outside the category. Where the Torah says nothing about sex, there is nothing to exclude them from. A tumtum bird is therefore fit, its melika is valid, and it does not impart impurity in the throat.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר = Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a Tanna of the generation after the Destruction
• אַתָּה מוֹצִיא … מִבֵּינֵיהֶם = you exclude … from among them
• מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים = render garments impure — i.e., the eater and the clothes he is wearing

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא

Inference: the first tanna must hold a tumtum is unfit even for birds — a distinct entity — delete the tumtum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעוֹף, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״, אֵין אַתָּה מוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִבֵּינֵיהֶם! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

English Translation:

But in the case of a bird offering, since “male” and “female” are not stated with regard to it, but simply doves and pigeons are stated with regard to it, you do not exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as they are fit for the altar. Now if a tumtum is considered either definitely a male or a female, then why does the first tanna disqualify it from being sacrificed? The Gemara again replies: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita concludes Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning: birds are described only as ‘turtledoves’ or ‘young pigeons,’ with no mention of sex, so a tumtum bird is fit. The challenge to Rav Chisda follows. If the first tanna disqualifies a tumtum bird where sex is irrelevant, he must view it as a defective, distinct creature, not as a male or female of unknown identity. Here too the Gemara deletes the tumtum. The first tanna disqualifies only the hermaphrodite, which is a creature apart; the tumtum, being male or female, is fit as a bird offering.

Key Terms:

• עוֹף = bird — here, a bird offering of turtledoves or young pigeons
• הוֹאִיל = since

Segment 8

TYPE: ברייתא (רבי אלעזר)

Rabbi Elazar: tereifa, kilayim, yotzei dofen, tumtum and hermaphrodite neither become sacred nor confer sanctity

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַטְּרֵיפָה, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that Rabbi Elazar says: An animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and prohibited diverse kinds of livestock, and an animal born by caesarean section, and an animal that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite do not become consecrated and do not render another animal consecrated in their place.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new source: Rabbi Elazar lists animals that ‘are not sacred and do not consecrate.’ A tereifa, a hybrid, an animal born by caesarean section and a hermaphrodite are all permanently unfit for the altar. The inclusion of the tumtum seems again to treat it as a distinct entity, since a sure male or female should be sanctifiable at least out of doubt. The meaning of ‘not sacred and do not consecrate’ is clarified by Shmuel in the next segment.

Key Terms:

• טְרֵיפָה = an animal with a fatal defect, expected to die within twelve months
• כִּלְאַיִם = an animal born of a mating of two species
• יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן = an animal born by caesarean section, literally ‘emerging from the wall’
• לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין = they do not become sacred and do not confer sanctity

Segment 9

TYPE: מימרא (שמואל) וקושיא

Shmuel: the statement concerns temurah — and a tumtum should be sacred out of doubt — delete the tumtum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

English Translation:

And Shmuel says in explanation: They do not become consecrated by substitution, i.e., if one sought to substitute one of these animals for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sacred. And if one of these was born to a sacrificial animal, they do not render a non-sacred animal consecrated in a case where one wanted to render it a substitute for them. And if a tumtum is either a male or female, why would it not become consecrated and render another animal consecrated? The Gemara answers: Omit from this baraita the mention of a tumtum.

קלאוד על הדף:

Shmuel explains that Rabbi Elazar speaks of temurah, substitution. If one tries to exchange one of these animals for a consecrated animal, it does not acquire the sanctity of a substitute. And if one of them was itself consecrated, as when born to a sacrificial animal, one cannot substitute an ordinary animal for it. If a tumtum were simply a male or a female, it should at least be sacred out of doubt. The Gemara answers as before: delete the tumtum.

Key Terms:

• תְּמוּרָה = substitution — attempting to exchange an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated one, which makes both sacred (Vayikra 27:10)
• שְׁמוּאֵל = Shmuel, a first-generation Babylonian Amora

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

A version listing ‘five’ cannot lose the tumtum — answer: remove the tumtum and insert the orphan

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַטְּרֵיפָה, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם — הָווּ לְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה! אַפֵּיק טוּמְטוּם, וְעָיֵיל יָתוֹם.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a slightly different version of that baraita. Rabbi Elazar says: There are five types of animals that do not become consecrated and do not render another animal consecrated, and they are: A tereifa, and prohibited diverse kinds of livestock, and an animal born by caesarean section, and an animal that is a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite. And if you would say: Here too, omit from this baraita a tumtum, then there are only four types of animals listed in the baraita. The Gemara answers: Remove the mention of a tumtum and in its place insert an orphan, i.e., an animal born after the death of its mother, which is also disqualified as a sacrifice.

קלאוד על הדף:

The emendation runs into trouble here, because this version of Rabbi Elazar’s baraita states a number: five. Deleting the tumtum would leave only four. The Gemara does not give up its thesis. It replaces the tumtum with the yatom, an ‘orphan’ animal born after its mother’s death, which is likewise unfit for the altar. This shows how far the Gemara is willing to go to protect Rav Chisda’s principle that a tumtum is a doubt and not a distinct creature. A count is normally a safeguard against emendation, and here it is overridden by substitution.

Key Terms:

• הָווּ לְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה = they are only four
• אַפֵּיק … וְעָיֵיל = take out … and insert
• יָתוֹם = an ‘orphan’ animal, born after its mother died — disqualified as an offering

Segment 11

TYPE: ברייתא (מחלוקת תנאים)

Perhaps the question is a tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Ilai in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, the Rabbis, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי? רַבִּי אִילְעַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּכוֹר הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״הַזָּכָר״, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״זָכָר״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this question of whether a tumtum is a distinct entity or is definitely either a male or female is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A hermaphrodite is a firstborn, and it comes with its blemish; and the Rabbis say: It is not imbued with sanctity. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “Males” (Deuteronomy 15:19), and wherever it is stated: Male,” this serves to exclude only a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Since according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda it is necessary for a verse to exclude a tumtum, like a hermaphrodite, from the category of a male, evidently in his opinion a tumtum is not considered to be one whose status as a male is uncertain but a distinct entity.

קלאוד על הדף:

Having defended Rav Chisda source by source, the Gemara suggests that the question might be a tannaitic dispute after all. Rabbi Ilai, citing Rabbi Yishmael, holds that a hermaphrodite is a firstborn that comes with its blemish (as on 41b). The Rabbis say it acquires no sanctity at all. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, citing Rabbi Shimon, adds that the word ‘the male’ (Devarim 15:19) excludes both a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. If a verse is needed to exclude a tumtum, he must regard it as a distinct entity.

Key Terms:

• לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי = let us say this is a tannaitic dispute
• בְּכוֹר הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ = it is a firstborn, and its blemish comes with it — it may be eaten outside the Temple without waiting for a blemish
• אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו = sanctity does not take effect on it
• רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה = a Tanna of the last generation, who transmits teachings of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai

Segment 12

TYPE: שקלא וטריא

If the tumtum is deleted, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says nothing new — so the dispute must be about the tumtum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכִי תֵּימָא: סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ רַבָּנַן! אֶלָּא לָאו טוּמְטוּם אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו אַאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֲבָל טוּמְטוּם סְפֵיקָא הוּא וְקָדוֹשׁ מִסְּפֵיקָא, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן

English Translation:

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: And if you would say: Here too, omit from this baraita a tumtum, then the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is the same as that of the Rabbis, as they too maintain that a hermaphrodite is not sacred. Rather, is it not that the difference between them is with regard to the status of a tumtum, as the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: It is not imbued with sanctity, and they are referring specifically to a hermaphrodite, which was the subject of Rabbi Ilai’s statement, but a tumtum is an uncertain case, and therefore it is sacred due to uncertainty. And Rabbi Shimon

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara argues that the usual emendation fails here. If the tumtum is deleted from Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s statement, he merely excludes the hermaphrodite, exactly as the Rabbis already did. A statement that adds nothing is unlikely. So the two must disagree about the tumtum: the Rabbis spoke only of the hermaphrodite and consider the tumtum a doubt that is sacred out of doubt. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, the Gemara proposes as the sentence continues onto 42b, comes to say that a tumtum is a distinct creature and is not sacred at all.

Key Terms:

• הַיְינוּ רַבָּנַן = that is the same as the Rabbis
• אֶלָּא לָאו = rather, is it not
• אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ = the difference between them
• קָדוֹשׁ מִסְּפֵיקָא = sacred out of doubt

Amud Bet (42b)

Segment 1

TYPE: דחייה

No — all agree a tumtum is not a distinct creature; the only doubt is whether it is male or female

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בֶּן יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר: טוּמְטוּם בְּרִיָּה הוּא וְלֹא קָדוֹשׁ! לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא טוּמְטוּם בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מְסַפְּקָא, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה הוּא דִּמְסַפְּקָא.

English Translation:

ben Yehuda comes to say: A tumtum is not of uncertain status, but a distinct entity, and it is not sacred at all. The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees with regard to the statement that a tumtum is a distinct entity that there is no doubt that this is incorrect. Where there is doubt is with regard to whether it is a male or a female.

קלאוד על הדף:

The sentence from 42a ends: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda would then hold a tumtum to be a separate creature that is not sacred. The Gemara rejects the proposal. No tanna holds that a tumtum is a distinct entity; everyone agrees that it is a male or a female and the question is only which. The disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda must therefore lie elsewhere, as the next segment explains.

Key Terms:

• בְּרִיָּה = a distinct creature — a category of its own, neither male nor female
• דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא = according to everyone
• לָא מְסַפְּקָא = there is no doubt

Segment 2

TYPE: תירוץ

The real dispute: a tumtum that urinates from the female place — do we fear the male organ is inverted?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מֵטִיל מַיִם בִּמְקוֹם זַכְרוּת — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּזָכָר הוּא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת: מָר סָבַר חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ לְנַקְבוּתוֹ, וּמַר סָבַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. כִּי הָא דְּהוֹרָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בִּבְהֵמָה מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת — חוּלִּין.

English Translation:

In addition, in a case where the tumtum urinates from the place of the male sex organ, then everyone agrees that it is a male. When they disagree is in the case of a tumtum that urinates from the place of the female sex organ. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we are concerned that perhaps its male sex organ was inverted toward its female sex organ; therefore, it is of uncertain status. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, holds that we are not concerned about this possibility; rather, it is definitely a female. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda maintains in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar ruled: With regard to a firstborn animal that urinates from the place where the female sex organ is found, it is non-sacred, as it is certainly a female.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara relocates the dispute to the animal’s anatomy. A tumtum animal that urinates from where the male organ would be is surely male, according to all. When it urinates from the place of the female organ, the Rabbis are concerned that the male organ may be inverted and hidden there, so the animal remains a doubtful firstborn. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is not concerned and treats it as a female, so his ‘the male’ excludes it from firstborn sanctity. This matches a ruling of Rabbi Elazar that such an animal is non-sacred.

Key Terms:

• מֵטִיל מַיִם = urinates
• בִּמְקוֹם זַכְרוּת / נַקְבוּת = in the place of the male organ / the female organ
• נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ לְנַקְבוּתוֹ = its male organ was inverted toward its female organ
• חָיְישִׁינַן = we are concerned
• חוּלִּין = non-sacred

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא (רבי יוחנן)

Rabbi Yochanan wondered at Rabbi Elazar’s ruling — why did he not also cite the latter Rabbis against it?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאן דְּלָא חָשׁ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא וּלְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? וְלֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי: מַאן דְּלָא חָשׁ לְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי? דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְטוּם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סְפֵיקָא!

English Translation:

Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered about this ruling of Rabbi Elazar: Who is the Sage who is not concerned about the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna and about the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who maintain that a tumtum is a case of uncertainty? The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan also say: Who is this who is not concerned about the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the mishna, as Rav Ḥisda says: This dispute refers to a hermaphrodite; but with regard to a tumtum, everyone agrees that it is an uncertain case.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan was surprised by Rabbi Elazar’s ruling: whom does he follow, ignoring the first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yishmael, who both treat a tumtum as a doubt? The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yochanan could have listed the latter Rabbis as well. According to Rav Chisda (41b), the Rabbis’ dispute concerns only the hermaphrodite, and all agree that a tumtum is a doubt. Why then did Rabbi Yochanan count only two authorities against Rabbi Elazar rather than three?

Key Terms:

• תָּהֵי בַּהּ = he wondered about it
• לָא חָשׁ = is not concerned for, disregards
• רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי = the latter Rabbis — the Sages cited last in the mishna (41a)
• רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = Rabbi Yochanan bar Nafcha, the great Amora of Eretz Yisrael and teacher of Rabbi Elazar

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ

Rabbi Yochanan rejects Rav Chisda; his complaint is: who abandons two authorities to follow one?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אִי לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לֵימָא הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי? הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: מַאן שָׁבֵיק תְּרֵי וְעָבֵיד כְּחַד!

English Translation:

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold in accordance with that statement of Rav Ḥisda; rather, he maintains that according to the latter Rabbis a tumtum is a distinct entity. The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold in accordance with Rav Ḥisda, why did he wonder about Rabbi Elazar’s ruling? Let him say that Rabbi Elazar said his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the latter Rabbis. The Gemara answers: That is indeed what he is saying: Who is the Sage who leaves aside the opinion of two Sages, the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael, and acts in accordance with one opinion, the latter Rabbis?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav Chisda and understands the latter Rabbis as treating a tumtum as non-sacred. If so, Rabbi Elazar has a source, so why the surprise? Because that is precisely Rabbi Yochanan’s point. Rabbi Elazar left the view of two authorities, the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael, to rule like a single one. The surprise is not that the ruling lacks support, but that it follows the minority.

Key Terms:

• לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ = he does not hold so
• מַאן שָׁבֵיק תְּרֵי וְעָבֵיד כְּחַד = who leaves two and acts like one — a rebuke for following a minority view

Segment 5

TYPE: מימרא (ריש לקיש)

Rabbi Elazar follows Reish Lakish: the doubt of tumtum applies only to humans; an animal’s sex is shown by where it urinates

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּמַאן סָבְרַהּ? כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְטוּם סָפֵק אֶלָּא בְּאָדָם, הוֹאִיל וְזַכְרוּתוֹ וְנַקְבוּתוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה — מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם זַכְרוּת זָכָר, מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת נְקֵבָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? The Gemara answers that he holds in accordance with that which Reish Lakish says: The Sages said that the halakhic status of a tumtum is an uncertain case only with regard to a person, since the male sex organ and the female sex organ are in one place, i.e., a man and a woman urinate from the same area of the body. Since that area is concealed in the case of a tumtum, its status is uncertain. But with regard to a tumtum animal, there is no uncertainty whether it is a male or a female, as the genitals of a male and a female are not found in the same place. Rather, if it urinates from the place of the male sex organ, it is a male; if it urinates from the place of the female sex organ, it is a female.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara offers another basis for Rabbi Elazar: Reish Lakish’s distinction between people and animals. In a human, male and female organs are in the same area, so when that area is covered the person’s sex is truly unknown. In an animal they are in different places, so the place of urination reveals the sex. On this view a tumtum animal urinating from the female place is simply a female, and Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that it is non-sacred follows from simple anatomy and not from a minority view.

Key Terms:

• רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ = Reish Lakish (Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish), colleague and brother-in-law of Rabbi Yochanan
• בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד = in one place
• לֹא אָמְרוּ … אֶלָּא = they said … only

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (רב אושעיא ואביי)

Rav Oshaya: let us fear inversion — Abaye: that would be Rabbi Meir’s concern for a minority

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ לְנַקְבוּתוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא?!

English Translation:

Rav Oshaya objects to this: And let us be concerned that perhaps its male sex organ was turned round to the place of its female sex organ. Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you raise this objection? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned about the minority of cases? The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and therefore one should follow the majority of animals, to whom this does not occur.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Oshaya objects to Reish Lakish: even in an animal, perhaps the male organ is turned inward to the female place, and the animal is really a male. Abaye answers that this objection follows Rabbi Meir, who takes minority cases into account (חושש למיעוטא). The halacha follows the Rabbis, who follow the majority, and most animals that urinate from the female place are female. The suspicion of inversion is therefore set aside.

Key Terms:

• מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = he objects to it
• חָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא = takes a minority into account — the view of Rabbi Meir
• אַבָּיֵי = Abaye, a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora

Segment 7

TYPE: מימרא

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin: even the Rabbis might agree — ‘since it has changed, it has changed’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַבָּיֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חֲנַנְיָא בַּר אָבִין דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי. אִית דְּאָמַר אִישְׁתַּנִּי, וְאִית דְּאָמַר לָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי.

English Translation:

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥananya bar Avin both say: You may even say that Rav Oshaya’s objection is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who are not concerned about a minority. The reason is that since in this case, the animal has changed in that it is different from typical animals, as it is a tumtum, perhaps it is also changed with regard to its male sex organ being inverted toward the female sex organ. If so, the Sages disagree with regard to this principle: There are those who say that since it has changed, it has changed, and there are those who say that the claim that since it has changed, it has changed is not accepted.

קלאוד על הדף:

Two brothers, Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin, defend Rav Oshaya’s objection even according to the Rabbis. The principle of majority applies to ordinary animals, but this one is already unusual, being a tumtum. Once a creature departs from nature in one respect, it may depart in another as well, so the majority of normal animals tells us nothing about it. They add that this principle, ‘since it has changed, it has changed’ (הואיל ואישתני אישתני), is itself disputed: some accept it and some do not.

Key Terms:

• הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי = since it has changed, it has changed — an anomaly in one respect raises the possibility of an anomaly in another
• אִית דְּאָמַר = there are those who say
• תַּרְוַיְיהוּ = both of them

Segment 8

TYPE: ברייתא

Is ‘it has changed’ a tannaitic dispute? A tumtum’s betrothal is valid in both directions

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לֵימָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי וְלָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי תַּנָּאֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ — קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין, נִתְקַדֵּשׁ — קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the question of whether an animal that has changed in one respect has changed in a different respect, or whether it has not changed, is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a tumtum who betrothed a woman, the betrothal is considered a betrothal, due to uncertainty, as the tumtum might be a male; and similarly, if the tumtum was betrothed by a man, the betrothal is deemed a betrothal due to uncertainty, as the tumtum might be a female.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks whether the principle of ‘it has changed’ is the subject of a tannaitic dispute, and brings two baraitot about a human tumtum. The first rules that a tumtum who betroths a woman, or who is betrothed by a man, creates a betrothal out of doubt. He may be a male, in which case his betrothal of a woman is valid, or a female, in which case being betrothed is. The baraita continues with the laws of yibbum in the next segment.

Key Terms:

• קִדּוּשִׁין = betrothal — the first stage of marriage
• קִידֵּשׁ / נִתְקַדֵּשׁ = betrothed a woman / was betrothed by a man
• לֵימָא … תַּנָּאֵי = let us say it is a tannaitic dispute

Segment 9

TYPE: ברייתא

The tumtum performs chalitza and his wife may have chalitza or yibbum — but another baraita: chalitza only

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְחוֹלֵץ, וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמְיַבְּמִים לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵשֶׁת טוּמְטוּם חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: And if the brother of the tumtum died childless, and there is no other brother who can perform levirate marriage with the widow, the tumtum performs ḥalitza, i.e., his brother’s widow removes his shoe, as the tumtum might be a male, and she would require ḥalitza to release her from the levirate bond. And if the tumtum died, one of the brothers of the tumtum performs ḥalitza with the wife of the tumtum, or enters into levirate marriage with the wife of the tumtum, in case the tumtum was a male. And it is taught in another baraita: The wife of a tumtum performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage.

קלאוד על הדף:

The first baraita continues. A tumtum performs chalitza for his brother’s childless widow, and if he dies childless, his brother may perform chalitza or even yibbum with his wife. In both cases this is out of the doubt that he is a male. A second baraita disagrees: the wife of a tumtum performs chalitza but not yibbum. The difference between them requires explanation, which the Gemara now provides.

Key Terms:

• חֲלִיצָה = the ceremony of removing the shoe that releases a childless widow from her levirate bond (Devarim 25:9)
• יִבּוּם = levirate marriage — a brother marries the widow of his brother who died childless
• חוֹלֵץ / חוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ = he performs chalitza / they perform chalitza with his wife

Segment 10

TYPE: הנחה

Assumption: both baraitot follow Rabbi Akiva, who excludes the congenital eunuch from chalitza and yibbum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

סַבְרוּהָ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: סְרִיס חַמָּה לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם.

English Translation:

With regard to these two baraitot, the Sages assumed that everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: A eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, i.e., one who was entirely lacking in sexual capacity from birth, does not perform ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage with his sister-in-law, as he is not included in the mitzva of levirate marriage. Likewise, if he died his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and they may not enter into levirate marriage with her, as she is forbidden to them as a brother’s wife who does not require levirate marriage.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara assumes both baraitot follow Rabbi Akiva’s ruling in Yevamot that a saris chamah, a man sexually incapable from birth, neither performs chalitza nor yibbum. His wife is therefore never subject to the levirate bond and is forbidden to his brothers as a brother’s wife. With this shared premise in place, the disagreement between the baraitot can be linked to the question of ‘it has changed.’

Key Terms:

• סַבְרוּהָ = they assumed
• סְרִיס חַמָּה = a eunuch from birth, literally ‘eunuch of the sun’ — incapable from the moment he saw the sun
• רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא = Rabbi Akiva, the great Tanna of the Yavneh-Usha period

Segment 11

TYPE: הצעה

The lenient baraita does not say ‘it has changed’: a male tumtum is presumed capable, so his wife is fit for yibbum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹלֵץ, וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמְיַבְּמִים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, לָא אָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי;

English Translation:

Based on this assumption, the Gemara suggests: What, is it not that the two baraitot disagree about this, that the one who says that a tumtum performs ḥalitza and one of the brothers performs ḥalitza with the wife of the tumtum or enters into levirate marriage with the wife of the tumtum holds that we do not say that since this tumtum has changed from an average person, he might also have changed in that he is a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and therefore the brothers would be prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with the wife? Rather, if the tumtum is a male, it is assumed that he is capable of fathering children, and consequently his wife requires levirate marriage.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara proposes that the first baraita, which allows yibbum with a tumtum’s wife, rejects the principle of ‘it has changed.’ A tumtum is already anomalous, but we do not presume he is also a congenital eunuch. If he is a male, he is presumed capable of fathering children like most men, and his wife is subject to yibbum. The doubt is only about his sex, not about his fertility.

Key Terms:

• מַאי לָאו = is it not
• בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי = they disagree about this
• לָא אָמְרִינַן = we do not say

Segment 12

TYPE: הצעה

The stringent baraita does say ‘it has changed’: perhaps he is a congenital eunuch, so no yibbum

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת, אָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי?

English Translation:

And the one who says that the wife of a tumtum performs ḥalitza and does not enter into levirate marriage maintains that we say that since this person has changed, he has changed, i.e., the possibility that he might be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally is considered, and therefore his wife may not enter into levirate marriage.

קלאוד על הדף:

The second half of the proposal: the second baraita, which permits only chalitza, applies the principle. Since this person is already anomalous, perhaps he is also a saris chamah, whose wife may not enter yibbum according to Rabbi Akiva. Chalitza is still required out of doubt, in case he is a fertile male, but yibbum is forbidden in case she is a brother’s wife without a levirate bond. If this reading holds, ‘it has changed’ is a tannaitic dispute.

Key Terms:

• אָמְרִינַן = we say
• חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת = she performs chalitza but does not enter yibbum

Segment 13

TYPE: דחייה

No — all say ‘it has changed’; one baraita follows Rabbi Eliezer, the other Rabbi Akiva

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי, הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: No; everyone agrees that we say that since this person has changed, he has changed, and there is a concern that he might be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. Rather, the difference between the rulings is that this baraita, which permits the wife of the tumtum to enter levirate marriage, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and maintains that levirate marriage may be performed with the wife of a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and that baraita, which prohibits levirate marriage, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that the brothers of a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally do not enter into levirate marriage with the wife of the tumtum.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara rejects the proposal. Both baraitot can accept that a tumtum may also be a congenital eunuch. They differ about the eunuch himself. The baraita that permits yibbum follows Rabbi Eliezer, who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and allows yibbum with the wife of a saris chamah, so the doubt makes no difference. The baraita that forbids yibbum follows Rabbi Akiva. The earlier assumption that both follow Rabbi Akiva is dropped.

Key Terms:

• הָא … וְהָא = this one … and that one — assigning two sources to two authorities
• רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר = Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who disputes Rabbi Akiva on the saris chamah

Segment 14

TYPE: קושיא

Which tanna follows Rabbi Akiva and still requires chalitza? Not Rabbi Yehuda, who treats a tumtum as a definite eunuch

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמַאן תַּנָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָא וַדַּאי סָרִיס מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And who is the tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the wife of a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally does not require levirate marriage, and yet he maintains that the wife of a tumtum must perform ḥalitza? If we say it is Rabbi Yehuda, this cannot be, as in his opinion even if the genitals of a tumtum were revealed and he was found to be a male, he deems him like a definite eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and therefore his wife does not require ḥalitza at all.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara must find the tanna behind the stringent baraita: one who follows Rabbi Akiva yet requires chalitza for a tumtum’s wife out of doubt. Rabbi Yehuda cannot be the source. In his view a tumtum who is opened and found to be male is treated as a definite eunuch. His wife would then need no chalitza at all, which contradicts the baraita.

Key Terms:

• אַלִּיבָּא דְּ = according to
• אִילֵימָא = if you say
• מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ = he considers him
• רַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, a Tanna of the Usha generation

Segment 15

TYPE: משנה (יבמות פא.)

Rabbi Yehuda: a tumtum torn open and found male does not perform chalitza, since he is like a eunuch

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְלוֹץ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּסָרִיס!

English Translation:

As we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 81a) that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a tumtum who was torn open so that his genitals were exposed, and he was found to be a male, he must not perform ḥalitza, because he is treated like a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. Just as this tumtum does not perform ḥalitza, so too, his widow does not require ḥalitza.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara cites the mishna in Yevamot (81a) as the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s view. Even when the covering skin is torn and the tumtum is revealed to be male, Rabbi Yehuda considers him like a saris, presumably because of the abnormal development of his organs. A eunuch of this kind is outside the levirate system according to Rabbi Akiva, so his widow would be entirely exempt. The stringent baraita, which requires chalitza, cannot be his.

Key Terms:

• נִקְרַע = was torn open — the skin covering the genitals was opened
• נִמְצָא זָכָר = was found to be a male
• כְּסָרִיס = like a eunuch
• דִּתְנַן = as we learned in a mishna

Segment 16

TYPE: ברייתא (רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה)

Rather it is Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda: a tumtum does not perform chalitza lest he be found a congenital eunuch

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם לֹא חוֹלֵץ, שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְיִמָּצֵא סָרִיס חַמָּה.

English Translation:

Rather, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that if a tumtum was torn open and he was found to be a male, he is considered as a matter of uncertainty to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and consequently his wife requires ḥalitza. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum does not perform ḥalitza with the wife of his late, childless brother if there are other brothers to perform ḥalitza, as perhaps the skin covering his genitals will be torn open and he will be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and the widow would not be released from the levirate bond by his ḥalitza. According to this opinion, it is not certain that a tumtum would be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara identifies the source as Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. He rules that a tumtum does not perform chalitza for his brother’s widow, since he might be opened and found to be a saris chamah, and his chalitza would release no one. His language, ‘lest he be found,’ shows that for him eunuchhood is only a possibility, not a certainty as it is for his father. That uncertainty explains the baraita: the tumtum’s wife needs chalitza out of doubt but cannot enter yibbum.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, a Tanna of the last generation
• שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְיִמָּצֵא = lest he be torn open and found to be

Segment 17

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Is every torn tumtum male? Rabbi Yosei means ‘perhaps’ broadly: perhaps he is found to be female

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַטּוּ כֹּל דְּמִיקְּרַע זָכָר מִשְׁתְּכַח, נְקֵבָה לָא מִשְׁתְּכַח? שֶׁמָּא קָאָמַר, שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְיִמָּצֵא נְקֵבָה.

English Translation:

With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks: Why does this individual not perform ḥalitza due only to the possibility that he will be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally? Is that to say that every tumtum whose skin was torn is found to be a male and is not found to be a female? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said his opinion in the formulation of: Perhaps, which includes multiple uncertainties: A tumtum must not perform ḥalitza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a female, who can certainly not perform ḥalitza.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara wonders why Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda mentions only the possibility of a eunuch, as though every tumtum, once opened, turns out to be male. Of course some are found to be female. The answer is that his word ‘perhaps’ (שמא) covers more than one possibility. Perhaps the tumtum will be found female, and a woman obviously cannot perform chalitza.

Key Terms:

• אַטּוּ = is that to say
• מִשְׁתְּכַח = is found
• שֶׁמָּא קָאָמַר = he says ‘perhaps’ — the word is read as covering several possibilities

Segment 18

TYPE: תירוץ ושאלה

Or even if male, perhaps a congenital eunuch — what then separates Rabbi Yehuda from his son? Rava answers (43a)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי נָמֵי זָכָר נָמֵי, שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא סָרִיס חַמָּה. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא:

English Translation:

Alternatively, if he is found to be a male, he may also not perform ḥalitza, since perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. The Gemara asks: Since both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, agree that a tumtum may not perform ḥalitza for his brother’s wife, what is the practical difference between their opinions? Rava said:

קלאוד על הדף:

The double ‘perhaps’ is completed: even if the tumtum is found to be male, he might be a saris chamah. Since father and son both bar the tumtum from performing chalitza, the Gemara asks what practical difference lies between them. One sees him as a definite eunuch and the other as a possible eunuch, and the consequence must be identified. Rava’s answer begins at the end of the amud and continues on 43a.

Key Terms:

• אִי נָמֵי = alternatively
• מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ = what is the difference between them
• רָבָא = Rava, a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 42 is one long test of Rav Chisda’s principle from 41b: a tumtum (whose genitals are covered by skin) is not a distinct creature but simply a male or a female whose sex is hidden, and so it is sanctified out of doubt. Amud aleph sets six tannaitic sources against that principle: valuations (arakhin), the peace offering, the burnt offering, melika of disqualified birds, and Rabbi Elazar’s list of animals that are “not sacred and do not consecrate”. In each the Gemara gives the same answer, “omit the tumtum from here” (סמי מיכן טומטום). Where a baraita counts “five”, it even swaps the tumtum for an “orphan” animal. The defence finally seems to fail at a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, where deleting the tumtum would leave Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda saying nothing new. Amud bet saves the principle again: everyone agrees a tumtum is male or female, and the real argument is whether a tumtum animal that urinates from the female place may be a male with an inverted organ. This leads to Rabbi Yochanan’s surprise at Rabbi Elazar’s lenient ruling, Reish Lakish’s distinction between humans and animals, and the rule “since it has changed, it has changed” (הואיל ואישתני אישתני). The Gemara then asks whether that rule is a tannaitic dispute, using two baraitot on a tumtum’s betrothal, chalitza and yibbum. It traces them to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva over the congenital eunuch (saris chamah), and to Rabbi Yehuda and his son Rabbi Yosei. The daf ends as Rava begins to explain the difference between father and son.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Arakhin, part one: a baraita reads “the male” (Vayikra 27:3) as a certain male, excluding a tumtum and a hermaphrodite (androginos). If a tumtum is surely male or female, why is it excluded? Answer: delete the tumtum. Only the hermaphrodite, a being apart, is meant.
• Arakhin, part two: the baraita goes on to exclude both from even a woman’s valuation, since “if she is a female” means a certain female. This is sharper, since a tumtum should owe at least the lower sum. The same deletion answers it.
• The peace offering: “whether male or female” (Vayikra 3:1) means a definite male or definite female, and the baraita excludes a tumtum. Delete the tumtum.
• The burnt offering: the second “male” (Vayikra 1:10) excludes a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. No verse is needed to exclude a doubt, so this suggests a separate category. Delete the tumtum.
• Birds and melika: a baraita lists birds whose melika (the priest’s pinching of the nape) does not save them from the impurity a bird carcass imparts in the throat, because they are unfit for the altar. The list includes an idolatrous bird, a harlot’s fee, the price of a dog, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees on the last two. The Torah excludes them only where it specifies “male” or “female”, and bird offerings are described only as “turtledoves” or “young pigeons”. The first tanna disqualifies a tumtum bird even where sex does not matter, which seems to make it a defective, distinct creature. Delete the tumtum.
• Rabbi Elazar’s list: a tereifa, a hybrid (kilayim), an animal born by caesarean section (yotzei dofen), a tumtum and a hermaphrodite “are not sacred and do not consecrate”. Shmuel explains that this concerns temurah (substitution). A tumtum ought to be sacred at least out of doubt, so delete it.
• “Five” and the orphan: a version of the list states a number, five, so deleting the tumtum leaves four. The Gemara keeps the count by replacing the tumtum with the yatom, an animal born after its mother’s death. It goes this far to defend Rav Chisda.
• A tannaitic dispute after all? Rabbi Ilai in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: a hermaphrodite is a firstborn that comes with its blemish. The Rabbis: it acquires no sanctity. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “the male” (Devarim 15:19) excludes both a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Deleting the tumtum here would make Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda merely repeat the Rabbis. So it seems he holds that a tumtum is a distinct, non-sacred creature.

Amud Bet Highlights

• The proposal rejected: all agree that a tumtum is male or female. The dispute is about anatomy. A tumtum animal that urinates from the male place is surely male. When it urinates from the female place, the Rabbis fear the male organ may be inverted there, so it stays a doubtful firstborn. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda does not fear this and treats it as a female. This matches Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that such an animal is non-sacred.
• Rabbi Yochanan’s surprise: he wondered whom Rabbi Elazar follows, against the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael. Why not count the latter Rabbis against him too? Because Rabbi Yochanan rejects Rav Chisda and reads the latter Rabbis as treating a tumtum as non-sacred. His complaint is that Rabbi Elazar left two authorities to follow one.
• Reish Lakish: the doubt of a tumtum applies only to humans, whose male and female organs are in the same place. In an animal they are in different places, so the place of urination shows its sex. Rabbi Elazar’s ruling then follows from anatomy, not from a minority view.
• Rav Oshaya and Abaye: Rav Oshaya asks why we do not fear an inverted organ even in an animal. Abaye answers that this would be Rabbi Meir’s concern for the minority. The halacha follows the Rabbis, who go by the majority, and most animals that urinate from the female place are female.
• “Since it has changed, it has changed”: Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin defend Rav Oshaya even for the Rabbis. A creature that is already unusual may be unusual in other ways as well, so the majority of normal animals tells us nothing about it. They note that some accept this principle and some do not.
• Two baraitot on a human tumtum: both agree that a tumtum’s betrothal, whether he betroths or is betrothed, is valid out of doubt. The first says that he performs chalitza, and that his widow may receive chalitza or yibbum. The second says that his widow receives chalitza but not yibbum.
• The proposed link: assuming both baraitot follow Rabbi Akiva, who excludes a saris chamah from chalitza and yibbum, the first baraita rejects “it has changed”. A tumtum is not presumed also to be a eunuch. The second accepts the principle: perhaps he is a eunuch too, so his widow needs chalitza out of doubt but may not enter yibbum.
• Rejected: all accept “it has changed”. The lenient baraita follows Rabbi Eliezer, who allows yibbum with a eunuch’s wife, and the stringent one follows Rabbi Akiva.
• Whose baraita? It cannot be Rabbi Yehuda. In the mishna in Yevamot (81a) he rules that a tumtum torn open and found to be male is like a definite eunuch, so his widow would need no chalitza at all. It must be Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda: a tumtum does not perform chalitza “lest he be found” a saris chamah, which is only a possibility.
• The double “perhaps”: Rabbi Yosei’s “perhaps” covers two cases. Perhaps the tumtum is found to be female, or perhaps he is male but a congenital eunuch. Father and son both bar the tumtum from chalitza, so what separates them? Rava’s answer begins as the daf closes and continues on 43a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Rav Chisda’s principle survives every challenge on 42a, but at a price. Each source that seems to treat a tumtum as a creature apart is emended, so that only the hermaphrodite remains, and in one version the tumtum is replaced by the yatom to keep the count of five. The apparent tannaitic dispute is turned into a question of anatomy: whether a tumtum animal that urinates from the female place might be a male with an inverted organ. Reish Lakish’s position that urination settles an animal’s sex stands against Rav Oshaya’s objection, since the halacha follows the majority, while the brothers bar Avin hold that an anomalous creature may be anomalous twice. The baraitot on a tumtum’s yibbum do not prove that “it has changed” is disputed among tannaim. They reflect the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva over the saris chamah, and the stringent one follows Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. The practical difference between Rabbi Yehuda and his son is left for Rava on 43a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Ilai, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, the Rabbis

Amoraim: Rav Chisda, Rava, Shmuel, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Elazar (the amora), Reish Lakish, Rav Oshaya, Abaye, Abaye bar Avin, Rav Chananya bar Avin

One-Line Takeaway

The Gemara would rather emend six baraitot than give up a simple idea: a tumtum is not a third sex but a hidden male or female. The real question is how far an anomaly in one respect makes us doubt everything else about the creature.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is one big detective story about a טומטום (tumtum), a person or animal whose body is covered over so we simply can’t see whether it is a boy or a girl. The big question: is a tumtum a mystery (definitely a boy or a girl, we just don’t know which), or is it a whole separate category of its own? The Gemara checks source after source, and then the question spills over into marriage laws for people too!

Quick Reminder: The Mystery Box Question 🎁❓

At the end of yesterday’s daf, Rav Chisda said something important. Everyone agrees that an אנדרוגינוס (androginos, someone with signs of both a boy and a girl) might be its own special category. But a tumtum is different. A tumtum is just a mystery: underneath, it really is a boy or a girl. We just can’t see which.

The great Sage Rava didn’t agree so quickly. He started bringing sources that seem to treat a tumtum as a separate kind of being, not just a mystery. Today’s daf continues that challenge.

Think of it like… a wrapped birthday present. You don’t know what’s inside, but you know there’s something inside, a toy or a book. It’s not some third, magical kind of thing. It’s just wrapped!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Chisda says a tumtum is a wrapped present: definitely a boy or a girl, we just can’t see which.

The Magic Eraser ✏️🧽

Here’s how Rava pushes. He finds a ברייתא (baraita, a teaching from the time of the mishna) that leaves out a tumtum from some rule. Then he asks: “If a tumtum is really a boy or a girl, why leave it out? It should fit one of the two!”

And each time, the Gemara gives the same surprising answer: סמי מיכן טומטום (semi mikan tumtum), “erase the tumtum from here!” In other words, the word “tumtum” shouldn’t be in that baraita at all. Only the androginos belongs there.

Rava tries four sources in a row, and the eraser comes out every time:

Why is the second arakhin one so tricky? Because a tumtum is surely a man or a woman. So even if we’re not sure it should pay the man’s amount, it should at least pay the smaller, woman’s amount! The only way out: erase the tumtum.

Think of it like… a teacher checking a worksheet and finding one word that doesn’t fit. Instead of throwing out the whole worksheet, she just says, “Oh, that word slipped in by mistake. Cross it out.”

The Simple Idea 💡: To protect Rav Chisda’s idea, the Gemara keeps saying, “The word tumtum doesn’t belong in this teaching.”

The Bird Puzzle 🐦🕊️

Next comes a source about birds. Some background first:

• A bird that dies without being properly prepared is a נבילה (neveilah, a “carcass”). If a person eats a piece of a kosher bird’s neveilah, he becomes טמא (tamei, ritually impure) while it’s in his throat.
• For a bird offering, the kohen does מליקה (melika, a special pinch on the back of the bird’s neck). If the bird is allowed on the altar, melika works, and the bird doesn’t make anyone impure.
• But if the bird is not allowed on the altar, melika doesn’t help. It’s still a neveilah!

A baraita lists birds that are not allowed on the altar, so they still make you impure even after melika. The list includes birds connected to idol worship and some other problems, and also a tumtum bird and an androginos bird.

Rabbi Eliezer disagrees about those last two. He says: the Torah only leaves out tumtum and androginos where it talks about “boy” or “girl.” For bird offerings, the Torah just says “turtledoves” or “young pigeons” and never mentions boy or girl. So a tumtum bird is fine!

But wait! Then the first opinion, who says a tumtum bird is not fine, must think a tumtum is a whole separate kind of creature, like something broken! Out comes the eraser again: ✏️ “Erase the tumtum.” The first opinion only meant the androginos.

Think of it like… a soccer team that doesn’t care if you’re a boy or a girl. If they still won’t let you play, it can’t be because of boy-or-girl. It must be because they think something else is wrong. That’s why the Gemara has to erase the tumtum!

The Simple Idea 💡: For birds, boy-or-girl doesn’t matter, so leaving out a tumtum bird would mean it’s a “different creature.” The Gemara erases it again.

The List That Counted to Five 🖐️🔢

Now a new source. Rabbi Elazar says some animals are “not holy and don’t make holy.” His list: a טריפה (tereifa, an animal with a deadly injury), כלאים (kilayim, a mix of two different species), a יוצא דופן (yotzei dofen, born by an operation instead of the normal way), a tumtum and an androginos.

Shmuel explains that this is about תמורה (temurah, “swapping”). Normally, if you try to swap a holy animal for a regular one, both become holy! But these animals are so unfit that the swap just doesn’t work.

The Gemara again asks: a tumtum is a boy or a girl, so it should at least be holy just in case! And again: ✏️ “Erase the tumtum.”

But wait! Another version of this teaching says there are five animals on the list. If you erase the tumtum, you only have four! Now what?

The Gemara has a creative answer: take the tumtum out and put the יתום (yatom, an “orphan” animal, born after its mother died) in. The yatom is also not allowed on the altar, so the list still has five.

Think of it like… a basketball team that must have five players on the court. If the coach takes one player off, he has to send someone else on. You can’t just leave a hole!

The Simple Idea 💡: When the list says “five,” the Gemara can’t just erase the tumtum, so it swaps in the orphan animal instead.

Maybe the Sages Really Argue? 🤔⚔️

After all that erasing, the Gemara tries something new. Maybe the Sages of the mishna really do argue about this!

Here’s a baraita with three opinions:

• Rabbi Ilai (in the name of Rabbi Yishmael): an androginos firstborn comes “with its blemish built in,” so it can be eaten outside the Temple.
• The Rabbis: an androginos isn’t holy at all.
• Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda: the Torah’s word “the male” leaves out both a tumtum and an androginos.

The Gemara says: if we erase the tumtum from Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, he’s just saying the same thing as the Rabbis! Why would he bother? So the eraser doesn’t work here. Maybe he’s saying a tumtum is a whole separate kind of creature.

But no! The Gemara says everyone agrees: a tumtum is a wrapped present, a boy or a girl. The argument is about something else.

The Simple Idea 💡: Even when the Sages argue about the tumtum, nobody really thinks it’s a “third kind.” They argue about a different detail.

The Hidden Clue 🔎🐄

So what is the argument? It’s about a clue that helps us figure out an animal’s secret.

In an animal, the boy body-part and the girl body-part are in different places. So if a tumtum animal goes to the bathroom from the boy place, everyone agrees: it’s a boy.

But what if it goes to the bathroom from the girl place?

• The Rabbis worry: maybe it’s really a boy, and the boy part is just turned inward and hidden there. So it might still be a holy firstborn.
• Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda doesn’t worry about that: it’s a girl, and a girl animal isn’t a firstborn at all.

And Rabbi Elazar ruled just like Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda: that animal is חולין (chullin, regular, not holy).

Think of it like… a puppy who always comes running when you shake the treat bag. That’s a pretty good clue he’s hungry! Most of the time, a clue tells you the answer, even if there’s a tiny chance it’s tricking you.

The Simple Idea 💡: In an animal, where it goes to the bathroom is a clue to whether it’s a boy or a girl. The Sages argue whether to trust that clue.

”Who Follows One Instead of Two?” 🗳️

Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Elazar’s teacher, was surprised by Rabbi Elazar’s ruling. He said: the mishna’s first opinion and Rabbi Yishmael both say a tumtum is a mystery (maybe holy). That’s two opinions! Why did Rabbi Elazar follow just one Sage instead?

But wait! says the Gemara. According to Rav Chisda, the latter Rabbis of the mishna also think a tumtum is a mystery. That’s three opinions! Why didn’t Rabbi Yochanan say three?

Answer: Rabbi Yochanan simply doesn’t agree with Rav Chisda. He thinks the latter Rabbis say a tumtum is not holy, just like Rabbi Elazar. So Rabbi Elazar did have someone to lean on. Rabbi Yochanan’s complaint was: “Who leaves two opinions to follow one?” (מאן שביק תרי ועביד כחד, man shavik trei v’aveid k’chad).

Think of it like… a class vote about where to go on a trip. If two groups vote “zoo” and one group votes “museum,” the teacher would be surprised if you planned the trip to the museum!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yochanan wasn’t surprised that Rabbi Elazar had a source. He was surprised he followed the smaller side.

People Are Different From Animals 🧍🐑

Here’s another way to explain Rabbi Elazar. Reish Lakish taught: the real tumtum “mystery” is only for people.

Why? In a person, the boy part and the girl part would be in the same area. So if that area is covered, we truly can’t tell. In an animal, they’re in different places, so we can just check where it goes to the bathroom, and the mystery is solved!

Rav Oshaya objected: “Maybe in the animal, the boy part is turned inward and hiding in the girl place!”

Abaye answered: that worry belongs to Rabbi Meir, who always worries about the מיעוט (mi’ut, the small minority, the rare case). But the halacha follows the Rabbis, who go by the רוב (rov, the majority). And most animals that go to the bathroom from the girl place really are girls!

Think of it like… a big bag of red candies with maybe one green one hiding somewhere. If you reach in and grab one without looking, you say “it’s probably red.” You don’t worry about the one rare green candy every single time.

The Simple Idea 💡: We usually follow the majority, so an animal that goes from the girl place is treated as a girl.

”Once It’s Different, It’s Different” 🔄🦄

Two brothers, Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin, stood up for Rav Oshaya. They said: the majority rule works for normal animals. But a tumtum animal is already unusual! Once something is different in one way, maybe it’s different in other ways too.

This idea is called הואיל ואישתני אישתני (ho’il v’ishtani ishtani), “since it has changed, it has changed.” And the brothers add: some Sages accept this idea, and some don’t.

Think of it like… a bike that already has a wobbly wheel. Most bikes have perfectly normal brakes. But if this bike is already wobbly, you might want to check the brakes extra carefully before you ride!

The Simple Idea 💡: If something is already unusual in one way, some Sages say we can’t assume it’s normal in other ways.

The Tumtum and Marriage 💍📜

Now the Gemara asks: do the Tannaim (the Sages of the mishna’s time) argue about “once it’s different, it’s different”? To check, it brings two baraitot about a person who is a tumtum.

First, some words we need:

• קידושין (kiddushin, “betrothal”): the first step of a Jewish marriage.
• יבום (yibbum): if a man dies without children, his brother may marry the widow, to continue the family.
• חליצה (chalitza): a special ceremony with a shoe that frees the widow from that bond, so she can marry someone else.
• סריס חמה (saris chamah): a man who, from the time he was born, could never have children.

Baraita #1 says:

• A tumtum’s betrothal works either way, just in case: he can betroth a woman (in case he’s a man), or be betrothed by a man (in case she’s a woman).
• A tumtum can do chalitza for his brother’s widow.
• And if he dies with no children, his brother can do chalitza or even yibbum with his wife.

Baraita #2 says: the tumtum’s wife does chalitza, but not yibbum.

Why the difference? Both baraitot seem to follow Rabbi Akiva, who says a saris chamah’s wife is not part of yibbum at all. So the Gemara suggests:

The Simple Idea 💡: The Gemara tries to show that two old teachings argue about “once it’s different, it’s different,” using marriage laws as the test.

Plot Twist! 🌀👨‍👦

But no! says the Gemara. Maybe both baraitot agree that a tumtum might also be a saris chamah. They just follow different Sages:

• Baraita #1 follows Rabbi Eliezer, who says even a saris chamah’s wife can have yibbum. So the worry doesn’t matter!
• Baraita #2 follows Rabbi Akiva, who says she can’t.

Then the Gemara asks: who is the Sage behind Baraita #2? It’s not Rabbi Yehuda. He says a tumtum who is opened up and found to be a man is definitely like a saris chamah, so his wife wouldn’t need chalitza at all.

It must be his son, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. He says a tumtum doesn’t do chalitza “שמא” (shema, “maybe”) he’ll be found to be a saris chamah. “Maybe,” not “definitely”!

And the Gemara adds: that “maybe” covers more than one thing. Maybe the tumtum is really a woman (and a woman can’t do chalitza). Or, even if he’s a man, maybe he’s a saris chamah.

So the father says “definitely” and the son says “maybe.” But they both say a tumtum doesn’t do chalitza! So what’s the real difference between them? Rava starts to answer… and we’ll find out on the next daf! 📖

Think of it like… a dad who says, “It’s definitely going to rain, take an umbrella,” and his son who says, “It might rain, take an umbrella.” They both tell you to take the umbrella! So when would their different words ever matter? Stay tuned!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yehuda says “definitely,” his son says “maybe,” and tomorrow we’ll learn when that difference really matters.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Rav Chisda says a tumtum is like a wrapped present: really a boy or a girl, we just can’t see which.
• Rava brings source after source that seems to say otherwise, and the Gemara keeps saying “✏️ erase the tumtum” from them.
• When a list counts to five, the Gemara swaps the tumtum for the orphan animal instead.
• Everyone agrees a tumtum isn’t a “third kind.” In animals, where it goes to the bathroom is a clue, and the Sages argue whether to trust it.
• Rabbi Yochanan asks, “Who follows one opinion instead of two?”
• Reish Lakish: the real mystery is only in people; in animals, the clue usually solves it. We follow the majority.
• “Once it’s different, it’s different”: some Sages say an unusual creature might be unusual in other ways too.
• The Gemara tests this with marriage laws for a tumtum, and ends on a cliffhanger: what’s the difference between Rabbi Yehuda’s “definitely” and his son’s “maybe”?

⚖️ Halacha

Tumtum and Androginos on the Altar

Source in Daf: 42a, Segments 3-4 (the baraitot on shelamim, “whether male or female,” and on the olah’s second “male,” both excluding a tumtum and a hermaphrodite; the Gemara’s repeated answer “delete the tumtum”), and 42a, Segment 7 (the inference that a tumtum is unfit even as a bird offering)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 3:3

Hebrew:

הַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן פְּסוּלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִדֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת לְפִי שֶׁהֵן סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין אַחֵר. וּבַקָּרְבָּנוֹת נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא א-ג) (ויקרא א-י) (ויקרא ד-כג) “זָכָר תָּמִים” וּ(ויקרא ד-לב) “נְקֵבָה תְּמִימָה” עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זָכָר וַדַּאי אוֹ נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית. לְפִיכָךְ אַף הָעוֹף שֶׁהוּא טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס פָּסוּל לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

English:

Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum or an androgynus, they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: “a perfect male” and “a perfect female.” [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl which is a tumtum or an androgynus is unacceptable for the altar.

Connection: This halacha is the practical outcome of the long run of baraitot on 42a. The Gemara’s question throughout was why a verse is needed to exclude a tumtum if it is merely a male or a female in doubt; the baraitot sound as though the tumtum were a third kind. The Rambam’s formulation holds both ideas together: the tumtum and androginos are “a doubt whether male or female” (ספק זכר ספק נקבה), and for that very reason “they are like another species” (כמין אחר) as far as the altar is concerned. The verses “a perfect male” and “a perfect female” demand a definite male or a definite female (זכר ודאי או נקבה ודאית), the same phrase the shelamim baraita uses in Segment 3. So the exclusion does not depend on the tumtum being a distinct creature; it depends on the altar’s demand for certainty. The Rambam also opens with a striking observation: there is “no blemish greater” than these, yet technically they are disqualified not as blemished animals but on a separate ground. That distinction matters for consecration and temurah below. The last clause, that even a tumtum bird is unfit, is the Rambam’s ruling on the dispute in Segments 5-7: he follows the first tanna of the baraita against Rabbi Eliezer, who had held that a tumtum is excluded only where “male and female” is written.

These Temple-era laws are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

The Tumtum Bird and Impurity After Melika

Source in Daf: 42a, Segments 5-7 (the baraita listing birds that impart impurity in the throat even after melika, because they are unfit for the altar: an idol, one set aside for idolatry, a harlot’s fee, the price of a dog, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite; Rabbi Eliezer’s dissent; the inference about the first tanna)

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 3:12

Hebrew:

עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְרַף וְנִשְׁחַט שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחַט בָּעֲזָרָה. וְאִם נִמְלַק וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה אֵין מְלִיקָתוֹ מְטַהֲרְתּוֹ. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף טָהוֹר בֵּין בַּחוּץ בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין קָדָשִׁים בֵּין חֻלִּין הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. וְהַמּוֹלֵק חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה:

English:

When a fowl from a kosher species becomes tereifah, but was slaughtered in a kosher manner, the slaughter causes it to be considered pure. This applies even if it was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. If its head was snipped off through melikah and it was discovered to be tereifah, the melikah does not cause it to be considered as pure. Thus it can be inferred that when one slaughters a fowl from a kosher species, whether outside the Temple Courtyard or inside of it, whether the fowl is consecrated or not, it is pure. Whether one performs melikah on ordinary fowl within the Temple Courtyard or consecrated fowl outside the Temple Courtyard, they impart impurity to a person and his garments when in the gullet.

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 3:13

Hebrew:

הַמּוֹלֵק קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים אִם הָיוּ רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן וְלֹא נִמְצְאוּ בָּהֶן מוּמִין שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שֶׁנֶּעֱרֶפֶת כְּהִלְכָתָהּ טְהוֹרָה כַּפָּרָה כְּתִיב בָּהּ כְּקָדָשִׁים. וְכֵן אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה אַחַר יְרִידָתָהּ לַנַּחַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה הִצִּילָה אוֹתָהּ שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה:

English:

When one performs melikah on consecrated fowl in the Temple Courtyard, if they are fit for a sacrifice and do not have disqualifying blemishes, as explained in its place, they are pure. Similarly, when a calf that has its neck broken as required by law, it is pure, for “atonement” is mentioned with regard to it, as with regard to sacrificial offerings. Similarly, if it was slaughtered after it was taken down to the wadi, even though it is forbidden to benefit from it, the slaughter prevents it from being considered as an impure carcass.

Connection: These two halachot state the principle behind the baraita of Segment 5. Melika is not slaughter; it is a priestly act that works only as part of a valid offering. Shechita purifies any kosher bird, inside or outside, sacred or not. Melika purifies only a consecrated bird, in the Courtyard, that is “fit for a sacrifice” (ראויין לקרבן). Any bird that fails that test remains the carcass of a kosher bird (נבלת עוף טהור), and an olive-bulk of it in the throat (בית הבליעה) renders the eater and his garments impure. The Rambam does not repeat the baraita’s list in this place; he sends the reader to the laws of the altar (“as explained in its place”). Read together with Issurei Mizbeach 3:3 above, which rules that a tumtum or androginos bird is “unacceptable for the altar,” the result is exactly the first tanna’s ruling in our baraita: melika on a tumtum bird does not save it from the impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Eliezer, who held the tumtum bird fit (Segment 6), would have counted its melika as purifying; the Rambam’s ruling on the altar question settles the impurity question as well.

These Temple-era laws are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

No Valuation for a Tumtum or Androginos

Source in Daf: 42a, Segments 1-2 (Rava’s challenge from the arakhin baraita: “the male” (Vayikra 27:3) excludes the tumtum and the hermaphrodite; and “if she is a female” teaches that not even a woman’s valuation applies; the answer, “delete the tumtum”)

Rambam — Hilchot Arakhin vaCharamin 1:5

Hebrew:

טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין לָהֶם עֵרֶךְ שֶׁלֹּא קָצְבָה תּוֹרָה עֵרֶךְ אֶלָּא לְזָכָר וַדַּאי אוֹ לִנְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית. לְפִיכָךְ טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁאָמַר עֶרְכִּי עָלַי אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱרִיכוֹ אַחֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּלוּם:

English:

There is no airech for a tumtum or an androgynus, for the Torah prescribed an airech only for a male whose status is definite or a female whose status is definite. Therefore if a tumtum or an androgynus says: “I pledge my airech,” or another person pledges their airech, their statements are of no consequence.

Connection: The Gemara’s difficulty in Segment 2 was sharp: if a tumtum is surely either a man or a woman, he should owe at least the smaller sum, the woman’s valuation, since that much is certainly due. The Rambam rules with the baraita in full, including the tumtum: no valuation at all, neither the man’s nor the woman’s. And he gives the reason in the baraita’s own words, “a definite male or a definite female” (זכר ודאי או נקבה ודאית). The valuation is not a debt measured by the person’s sex in fact; it is a fixed sum the Torah attached to defined categories, and a person outside those categories, even only by doubt, has no fixed sum. This is the same move as in the laws of the altar: the Rambam does not need to say that the tumtum is a בריה בפני עצמה; the Torah’s demand for certainty excludes him. The Rambam’s next halacha (1:9, in the same chapter) adds the contrast: one who pledges the “value” (דמים) of a tumtum or androginos pays his market worth, since a pledge of value, unlike a valuation, does not depend on a Torah category.

These Temple-era laws are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

Neither Becoming Sacred Nor Conferring Sanctity

Source in Daf: 42a, Segments 8-10 (Rabbi Elazar’s statement that a tereifa, a kilayim, a yotzei dofen, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite neither become sacred nor confer sanctity; Shmuel’s explanation that this refers to temurah; the challenge that a tumtum should be sacred out of doubt; the version listing “five,” answered by removing the tumtum and inserting the orphan)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 3:10

Hebrew:

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וּטְרֵפָה וְכִלְאַיִם וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עַל גּוּפָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאֵינָן כְּבַעַל מוּם שֶׁבַּעַל מוּם יֵשׁ בְּמִינוֹ קָרְבָּן. אֲבָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע וּמֻקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד וְאֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר. וְיִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם קָבוּעַ וְיִפָּדוּ עָלָיו. וְכֵן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

English:

One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood, for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires. It is not considered like a blemished animal, for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal. When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog, it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish. Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.

Connection: The Rambam’s list of five, tumtum, androginos, tereifa, kilayim and yotzei dofen, is exactly the list of Rabbi Elazar’s baraita in Segment 8, with the tumtum still in it. “Holiness does not take effect on their body” is the first half of the baraita, “they do not become sacred.” Their status is that of wood or stones: the words of consecration attach only to their value, the animal is sold at once and the money buys an offering. The Rambam then draws the line the Gemara relies on throughout the perek: an animal with a blemish is still of a species that can be offered (יש במינו קרבן), so holiness can take hold of it; these five are of a kind that can never be offered, and so are outside sanctity altogether. The animals of the 42a bird baraita (the idol, the harlot’s fee, the price of a dog) fall on the other side of the line: they are like a temporary blemish and must pasture until a permanent blemish appears.

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 1:17

Hebrew:

הַמֵּמִיר בְּכִלְאַיִם אוֹ בִּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן אוֹ בְּטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין הַקְּדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהֵמִיר בְּגָמָל אוֹ בַּחֲמוֹר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינָן קָרְבָּן וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מָה בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְבַעַל מוּם. בַּעַל מוּם יֵשׁ בְּמִינָן קָרְבָּן. אֵלּוּ אֵין בְּמִינָם קָרְבָּן:

English:

When one seeks to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a hybrid, an animal that is tereifah, one born of Caesarian section, a tumtum, or an adrogynus, the holiness is not transferred to them and it is as if one sought to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to a camel or a donkey. The rationale is that this type of animal is not fit for sacrifice. Therefore one who tries to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to it is not liable for lashes. What is the difference between these and an animal that is blemished? There is the possibility of the type of animal that is blemished serving as a sacrifice, while these types of animals cannot serve as sacrifices.

Connection: This is Shmuel’s reading of the baraita in Segment 9: “they do not become sacred” means that an attempted exchange (temurah) does not take hold of them. A blemished animal, by contrast, does become a temurah, as the Torah explicitly says that the substitute is sacred “good for bad.” The Rambam’s comparison to “a camel or a donkey” makes the point vividly: an animal outside the sacrificial species is as unconnected to the altar as a beast of a different kind, so no lashes are incurred for the exchange. The Gemara in Segment 9 asked why a tumtum should not at least become sacred out of doubt, since it might be a male of a fit species. The Rambam, following the baraita as it stands, includes the tumtum in the list. His ruling in Issurei Mizbeach 3:3 explains why: since the altar requires a definite male or female, a tumtum “is like another species,” and a doubt of sex does not make it an animal “of whose species an offering is brought.”

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 4:8

Hebrew:

וַלְדוֹת הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ דֹּפֶן. אוֹ שֶׁיָּלְדוּ טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְכִלְאַיִם וּטְרֵפָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפָּדוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן קָרְבָּן הָרָאוּי לְהָבִיא בִּדְמֵי וָלָד שֶׁל זוֹ:

English:

When the offspring of sacrificial animals were born through Caesarian section, as a tumtum, an androgynus, a hybrid, or a tereifah, they should be redeemed and a sacrificial animal that is fit to be brought with the money from the sale of these offspring should be brought.

Connection: The baraita’s second half, “they do not confer sanctity” (ולא מקדשין), concerns the other direction: these animals cannot pass holiness on. Here the Rambam addresses the same five when they are born to a consecrated mother. The offspring cannot itself be offered, so it is redeemed and its value is used for the offering its mother’s offspring would have been. The same list of five appears for a third time, showing that the Rambam treats Rabbi Elazar’s baraita, tumtum included, as a single legal category running through the laws of the altar, of temurah, and of consecrated offspring.

These Temple-era laws are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

The Tumtum Firstborn and the Place of Urination

Source in Daf: 42a, Segments 11-12 and 42b, Segments 1-2 (the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda: if the tumtum urinates from the male place, all agree it is male; from the female place, the Rabbis fear the male organ is inverted, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda does not; Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that such a firstborn is non-sacred), and 42b, Segments 3-7 (Rabbi Yochanan’s surprise; Reish Lakish’s distinction between a person and an animal; Rav Oshaya’s objection, Abaye’s reply that this is Rabbi Meir’s concern for a minority, and the principle “since it has changed, it has changed”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 2:5

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר שֶׁהוּא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין בּוֹ קְדֻשָּׁה כְּלָל. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּנְקֵבָה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. וְעוֹבְדִים בּוֹ וְגוֹזְזִים אוֹתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין. נוֹלַד טֻמְטוּם הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק בְּכוֹר וְיֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. בֵּין שֶׁהֵטִיל מַיִם מִמְּקוֹם זִכְרוּת בֵּין שֶׁהֵטִיל מִמְּקוֹם נַקְבוּת:

English:

When a firstborn animal is an androgynus, it does not have any sacred quality associated with it. It is like a female, concerning which the priest has no claim at all. One may perform labor with it and shear it like other ordinary animals. When an animal is born as a tumtum, it is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status. It may be eaten by its owner after it contracts a blemish. This applies whether it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is male or it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is female.

Connection: The Rambam rules with the first tanna of the mishna (41a) and Rabbi Yishmael, the “two” whom, in Rabbi Yochanan’s words (42b, Segment 4), Rabbi Elazar should not have abandoned. The tumtum firstborn is a doubtful firstborn (ספק בכור): since the priest cannot prove it is a male, he cannot take it from the owner, but it carries sanctity and may be eaten by the owner only once it has a blemish. The androginos, by contrast, is treated as a distinct entity and has no sanctity at all, matching Rav Chisda’s reading that the Rabbis’ dispute concerns only the hermaphrodite. The final clause is the Rambam’s position on the 42b debate, and it is the most striking line in the halacha: the tumtum remains a doubt “whether it urinates from the male place or from the female place.” He does not adopt Rabbi Elazar’s ruling or Reish Lakish’s sign of urination, and he does not even accept the point on which, according to the Gemara, everyone agreed (urination from the male place proves it is male). The commentators discuss how the Rambam reads the sugya; whatever his reasoning, the practical result is that no external sign resolves the status of a tumtum firstborn.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:2

Hebrew:

יוצא דופן ושנולד אחריו דרך רחם שניהם אינם בכור אפי’ ילדה נקבה תחלה דרך דופן וזכר אחריה דרך רחם כיון שקדמו אחר בכור שהוא טומטום הרי זה ספק בכור ויאכל במומו לבעליו ודוקא במטיל מים במקום נקבות אבל אם מטיל מים במקום זכרות בכור ודאי הוא וצריך ליתנו לכהן. (טור בשם הרא”ש ולא כרמב”ם):

English (our translation; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

A yotzei dofen and the one born after it through the womb are both not a firstborn, even if a female was born first through the side and a male after her through the womb, since another preceded it. A firstborn that is a tumtum is a doubtful firstborn, and it is eaten in its blemish by its owner. This applies only when it urinates from the place of the female organ; but if it urinates from the place of the male organ, it is a definite firstborn and must be given to the kohen. (The Tur in the name of the Rosh, and not like the Rambam.)

Connection: Here the Shulchan Aruch openly departs from the Rambam and says so (“and not like the Rambam”). Following the Tur and the Rosh, it rules according to the Gemara’s statement on 42b, Segment 2: “if it urinates from the place of the male organ, everyone agrees that it is a male.” Such an animal is a definite firstborn and belongs to the kohen. When it urinates from the female place, the Shulchan Aruch keeps the Rabbis’ concern that the male organ may be inverted, so the animal is a doubtful firstborn, eaten by the owner once blemished. This rejects Rabbi Elazar’s ruling and Reish Lakish’s sign in the female case, siding instead with Rav Oshaya’s objection, as Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin defended it in Segment 7: once an animal is already unusual, its place of urination does not prove it is female. The first clause of the se’if, on the yotzei dofen and the one born after it, belongs to a different discussion and is quoted here only for completeness.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:3

Hebrew:

אנדרוגינוס הוא ספק בכור ויאכל במומו לבעלים:

English (our translation; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

An androginos is a doubtful firstborn, and it is eaten in its blemish by the owners.

Connection: On the androginos too the Shulchan Aruch differs from the Rambam. The Rambam (Bechorot 2:5) treats the androginos as having no sanctity at all, in line with the view, cited by Rav Chisda, that he is a distinct entity. The Shulchan Aruch treats him as a doubt, like the tumtum in the female case. The practical difference is in the period before a blemish: on the Shulchan Aruch’s view the animal may not be shorn or worked, while according to the Rambam it is ordinary property from birth. These two se’ifim are a reminder that the question with which 41b and 42a wrestle, whether the tumtum and androginos are doubts or a separate creation, still decides the fate of animals born today.

The Betrothal of a Tumtum

Source in Daf: 42b, Segment 8 (the baraita: a tumtum who betrothed a woman, his betrothal is a betrothal; one who was betrothed by a man, the betrothal is a betrothal)

Rambam — Hilchot Ishut 4:11

Hebrew:

טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ אִשָּׁה אוֹ שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁן אִישׁ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק וּצְרִיכִין גֵּט מִסָּפֵק:

English:

When a tumtum or an androgynous consecrates a woman, or when either of these individuals has been consecrated by a man, there is doubt whether these kiddushin are binding, and because of the doubt, a get is required.

Connection: The Rambam rules exactly as the baraita in Segment 8, and makes explicit what the Gemara’s explanation implied: the betrothal is valid “out of doubt” in either direction. If the tumtum is a male, his betrothal of a woman takes effect; if a female, the betrothal by a man does. In each case, then, a get is required to release the other party. Unlike the laws of the altar and valuations, where a doubtful sex disqualifies outright because the Torah requires a definite male or female, in marriage the doubt is handled by stringency on both sides. The Rambam extends the ruling to the androginos as well.

Rambam — Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25

Hebrew (2:24):

מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֵיבַר זִכְרוּת וְאֵיבַר נְקֵבוּת הוּא הַנִּקְרָא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְהוּא סָפֵק אִם זָכָר סָפֵק אִם נְקֵבָה. וְאֵין לוֹ סִימָן שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בּוֹ אִם הוּא זָכָר וַדַּאי אִם הִיא נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית לְעוֹלָם:

English (2:24):

A person who possesses both a male sexual organ and a female sexual organ is called an androgynous. There is doubt whether such a person should be classified as a male or as a female; there is no physical sign that can ever enable such a distinction to be made.

Hebrew (2:25):

וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לֹא זִכְרוּת וְלֹא נְקֵבוּת אֶלָּא אָטוּם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא טֻמְטוּם וְגַם הוּא סָפֵק. וְאִם נִקְרַע הַטֻּמְטוּם וְנִמְצָא זָכָר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּזָכָר וַדַּאי. וְאִם נִמְצָא נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי הוּא נְקֵבָה. וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁהָיוּ בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת גְּדוֹלִים וְהֵם שֶׁנְּדַבֵּר בָּהֶן בְּכָל מָקוֹם:

English (2:25):

A person who possesses neither a male sexual organ nor a female sexual organ, but instead, his genital area is a solid mass, is called a tumtum. There is also doubt with regard [to this person’s status]. If an operation is carried out and a male [organ is revealed], he is definitely considered to be a male. If a female [organ is revealed], she is definitely considered to be a female. When a tumtum or an androgynous reaches the age of twelve years and one day, they are assumed to be adults. Whenever these terms are mentioned, the intent is individuals of this age.

Connection: These definitions underlie the whole second half of 42b. The Rambam calls the human tumtum a doubt (ספק), which is Reish Lakish’s point in Segment 5: in a person, “the male organ and the female organ are in one place,” so when that place is covered there is no sign to rely on. The second clause is decisive for the end of the amud: a tumtum who is opened and found to be male “is like a definite male” (כזכר ודאי). This is the opposite of Rabbi Yehuda’s view in the mishna of Yevamot 81a (Segment 15), that a tumtum found to be male is “like a eunuch,” and also leaves no room for his son’s concern, “lest he be found a saris chamah” (Segment 16). Once opened and found male, the Rambam treats him as an ordinary man in every respect.

Shulchan Aruch — Even HaEzer 44:5

Hebrew:

טומטום ואנדרוגינוס או שקידשו או שקידשם איש קידושיהם ספק וצריכין גט מספק וי”א דאנדרוגינוס ודאי זכר (טור בשם התוס’ והרא”ש):

English:

A person of ambiguous gender or an androgynous person who betrothed a woman, or received betrothal from a man, are considered to be doubtfully betrothed and require a writ of divorce to remove the doubt. Rem”a: Some authorities say that an androgynous is definitively male.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch copies the Rambam and the baraita of Segment 8 word for word: doubtful betrothal in both directions, with a get required. The Rema adds a dissenting view for the androginos, citing the Tur in the name of Tosafot and the Rosh, that he is a definite male. That view sharpens the contrast with the tumtum: the androginos has a male organ, which on this view settles his status, whereas the tumtum has no visible organ at all, so his doubt remains.

The Saris Chamah and the Levirate Bond

Source in Daf: 42b, Segments 9-13 (the two baraitot on the tumtum and yibbum: one permits chalitza or yibbum with his wife, the other chalitza only; the assumption that both follow Rabbi Akiva, who rules that a saris chamah neither performs chalitza nor yibbum; the rejection: one baraita follows Rabbi Eliezer and the other Rabbi Akiva)

Rambam — Hilchot Yibbum vaChalitzah 6:2

Hebrew:

וְאֵלּוּ הֵם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן זִקָּה כְּלָל. סְרִיס חַמָּה וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לֵילֵד וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת הַכּשֶׁר:

English:

With regard to the following, [the deceased’s wives] have no obligation at all: a saris chamah and an androgynous, for they are not fit to father children, nor had they been at any time.

Rambam — Hilchot Yibbum vaChalitzah 6:8

Hebrew:

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁהֵן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם. אֵשֶׁת סְרִיס חַמָּה וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְאֵשֶׁת הַשּׁוֹטֶה וְאֵשֶׁת הַקָּטָן וְאַיְלוֹנִית וּמִי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ו) ״וְלֹא יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״‎‎ פְּרָט לִסְרִיס חַמָּה וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁשְּׁמָם מָחוּי הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לֵילֵד מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. (דברים כה ו) ״וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד״‎‎ פְּרָט לְאַיְלוֹנִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ. (דברים כה ה) ״לֹא תִּהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת״‎‎ פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אִישׁוּת כְּלָל. (דברים כה ה) ״וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״‎‎ פְּרָט לְעֶרְוָה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ לִקּוּחִין:

English:

The following are not obligated to perform either chalitzah or yibbum: the wife of a saris chamah or the wife of an androgynous, the wife of a mentally incompetent person or the wife of a minor, an aylonit, or a woman forbidden [to her yavam] as one of the arayot. [The rationale for these laws is as follows. Deuteronomy 25:6 states that yibbum was instituted:] “So that the name of [the deceased] not be obliterated within Israel.” This excludes the wife of a saris chamah or the wife of an androgynous, for their names are “obliterated” by nature. Since they are inherently unfit to father children, they are considered to be a separate category. [The verse continues:] “And the firstborn that she bears.” This excludes an aylonit, who is, by nature, incapable of bearing a child. It is written [ibid:5]: “The wife of the deceased…” This excludes the wife of a mentally incompetent person or the wife of a minor - for with regard to them, there is no concept of marriage at all. [The verse continues:] “And he will take her as a wife.” This excludes a woman forbidden [to her yavam] as one of the arayot, for she cannot be taken as a wife.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Akiva, the premise the Gemara assumed in Segment 10 and then assigned to only one of the two baraitot in Segment 13. A saris chamah, one who was never capable of fathering children (לא היה להן שעת הכשר), is entirely outside the levirate system: he neither performs chalitza nor yibbum (6:2), and his widow is exempt from both (6:8). Rabbi Eliezer’s view, which the lenient baraita follows according to the Gemara’s conclusion, is not adopted. The Rambam’s reason is notable: the saris chamah and androginos are, for yibbum, “like a separate kind” (כמין בפני עצמו), the same phrase the Gemara uses for the androginos as a בריה בפני עצמה. In Hilchot Ishut (4:10) the Rambam rules that the betrothal of a saris chamah is fully valid, so his wife is truly his wife; she is exempt from yibbum not because the marriage is lacking but because the purpose of yibbum, “that his name not be erased,” cannot apply to one who could never have had children.

Shulchan Aruch — Even HaEzer 172:1

Hebrew:

סריס חמה (פירוש שנסתרס ע”י קדחת ערוך) ואיילונית (פירוש איילונית שיש לה טבע זכר כלומר שאינה יולדת ואיילונית נגזר מאיל שהוא זכר הצאן) אינם בני חליצה ויבום לפיכך איילונית ודאית שחלצה לא נפסלה לכהונה וכן סריס חמה שחלץ או שחלצו לאשתו אינו כלום: הגה היה ספק סריס חולץ ולא מחזקינן ליה בודאי סריס אלא אם ראו בו שנולד א’ מסימני סריס כגון שהטיל מים ולא עשה כיפה אבל בלאו הכי יש לחוש שנתקלקל אחר לידתו וצריך לחלוץ (ריב”ש סימן תע”ד) היה לאיילונית ודאית צרה מותרת להתייבם:

English (our translation; the Sefaria English for this se’if is loose):

A saris chamah (explanation: one who became impotent through fever, Arukh) and an aylonit (explanation: an aylonit is one who has a male nature, that is, she does not give birth; aylonit derives from ayil, the male of the flock) are not subject to chalitza and yibbum. Therefore a definite aylonit who performed chalitza is not disqualified from marrying a kohen, and likewise a saris chamah who performed chalitza, or with whose wife chalitza was performed, it is nothing. Rema: If he was a doubtful saris, he performs chalitza; we do not presume him to be a definite saris unless one of the signs of a saris was seen in him from birth, for example that he urinated and did not form an arc. Without this, we must be concerned that he was damaged after his birth, and he must perform chalitza (Rivash, siman 474). If a definite aylonit had a co-wife, the co-wife is permitted to enter yibbum.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch codifies Rabbi Akiva’s ruling, the premise of Segment 10, in its strongest form: chalitza by or with a saris chamah is “nothing,” a ceremony without legal effect. The Rema’s gloss is the practical heir of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning in Segment 16. Where it is only possible that a man is a saris chamah, the possibility is not ignored but handled by stringency: he must perform chalitza, since if he is a fertile man his brother’s widow is bound to him, and the doubt cannot be resolved by assuming the unusual. This is the same structure the Gemara uses for the tumtum’s widow in Segment 12: chalitza out of doubt, without yibbum.

The Tumtum Who Is Opened: Rabbi Yehuda and His Son

Source in Daf: 42b, Segments 14-18 (which tanna follows Rabbi Akiva and still requires chalitza; not Rabbi Yehuda, who rules in the mishna of Yevamot 81a that a tumtum torn open and found male does not perform chalitza, “because he is like a eunuch”; rather Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda: “a tumtum does not perform chalitza, lest he be torn open and found a saris chamah”; the double “perhaps”: perhaps female, perhaps a saris chamah)

Rambam — Hilchot Yibbum vaChalitzah 6:4

Hebrew:

וְאֵלּוּ חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. הַסְּפֵקוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה סְפֵק עֶרְוָה עַל אָחִיו. וּפְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִמִּינֵי הַסֵּרוּס. וְהַזָּקֵן בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחוֹ וְכָשַׁל. וְאִם בָּעַל סְרִיס אָדָם קָנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּשֶׁר וּמוֹצִיא בְּגֵט מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל. וְהַטֻּמְטוּם חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. וְאִם נִקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר רָצָה חוֹלֵץ רָצָה מְיַבֵּם. וּשְׁאָר הָאַחִין אוֹ חוֹלְצִין אוֹ מְיַבְּמִין:

English:

These are [the brothers] who are fit to perform the rite of chalitzah, but not the rite of yibbum: those whose status is in doubt - e.g., there is a doubt whether a yevamah is forbidden to [the deceased’s] brother, a man with crushed testicles, or a crushed member, or who has been castrated in any other way, and an elderly man whose virility has been weakened and he is incapable. If [a yavam] who has been castrated enters into relations [with his yevamah], he acquires [her as a wife], for there was a time when he was sexually potent. He must, however, divorce her with a get, because he is forbidden to marry [a native-born Jewess]. A tumtum should perform chalitzah, but not yibbum, because his status is one of doubt. If an operation is performed, and it is revealed that he is a male, he may perform either chalitzah or yibbum, as he desires. Brothers [of the deceased who are not in any of the categories listed above] may perform either chalitzah or yibbum.

Connection: The Rambam’s ruling on the tumtum as levir agrees with the first baraita of Segment 9 (“the tumtum performs chalitza”) and not with either Rabbi Yehuda or his son. Rabbi Yehuda (Segment 15) holds that even a tumtum found to be male does not perform chalitza, “because he is like a eunuch”; Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda (Segment 16) bars an unopened tumtum from chalitza, “lest he be found a saris chamah,” whose chalitza would release no one. The Rambam permits the unopened tumtum to perform chalitza, though not yibbum, because his sex is in doubt. This is the only mention of the tumtum in all of Hilchot Yibbum vaChalitzah; the Rambam does not separately address his widow. And once he is opened and found male, he may choose chalitza or yibbum like any brother. That is the direct consequence of Ishut 2:25: a tumtum found male is “like a definite male,” with no residual concern that he is a saris chamah. In terms of the Gemara’s debate, the Rambam does not apply “since it has changed, it has changed” to the human tumtum’s fertility: the one anomaly, the covered organs, does not imply a second one.

Shulchan Aruch — Even HaEzer 172:9

Hebrew:

טומטום חולץ ולא מייבם מפני שהוא ספק ואם נקרע ונמצא זכר רצה חולץ רצה מייבם ויש מי שאומר שהוא ספק ולחומרא:

English (our translation; the Sefaria English for this se’if is loose):

A tumtum performs chalitza but not yibbum, because he is a doubt. And if he was torn open and found to be a male, if he wishes he performs chalitza, if he wishes he performs yibbum. And there is one who says that he is a doubt, and to be treated stringently.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch adopts the Rambam’s ruling word for word, but adds a minority view (“there is one who says”) that even a tumtum opened and found male remains a doubt, to be treated stringently. That view echoes the concern of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda in Segment 16, as the Gemara explains it in Segments 17-18: even if the tumtum turns out to be male, perhaps he is a saris chamah. The main ruling, however, follows the Rambam against Rabbi Yehuda: once his organs are revealed as male, a tumtum is a full levir.

Shulchan Aruch — Even HaEzer 172:8

Hebrew:

אנדרוגינוס אינו בר חליצה ויבום וי”א שדינו כזכר לכל דבר:

English:

An androgynous [somebody who has both male and female parts] is not able to perform chalitzah or yibum. Some say he is considered a male for everything.

Connection: The adjacent se’if completes the picture of the categories that run through our daf. The androginos is outside the levirate system altogether, like the saris chamah, as the Rambam ruled in 6:2. The tumtum is different: he is not a separate category but a doubt, so he performs chalitza to be safe. That contrast, androginos as a being apart and tumtum as a doubt of male or female, is the very conclusion the Gemara reached on 42b, Segment 1: “everyone agrees that a tumtum is not a distinct entity; the doubt is whether it is male or female.” The minority view that the androginos is a male for all purposes is the same one the Rema cited in Even HaEzer 44:5.

Summary of Rulings