Bekhorot — Daf 42a

אלמה תניא (ויקרא כז ג) הזכר ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס סמי מיכן טומטום

ת"ש יכול לא יהא בערך איש אבל יהא בערך אשה ת"ל הזכר אם נקבה ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס סמי מיכן טומטום

ת"ש (ויקרא ג, א) אם זכר אם נקבה זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס סמי מיכן טומטום

ת"ש הזכר ולא נקבה כשהוא אומר למטה זכר שאין ת"ל מה ת"ל להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס סמי מיכן טומטום

ת"ש הנעבד והמוקצה והאתנן והמחיר וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס כולן מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה

ר"א אומר טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה שהיה ר"א אומר כל מקום שנאמר זכר ונקבה אתה מוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מביניהם

ועוף הואיל ולא נאמר בו זכר ונקבה אין אתה מוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מביניהם סמי מיכן טומטום

ת"ש ר' אלעזר אומר הטריפה והכלאים ויוצא דופן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא קדושים ולא מקדישין

ואמר שמואל לא קדושים בתמורה ולא מקדישין לעשות תמורה סמי מיכן טומטום

ת"ש ר' אלעזר אומר חמשה לא קדושים ולא מקדישין ואלו הן הטריפה והכלאים ויוצא דופן וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס וכי תימא ה"נ סמי מיכן טומטום הוו להו ארבעה אפיק טומטום ועייל יתום

לימא כתנאי רבי אילעאי אומר משום ר' ישמעאל אנדרוגינוס בכור הוא ומומו עמו וחכמים אומרים אין קדושה חלה עליו ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש הרי הוא אומר הזכר וכל מקום שנאמר זכר אינו אלא להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

וכי תימא סמי מיכן טומטום ר"ש בן יהודה היינו רבנן אלא לאו טומטום איכא בינייהו דת"ק סבר אין קדושה חלה עליו אאנדרוגינוס אבל טומטום ספיקא הוא וקדוש מספיקא ואתא רבי שמעון

Why then is it taught: [Scripture says]: ‘Of the male’,1 [intimating] the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite?2 — Delete tumtum from this [Baraitha]. Come and hear: You might think that the case of a tumtum or that of a hermaphrodite is not included in the [law of] valuation relating to a man but is included in the law of valuation of a woman.3 There are two texts, therefore, ‘Of the male’, ‘And if it be a female’,4 [intimating] the exclusion of tumtum and hermaphrodite. — Delete tumtum from this [Baraitha].5 Come and hear: [Scripture says]: ‘ Whether it be a male or a female’,6 [intimating], the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite?7 — Delete tumtum from this [Baraitha]. Come and hear: [Scripture says]: ‘A male’,8 [intimating] but not a female. When therefore [Scripture] repeats below ‘a male’9 which there is no need to say, it intimates the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite.10 — Delete tumtum from [the Baraitha]. Come and hear: [Doves] worshipped as an idol or assigned to idolatrous purposes or a harlot's hire [as an offering] or the price obtaining by selling a harlot [and brought as an offering], or a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, — all these make garments unclean by [contact with one's] oesophagus.11 R. Eleazar says: tumtum and a hermaphrodite do not make the garments unclean of one who eats them. For R. Eleazar used to say: Wherever you find [in the Scriptures] ‘Male’ or ‘Female’, you exclude the case of a tumtum or a hermaphrodite therefrom. But in the case of a bird, since [Scripture] does not in that connection mention ‘Male’ or ‘Female’, you do not exclude the case of a tumtum or a hermaphrodite!12 — Delete tumtum from this [Baraitha]. Come and hear: R. Eleazar said: trefah, kil'ayim,13 a foetus extracted by means of the caesarean section, tumtum and a hermaphrodite cannot become consecrated, nor can they cause consecration.14 And Samuel explained this as follows: They do not become consecrated in substitution15 nor do they cause consecration by effecting substitution.16 — Delete tumtum from this [passage]. Come and hear: R. Eleazar says: There are five instances where animals do not become consecrated nor cause consecration and they are these’ Trefah, kil'ayim. a foetus extracted by means of the caesarean section, tumtum and a hermaphrodite. And were you to assume that here also the answer is ‘Delete tumtum from here,’ then R. Eleazar has only brought four instances? — Omit tumtum and include the case of an orphaned [animal].17 May we say that Tannaim differ on this point?18 [For it was taught]: R. Elai reported in the name of R. Ishmael: A hermaphrodite is considered a firstling with a blemish, whereas the Sages say: Holiness cannot attach to it.19 R. Simeon b. Judah reported in the name of R. Simeon: Scripture says that ‘The male’ and wherever the text says ‘A male’ its object is to exclude tumtum and a hermaphrodite.20 And should you say ‘Delete tumtum from this [passage]’ then the view of R. Simeon b. Judah would be identical with that of the Rabbis? Must you not therefore say that the difference between them lies in the case of a tumtum, the first Tanna [quoted above], [the Sages] maintaining that the ruling ‘Holiness cannot attach to it’ refers to a hermaphrodite, whereas a tumtum is considered a doubtful animal [as regards sex], and therefore it can be holy owing to this uncertainty. Thereupon comes R. Simeon exclude this for the reason that it is a doubtful animal as to sex, for there is no doubt before Heaven, the revealer of the Law. Therefore the exclusion of a tumtum must be, because it is considered a creature apart, so that this raises a difficulty with reference to R. Hisda's ruling above. from either sex. The reason therefore must be because a tumtum is regarded as a creature apart and distinct from others. pinching (v. Lev. I, 15) is not recognized as valid, since the birds are not regarded as consecrated sacrifices. But except for the fact that we regard a tumtum as a creature apart, why should not the pinching be valid, for in the case of birds the sex is immaterial? not exclude tumtum etc. but otherwise where the text says ‘Male’ or ‘Female’, tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded, the reason clearly being because they are regarded as creatures apart; v. Yeb. 83b. enumerated here. do not cause the other animal improperly sub stituted for them to become holy as well. Now if a tumtum is a doubtful animal as regards sex, why should it not become holy? Hul. 38b. animal as regards sex.