Bekhorot

Raba enquired:1 What is the reason of R. Ishmael? Is he convinced that a hermaphrodite is a firstling [male] with a blemish2 or is it because he has a doubt [as to its sex], and he means [to permit it to be slaughtered] by using an argument of the form ‘If you assume’ [as follows]: If you assume that it is a firstling, it should be permitted, since it has a blemish. What is the practical difference? — [The difference is] as regards liability to the punishment of lashes, in consequence of shearing it or working with it,3 or indeed, as regards giving it to the priest.4 Come and hear: R. Ila'i reported in the name of R. Ishmael: A hermaphrodite is a firstling with a blemish. Deduce then from this that R. Ishmael is convinced [that it is a firstling]. But perhaps he permits it by using the argument ‘If you assume’, [though in reality he has a doubt concerning its sex]! Come and hear: [Scripture says]: ‘A male’,5 [implying] but not a female. When it, however, repeats later [the words] ‘A male’,6 which were not necessary, it intimates the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Now whose opinion7 does this represent? Shall I say it is that of the first Tanna [of our Mishnah]? But since he holds [that a hermaphrodite] is a doubtful case [as regards its sex], is there any need for a scriptural text for the exclusion of a case of doubt?8 Again if it is the opinion of the last Rabbis [quoted in the Mishnah],9 but why not infer this10 from a single scriptural text, for in connection with [the law of] a firstling, there is only one scriptural text ‘A male’ and yet we derive all therefrom. [Why then is there need for the latter text ‘A male’]? Plainly then [the above passage] represents the opinion of R. Ishmael [in the Mishnah].11 Now this is quite intelligible if you say that R. Ishmael was convinced that [a hermaphrodite] is a firstling; for that reason there was need for the scriptural text to exclude the case of a hermaphrodite.12 But if you say that R. Ishmael had a doubt [as to its sex], is there any need for the exclusion of a case where there exists a doubt?13 — The above passage may still represent the view of the last Rabbis,14 And with reference to [the law of] a firstling also Scripture has two texts, ‘The male’15 and ‘The males shall be the Lord's’.16 BUT THE SAGES SAY IT HAS NOT THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING etc. Said R. Hisda: The difference of opinion17 relates only to a hermaphrodite but as regards a tumtum all agree that there is a doubt as to its sex18 and therefore it is hallowed by reason of this uncertainty [its shearing and slaughtering being therefore prohibited]. Said Raba to him: According to this, the law of valuation19 should apply to a tumtum? Mishnah. R. Gershom, however, reads the ruling of R. Ishmael before ‘He does not hold the opinion of Abaye’, etc. however, there is no punishment of lashes. firstling, then the Israelite retains the animal, since the priest, the claimant, must produce evidence that it is a firstling. distinct, and for that reason it is excluded as a sacrifice, unlike the opinion of the first Tanna. only holy as a firstling, but in respect of being a consecrated sacrifice, the latter text ‘A male’ disqualifies it from being offered in the Temple. may even be shorn and worked. And from the first text ‘A male’ in connection with sacrifices, one could not have derived this, for, in connection with a firstling itself, the single text ‘A male’ does not make the shearing and working permissible, only that its slaughtering is allowed. text, this can be met in the following manner. two texts are available in connection with the firstling for the same purpose. Tanna and R. Ishmael.