Commentary for Bekhorot 84:49

אמר רבא

Shall I say it is R'Judah? But does he not declare a tumtum to be a sure saris?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even halizah is not then necessary, as there are no levirate ties in such circumstances.');">³⁵</span> For we have learnt, R'Judah says: A tumtum [whose skin covering the sexual part] was torn and who was discovered to be a male, need not submit to halizah because he is like a saris!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb. 88a.');">³⁶</span> - Rather it is R'Jose B'Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that he is not a sure saris but that there is a possibility of him being one and, therefore, halizah is necessary, in case the tumtum is a male and not a saris. He cannot, however, marry his sister-in-law, lest he be a saris as well as a male, in which case she is not subject to yibbum.');">³⁷</span> For it has been taught, R'Jose B'Judah says: A tumtum does not release his sister-in-law by halizah lest the skin is torn and he will be found to be a born saris.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where there are other suitable brothers, we may say that he does not give halizah merely as a restrictive measure, in case he is a born saris and the woman is not then subject to yibbum. Where, however, there is no other suitable brother, he must give her halizah, in case he is not a saris. His own wife, therefore, requires halizah, as he may not have been a saris, but she must not marry her brother-in-law, as her husband may have been a saris.');">³⁸</span> [But is the Tanna sure that he will be discovered to be a male]? Do you mean to say that when the skin is torn he might be discovered to be a male but never a female?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only uncertainty is as regards him being discovered a born saris, and that there is no possibility of the tumtum being found to be a female.');">³⁹</span> Rather [the explanation is]: [R'Judah means that there are two possibilities]. [First], his skin may be torn and it will be found that he is a female. Secondly, even if he is indeed a male, there is a possibility that he will be found to be a born saris. What is the practical difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Judah and R. Jose, for in the matter of a tumtum whose brother died, both maintain that he need not release his sister-in-law by halizah.');">⁴⁰</span> - Said Raba:

Explore commentary for Bekhorot 84:49. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.