Bekhorot 82

בעי רבא

Raba enquired:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to one commentator this enquiry will follow immediately after the citation of R. Ishmael's ruling from the MISHNAH: R. Gershom, however, reads the ruling of R. Ishmael before 'He does not hold the opinion of Abaye', etc.');">¹</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל

What is the reason of R'Ishmael?

מיפשט פשיטא ליה

Is he convinced that a hermaphrodite is a firstling [male] with a blemish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'And its blemish with it'.');">²</span>

אנדרוגינוס בכור הוא ומומו עמו

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.

או דילמא ספוקי מספקא ליה ואם תימצא לומר קאמר

What is the practical difference? - [The difference i as regards liability to the punishment of lashes, in consequence of shearing it or working with it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is forbidden to shear the wool or work with even a blemished firstling. In the case of a doubtful firstling, however, there is no punishment of lashes.');">³</span>

אם תימצא לומר בכור הוא הרי מומו עמו

or indeed, as regards giving it to the priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is a certain firstling, he gives it to the priest, which the latter eats in its blemished state. But if it is a doubtful firstling, then the Israe retains the animal, since the priest, the claimant, must produce evidence that it is a firstling.');">⁴</span>

למאי נפקא מינה למילקא עליה משום גיזה ועבודה

Come and hear: R'Ila'i reported in the name of R'Ishmael: A hermaphrodite is a firstling with a blemish.

אי נמי למיתבה לכהן

Deduce then from this that R'Ishmael is convinced [that it is a firstling].

ת"ש ר' אילעאי אומר משום ר' ישמעאל

But perhaps he permits it by using the argument 'If you assume', [though in reality he has a doubt concerning its sex]!

אנדרוגינוס בכור הוא ומומו עמו

Come and hear: [Scripture says]: 'A male',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3. In connection with the offering of oxen.');">⁵</span>

ש"מ

[implying] but not a female.

מיפשט פשיטא ליה

When it, however, repeats later [the words] 'A male',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 10. In connection with an offering of sheep.');">⁶</span>

ודילמא אם תימצא לומר קאמר

which were not necessary, it intimates the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite.

ת"ש

Now whose opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the latter text 'A male' excludes a tumtum etc.');">⁷</span>

{ויקרא א } זכר ולא נקבה

does this represent?

כשהוא אומר למטה זכר שאין ת"ל

Shall I say it is that of the first Tanna [of our Mishnah]?

מה ת"ל להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For before God there is no doubt as to the sex of the animal, it must therefore be regarded as a creature apart and distinct, and for that reason it is excluded as a sacrifice, unlike the opinion of the first Tanna.');">⁸</span>

מני

Again if it is the opinion of the last Rabbis [quoted in the Mishnah],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that a hermaphrodite is hullin.');">⁹</span>

אילימא ת"ק ספיקא הוא ואתי קרא למעוטי ספיקא

but why not infer this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A female, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא רבנן בתראי מחד קרא נפקי דהא גבי בכור חד זכר הוא דכתיב קא מעטי כולהו מינייהו

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.

אלא פשיטא ר' ישמעאל

[Why then is there need for the latter text 'A male']?

ואי אמרת בשלמא רבי ישמעאל מיפשט פשיטא ליה היינו דאיצטריך קרא למעוטי אלא אי אמרת מספקא ליה אצטריך קרא למעוטי ספיקא

Plainly then [the above passage] represents the opinion of R'Ishmael [in the Mishnah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to his view, the animal is holy as a firstling, only it is blemished. He therefore informs us that it is 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.');">¹¹</span>

לעולם רבנן בתראי וגבי בכור תרתי קראי כתיב

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That although it is a male, it does not receive any holiness if he consecrated it as a burnt-offering. and the animal 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.');">¹²</span>

הזכר והזכרים:

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 ther exists a doubt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As before Heaven all is clear and manifest.');">¹³</span>

וחכ"א אינו בכור כו':

- The above passage may still represent the view of the last Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as regards the objection raised above about deriving all the three cases of a female, tumtum, etc., from a single text, this can be met in the following manner.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב חסדא

And with reference to [the law of] a firstling also Scripture has two texts, 'The male'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'All the firstling males' etc. (Deut. XV, 19) .');">¹⁵</span>

מחלוקת באנדרוגינוס אבל בטומטום דברי הכל ספיקא הוא וקדוש מספיקא

and 'The males shall be the Lord's'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 12. Just as in connection with sacrifices two texts are required to exclude a female, tumtum, etc., similarly two texts are available in connection with the firstling for the same purpose.');">¹⁶</span>

א"ל רבא

BUT THE SAGES SAY IT HAS NOT THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING etc. Said R'Hisda: The difference of opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the last Rabbis in the Mishnah hold that a hermaphrodite is a creature apart, differing in this from the first Tanna and R. Ishmael.');">¹⁷</span>

אלא מעתה בערכין יערך

relates only to a hermaphrodite but as regards a tumtum all agree that there is a doubt as to its sex<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case the skin tears and reveals it as a male.');">¹⁸</span> 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 valuation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 1ff.');">¹⁹</span> should apply to a tumtum?