Bekhorot 82

Chapter 82

א בעי רבא מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל מיפשט פשיטא ליה אנדרוגינוס בכור הוא ומומו עמו או דילמא ספוקי מספקא ליה ואם תימצא לומר קאמר אם תימצא לומר בכור הוא הרי מומו עמו

1 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 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 i 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.<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

ב למאי נפקא מינה למילקא עליה משום גיזה ועבודה אי נמי למיתבה לכהן

2 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].

ג ת"ש ר' אילעאי אומר משום ר' ישמעאל אנדרוגינוס בכור הוא ומומו עמו ש"מ מיפשט פשיטא ליה ודילמא אם תימצא לומר קאמר

3 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.

ד ת"ש (ויקרא א ג) זכר ולא נקבה כשהוא אומר למטה זכר שאין ת"ל מה ת"ל להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

4 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?<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

ה מני אילימא ת"ק ספיקא הוא ואתי קרא למעוטי ספיקא

5 Again if it is the opinion of the last Rabbis [quoted in the Mishnah],9 but why not infer this10

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

6 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.

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

7 [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].<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

ח לעולם רבנן בתראי וגבי בכור תרתי קראי כתיב הזכר והזכרים:

8 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 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?13

ט וחכ"א אינו בכור כו': אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת באנדרוגינוס אבל בטומטום דברי הכל ספיקא הוא וקדוש מספיקא

9 - 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 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'.<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

י א"ל רבא אלא מעתה בערכין יערך

10 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?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter