Bekhorot 84

Chapter 84

א בן יהודה למימר טומטום בריה הוא ולא קדוש לא דכולי עלמא טומטום בבריה לא מספקא זכר ונקבה הוא דמספקא

1 b. Judah and says: A tumtum is a creature apart and therefore it cannot be holy? - No. All [the authorities] agree that there is no doubt that a tumtum should be considered a creature apart.1

ב מטיל מים במקום זכרות דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דזכר הוא כי פליגי במטיל מים במקום נקבות מר סבר חיישינן שמא נהפכה זכרותו לנקבותו ומר סבר לא חיישינן כי הא דהורה רבי אלעזר בבהמה מטיל מים במקום נקבות חולין

2 The doubt is only whether it is to be regarded as a male or a female. Now if it urinates in the male part, then all agree that it a male. The doubt arises however if it urinates in the female part. One teacher2 holds: We fear lest his male sex may have changed into a female sex, whereas the other teacher<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon. And when it urinates in the male or female part R. Hisda also admits that according to one Tanna it is a sure male or female respectively and not merely a doubtful animal. R. Hisda, however, when he says that all agree that it is a doubtful animal, refers to the view of the last Rabbis in the Mishnah above, explaining that one should not say that the reason for the view of the last Rabbis is because the tumtum is a creature apart and thus it can never receive holiness, as all the authorities are agreed that a tumtum is at least a case of a doubtful animal.');">3

ג תהי בה ר' יוחנן מאן דלא חש לתנא קמא ולרבי ישמעאל ולימא רבי יוחנן נמי מאן דלא חש לרבנן בתראי דא"ר חסדא מחלוקת באנדרוגינוס אבל בטומטום דברי הכל ספיקא

3 holds: We have no apprehension of such a thing.4 This agrees with what is told of R'Elai5 who gave a decision that a tumtum animal which urinates in the female part is hullin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unconsecrated animal. It is considered a sure female, as we entertain no fears about the sex being changed, and the law of the firstling does not apply to a female.');">6 and R'Johanan was thereupon astonished,7 and exclaimed: 'Which authority is it which does not take into consideration the first Tanna [quoted in our Mishnah above]8 and R'Ishmael'?9

ד רבי יוחנן לא ס"ל דרב חסדא אי לא ס"ל לימא הוא דאמר כרבנן בתראי הכי נמי קאמר מאן שביק תרי ועביד כחד

4 But let R'Johanan also say: Who is the authority that does not take into consideration the view of the last Rabbis [in the Mishnah]! For R'Hisda said: The difference of opinion in the Mishnah relates only to a hermaphrodite, but as regards a tumtum all agree that it is a case of a doubtful animal [as to sex]. - R'Johanan does not hold R'Hisda's opinion.10 But if R'Johanan does not hold R'Hisda's opinion, why does he not explain that he [Elai] follows the view of the last Rabbis [mentioned in the Mishnah]?11 This is [precisely] what R'Johanan means: Who is the authority that ignores the views of two teachers12 and follows the view of a single teacher?

ה ורבי אלעזר כמאן סברא כי הא דאמר ריש לקיש לא אמרו טומטום ספק אלא באדם הואיל וזכרותו ונקבותו במקום אחד אבל בהמה מטיל מים במקום זכרות זכר מטיל מים במקום נקבות נקבה

5 And as regards R'Elai whose view does he follow? - It is that of Resh Lakish [as follows]: The ruling that a tumtum is a doubtful case [as regards sex] relates only to a human being, since his male and female parts are in the same place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Urination therefore does not provide a test. In the case of a tumtum animal, however, there need be no doubt as to its sex according to all the authorities concerned. The first Tanna in the Mishnah who says that the animal must not be slaughtered, refers to where it urinates in the male part, and then it is assuredly holy and therefore it must not be slaughtered outside the Temple. It is also not suitable for sacrifice in the Temple, for it has the appearance of a blemished animal, as it does not possess male genitals, a defect which Scripture excludes by the text 'A male'. And both R. Ishmael and the last Rabbis only refer to a hermaphrodite, but as regards a tumtum they are all agreed that if the animal urinates in the male part, then it is a male, and if in the female part, then it is a female. R. Elai's decision will thus be in accordance with the views of all the authorities concerned. Tosaf. however maintains that Resh Lakish's view will not be shared by all the authorities; the ruling of the first Tanna of the Mishnah, for example, that it is a doubtful animal, will not be in accordance with the view of Resh Lakish who will concur with the view of R. Simeon b. Judah. .');">13 But in the case of an animal, if it urinates in the male par then it is a male, whereas if it urinates in the female part, it is a female. To this R'Oshaiah demurred: And why not apprehend14

ו מתקיף לה רב אושעיא וליחוש שמא נהפכה זכרותו לנקבותו א"ל כמאן כר"מ דחייש למיעוטא

6 lest its male sex may have changed to female? - Said [Abaye] to15 him: Whose view will [this question] represent? Will it be R'Meir's, who takes Into consideration the minority?16 Both Abaye B'Abin and R'Hanania B'Abin said: You may even say that this question arises also on the view of the Rabbis [the disputants of R'Meir].

ז אביי בר אבין ורב חנניא בר אבין דאמרי תרוייהו אפי' תימא רבנן הואיל ואישתני אישתני אית דאמר אישתני ואית דאמר לא אישתני

7 for since its condition has changed,17 there is a different animal?18 - [The question can be met in this way]: One authority [the first Tanna quoted in the above Baraitha] holds: Since its condition has changed, it is a different animal [and therefore it possesses holiness] whereas the other authority, [R'Simeon] holds: We do not say [with reference to an animal] that since its condition has changed, it is therefore a different animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we maintain that the animal was originally a female, in which case there is no holiness whatsoever. R. Elai will consequently agree with R. Simeon.');">19

ח לימא אישתני ולא אישתני תנאי דתניא טומטום שקידש קדושיו קדושין נתקדש קדושיו קדושין

8 May we say that the principle that the change of condition makes a different [human being or animal] is a matter in which Tannaim differ? For it has been taught: If a tumtum betrothes a woman, his betrothal is valid.20 If he was betrothed, the betrothal is valid.21

ט וחולץ וחולצין לאשתו ומיבמים לאשתו ותניא אידך אשת טומטום חולצת ולא מתייבמת

9 He submits to halizah,22 his wife must be released by halizah23 and his brother may marry his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he is a male, then his brother rightly marries her according to the law of yabam (levir) . And if he is a female, then the brother of the tumtum is betrothing an unmarried woman. vnj ost xhrx');">24

י סברוה דכ"ע כר"ע דאמר סריס חמה לא חולץ ולא מייבם

10 And another [Baraitha] taught: The wife of a tumtum must be released by halizah but she must not marry her brother-in-law.

יא מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ד חולץ וחולצין לאשתו ומיבמים את אשתו לא אמרינן הואיל ואישתני אישתני

11 Now it was assumed that all agree with R'Akiba who said: A born saris25

יב ומ"ד חולצת ולא מתייבמת אמרינן הואיל ואישתני אישתני

יג לא דכ"ע אמרינן הואיל ואישתני אישתני הא ר"א והא ר"ע

13 does not submit to halizah, nor perform levirate marriage?26

יד ומאן תנא אליבא דר"ע אילימא ר' יהודה הא ודאי סריס משוי ליה

14 The point at issue will therefore be [as follows]: According to the [Tanna of the Baraitha] who holds that a tumtum submits to halizah, that his wife must be released by halizah and his brother may marry his wife, we do not maintain that since the status has been changed,27 therefore he is a different person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even if the skin were torn and he were found to be a male, we have no fear that it might be discovered that he is a saris, a different person entirely, the wife of a saris not being able to marry a deceased husband's brother.');">28

טו דתנן רבי יהודה אומר טומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר ה"ז לא יחלוץ מפני שהוא כסריס

15 and according [to the Tanna in the Baraitha] who holds: The wife of a tumtum must be released by halizah but must not marry his brother, we maintain that since the status has changed, he is a different person!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case he is a born saris, even if he be a male. She therefore cannot marry her deceased husband's brother, for as he is as male, the betrothal is valid, but since he is a born saris, his wife is not subject to yibbum. She is therefore like a woman who has children and the brother would be marrying a sister-in-law of that status, this being one of the forbidden marriages of consanguinity. Halizah, however, would be necessary, in case he is not a saris.');">29 - No.

טז אלא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה היא דתניא ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר טומטום לא חולץ שמא יקרע וימצא סריס חמה

16 All [the authorities concerned] agree that we maintain that since the status is changed, he is a different person.30 [One Baraitha]31

יז אטו כל דמיקרע זכר משתכח נקבה לא משתכח שמא קאמר שמא יקרע וימצא נקבה

17 is in accordance with the view of R'Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that the wife of a born saris marries her husband's brother, as there are similar cases in Alexandria which recover. Therefore whether a tumtum is a female or male, this would be permissible.');">32 and the [other Baraitha]33

יח א"נ זכר נמי שמא ימצא סריס חמה מאי בינייהו אמר רבא

18 is in accordance with the view of R'Akiba. And who [of R'Akiba's pupils is the Tanna] who holds this opinion according to R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she is released by halizah and must not marry her brother-in-law, for R. Akiba himself maintains that a born saris can neither release his sister-in-law by halizah nor marry her.');">34 Shall I say it is R'Judah? But does he not declare a tumtum to be a sure saris?35 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!36 - 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 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 [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?39 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?40 - Said Raba:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter