## Bekhorot Daf 41b

###### Bekhorot 41b:1
[Bekhorot 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:1)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּכוֹר הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ, אוֹ דִילְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וְ״אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר — אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר בְּכוֹר הוּא, הֲרֵי מוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma: What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael** that a hermaphrodite is definitely blemished? Is it **obvious to him** that **a hermaphrodite** animal **is** a male that has **firstborn** status, **and** it comes **with its blemish,** i.e., the female sex organ, and therefore it is permitted to slaughter it outside the Temple? **Or perhaps** Rabbi Yishmael **is uncertain** whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a male, **and he says** his ruling in the manner of: **If you say.** In other words, **if you say** that a hermaphrodite animal **is a firstborn,** it comes **with its blemish,** and it may be slaughtered outside the Temple.


###### Bekhorot 41b:2
[Bekhorot 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:2)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִילְקֵא עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, אִי נָמֵי לְמִיתְּבֵהּ לְכֹהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the** practical **difference** between the reasons? The Gemara answers that there is a difference with regard **to being flogged on account of** this animal **due to** violating the prohibition of **shearing and** utilizing a firstborn animal for **labor** (see Deuteronomy 15:19). If it is definitely a firstborn, then one would be flogged for violating the prohibition. But if one is uncertain whether it is a firstborn, although one may not shear it or perform labor with it, one is not liable to flogging for doing so. **Alternatively,** there is a difference with regard **to giving it to a priest.** If its status is uncertain, the priest cannot demand the animal from him, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.


###### Bekhorot 41b:3
[Bekhorot 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אִילְעַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּכוֹר הוּא, וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ! וְדִילְמָא ״אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: **Rabbi Ilai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A hermaphrodite is a firstborn, and** it comes **with its blemish. Learn from** the *baraita* that it is **obvious to Rabbi Yishmael** that a hermaphrodite is a firstborn. The Gemara responds: **But perhaps he said** his ruling in the manner of: **If you say,** as explained earlier.


###### Bekhorot 41b:4
[Bekhorot 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: זָכָר — וְלֹא נְקֵבָה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּה ״זָכָר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another *baraita*. It states with regard to a burnt offering from cattle: **“A male”** (Leviticus 1:3), from which it can be inferred: **But not a female. When it says below,** with regard to a burnt offering from sheep: **“A male”** (Leviticus 1:10), a second time, it is difficult to understand, **as** there is **no** need for **the verse to state** this. **Why** must **the verse state** “a male” again? This serves **to exclude a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite,** which are disqualified from being sacrificed as burnt offerings.


###### Bekhorot 41b:5
[Bekhorot 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:5)

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא תַּנָּא קַמָּא — סְפֵיקָא הוּא, וְאָתֵי קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **Whose** opinion is this? **If we say** it is the opinion of **the first *tanna*** of the mishna, who maintains that a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite may not be slaughtered in the Temple or in the rest of the country, then the status of a hermaphrodite **is uncertain,** as it is unknown whether it is male or female. **But** does **a verse come to exclude** a case of **uncertainty?**


###### Bekhorot 41b:6
[Bekhorot 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:6)

אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי, דְּהָא גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹר חַד ״זָכָר״ הוּא דִּכְתִיב, (קא) [וְקָא] מְמַעֲטִי כּוּלְּהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps this *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the latter Rabbis** in the mishna, who hold that a hermaphrodite is definitely not a male, but a distinct entity. Therefore, it is necessary for a verse to exclude it. This, too, is difficult, as according to these Rabbis the exclusion of a female, a *tumtum*, and a hermaphrodite is **derived from one verse** alone. The Gemara elaborates: **As with regard to a firstborn, it is one “male” alone that is written,** from which the Rabbis **exclude all** of the three categories **from** firstborn status. By contrast, the *baraita* excludes a female from one mention of the word “male” and a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite from another mention of the word “male.”


###### Bekhorot 41b:7
[Bekhorot 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:7)

אֶלָּא, פְּשִׁיטָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ — הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ — אִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael. And** in that case, **granted, if you say** that it is **obvious to Rabbi Yishmael** that a hermaphrodite is a firstborn male, **that is** why **a verse was necessary to exclude** a hermaphrodite from being brought as a burnt offering. **But if you say** that Rabbi Yishmael **is uncertain** whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a male, is it **necessary** for **the verse to exclude** a case of **uncertainty?**


###### Bekhorot 41b:8
[Bekhorot 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:8)

לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי, וְגַבֵּי בְּכוֹר תַּרְתֵּי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיב: ״הַזָּכָר״ וְ״הַזְּכָרִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Actually,** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the latter Rabbis,** who maintain that a hermaphrodite is not a male, but a distinct entity. **And** as for the difficulty that in the case of a firstborn they excluded a female, a *tumtum*, and a hermaphrodite from a single verse, that is not so. **With regard to a firstborn** there are also **two verses written: “Males”** (Deuteronomy 15:19), and: **“That is a male”** (Exodus 13:12). As in the case of a burnt offering, one of these serves to exclude a female, while the other serves to exclude a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite.


###### Bekhorot 41b:9
[Bekhorot 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:9)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְטוּם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סְפֵיקָא הוּא, וְקָדוֹשׁ מִסְּפֵיקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say:** A hermaphrodite **does not** have **firstborn** status; rather, its status is that of a non-sacred animal that may be shorn and utilized for labor. **Rav Ḥisda says:** This **dispute** applies **to a hermaphrodite,** which the Rabbis maintain is a distinct entity, as it has both male and female sex organs, and therefore it does not have firstborn status. **But with regard to a *tumtum*,** whose genitalia is covered by skin, **everyone agrees** that **it is an uncertain** case, as it is definitely either a male or a female, but there is uncertainty as to which it is. **And** consequently, it is **consecrated due to uncertainty,** and it may not be slaughtered either in the Temple or in the rest of the country.


###### Bekhorot 41b:10
[Bekhorot 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בַּעֲרָכִין יֵעָרֵךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Ḥisda: **If that is so,** that a *tumtum* is certainly either a male or a female, **with regard to valuations,** when someone vows to give the valuation of a *tumtum*, **it should be valuated,** either in accordance with the valuation of a man or a woman.