## Bekhorot Daf 42a

###### Bekhorot 42a:1
[Bekhorot 42a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:1)

אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: ״הַזָּכָר״ — וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Why,** then, **is** it **taught** in a *baraita* that the verse: “Then your valuation shall be for **the male”** (Leviticus 27:3), includes one whose status as a male is certain **but not a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite?** The Gemara answers: **Omit from** this *baraita* the mention of **a *tumtum*,** as it is referring only to a hermaphrodite, which is a distinct entity.


###### Bekhorot 42a:2
[Bekhorot 42a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִישׁ, אֲבָל יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַזָּכָר... אִם נְקֵבָה״, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** the continuation of that *baraita*: One **might** have thought that these **shall not be** valuated according to **the valuation of a man, but** they **shall be** valuated according to **the valuation of a woman.** Therefore, **the verse states: “The male,”** and in the following verse it states: “And **if** she is **a female,** then your valuation shall be thirty shekels” (Leviticus 27:4), indicating only one whose status as a male or female is certain, **but not a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite,** which are categorized as neither male nor female. The Gemara again answers: **Omit from** this *baraita* the mention of **a *tumtum*,** as it is referring only to a hermaphrodite.


###### Bekhorot 42a:3
[Bekhorot 42a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* discussing the peace offering, with regard to which it states: **“Whether male or female”** (Leviticus 3:1). This indicates: Only **a definite male** or **a definite female, but not a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite.** Yet again the Gemara responds: **Omit from** this *baraita* the mention of **a *tumtum*.**


###### Bekhorot 42a:4
[Bekhorot 42a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הַזָּכָר״ — וְלֹא נְקֵבָה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּהּ ״זָכָר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *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 as burnt offerings. The Gemara answers: **Omit from** this *baraita* the mention of **a *tumtum*.**


###### Bekhorot 42a:5
[Bekhorot 42a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* discussing the *halakhot* of ritual impurity imparted by a bird in the throat: Any bird that was not slaughtered in the proper manner, i.e., in its neck with a knife, has the status of a carcass. This carcass renders the one who eats it impure when it is in his throat. Bird offerings, which are killed by pinching the nape of the neck with a fingernail, are the exception to this principle, and they do not impart impurity. With regard to a bird **that is worshipped** as a deity, **or one set aside** for idol worship, **or one** given as **payment** to a prostitute, **or one** that was given as **the price** of a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:19), **and** similarly with regard to a bird that is **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite,** if one killed any of them by pinching, they are ritually impure, as they are disqualified as offerings, and the pinching does not purify them. Therefore, **they all render** a person and the **garments** he is wearing **ritually impure** if an olive-bulk of them comes into contact **with the throat** while eating.


###### Bekhorot 42a:6
[Bekhorot 42a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:6)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״ אַתָּה מוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִבֵּינֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says:** If one pinched the neck of **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite, it does not render** the person and **the garments** he is wearing **ritually impure** when they are **in the throat,** as they are in fact fit to be sacrificed. **As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is stated** explicitly in the Torah: **“Male,” and: “Female,” you** should **exclude a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite from among them,** as their status is uncertain. This applies to animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah states “male” and “female.”


###### Bekhorot 42a:7
[Bekhorot 42a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:7)

וְעוֹף, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״, אֵין אַתָּה מוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מִבֵּינֵיהֶם! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the case of **a bird** offering, **since “male” and “female” are not stated with regard to it,** but simply doves and pigeons are stated with regard to it, **you do not exclude a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite from among them,** as they are fit for the altar. Now if a *tumtum* is considered either definitely a male or a female, then why does the first *tanna* disqualify it from being sacrificed? The Gemara again replies: **Omit from** this *baraita* the mention of **a *tumtum*.**


###### Bekhorot 42a:8
[Bekhorot 42a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַטְּרֵיפָה, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** that **Rabbi Elazar says: An animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*], and** prohibited **diverse kinds** of livestock, **and** an animal **born by caesarean section,** and an animal that is **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite do not become consecrated and do not render** another animal **consecrated** in their place.


###### Bekhorot 42a:9
[Bekhorot 42a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:9)

וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים בִּתְמוּרָה, וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּמוּרָה! סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says** in explanation: **They do not become consecrated by substitution,** i.e., if one sought to substitute one of these animals for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sacred. **And** if one of these was born to a sacrificial animal, **they do not render** a non-sacred animal **consecrated** in a case where one wanted **to render** it **a substitute** for them. And if a *tumtum* is either a male or female, why would it not become consecrated and render another animal consecrated? The Gemara answers: **Omit from** this *baraita* the mention of **a *tumtum*.**


###### Bekhorot 42a:10
[Bekhorot 42a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא קְדוֹשִׁים וְלֹא מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַטְּרֵיפָה, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם — הָווּ לְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה! אַפֵּיק טוּמְטוּם, וְעָיֵיל יָתוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a slightly different version of that *baraita*. **Rabbi Elazar says:** There are **five** types of animals that **do not become consecrated and do not render** another animal **consecrated, and they are: A *tereifa*, and** prohibited **diverse kinds** of livestock, **and** an animal **born by caesarean section, and** an animal that is **a *tumtum*, and a hermaphrodite. And if you would say: Here too, omit from this** *baraita* **a *tumtum*,** then **there are** only **four** types of animals listed in the *baraita*. The Gemara answers: **Remove** the mention of **a *tumtum* and** in its place **insert an orphan,** i.e., an animal born after the death of its mother, which is also disqualified as a sacrifice.


###### Bekhorot 42a:11
[Bekhorot 42a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:11)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי? רַבִּי אִילְעַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּכוֹר הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״הַזָּכָר״, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״זָכָר״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this question of whether a *tumtum* is a distinct entity or is definitely either a male or female **is the subject of** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it is taught in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ilai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A hermaphrodite is a firstborn, and** it comes **with its blemish; and the Rabbis say: It is not imbued with sanctity. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:** The verse **states: “Males”** (Deuteronomy 15:19), **and wherever it is stated: Male,”** this serves **to exclude only a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite.** Since according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda it is necessary for a verse to exclude a *tumtum*, like a hermaphrodite, from the category of a male, evidently in his opinion a *tumtum* is not considered to be one whose status as a male is uncertain but a distinct entity.


###### Bekhorot 42a:12
[Bekhorot 42a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42a:12)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: סְמִי מִיכָּן טוּמְטוּם, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ רַבָּנַן! אֶלָּא לָאו טוּמְטוּם אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו אַאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֲבָל טוּמְטוּם סְפֵיקָא הוּא וְקָדוֹשׁ מִסְּפֵיקָא, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **And if you would say:** Here too, **omit from** this *baraita* **a *tumtum*,** then the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is** the same as that of **the Rabbis,** as they too maintain that a hermaphrodite is not sacred. **Rather,** is it **not** that the difference **between them** is with regard to the status of **a *tumtum*, as the first *tanna*,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds: It is not imbued with sanctity,** and they are referring specifically **to a hermaphrodite,** which was the subject of Rabbi Ilai’s statement, **but a *tumtum* is an uncertain** case, **and** therefore **it is sacred due to uncertainty. And Rabbi Shimon**