## Bekhorot Daf 42b

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

בֶּן יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר: טוּמְטוּם בְּרִיָּה הוּא וְלֹא קָדוֹשׁ! לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא טוּמְטוּם בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מְסַפְּקָא, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה הוּא דִּמְסַפְּקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**ben Yehuda comes to say: A *tumtum* is** not of uncertain status, but a distinct **entity, and it is not sacred** at all. The Gemara responds: **No, everyone** agrees **with regard to** the statement that **a *tumtum* is** a distinct **entity** that **there is no doubt** that this is incorrect. **Where** there is **doubt is** with regard to whether it is **a male or a female.**


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

מֵטִיל מַיִם בִּמְקוֹם זַכְרוּת — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּזָכָר הוּא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת: מָר סָבַר חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ לְנַקְבוּתוֹ, וּמַר סָבַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. כִּי הָא דְּהוֹרָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בִּבְהֵמָה מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת — חוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In addition, in a case where the *tumtum* **urinates from the place of the male** sex organ, then **everyone agrees that it is a male. When they disagree** is in the case **of** a *tumtum* that **urinates from the place of the female** sex organ. One **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that **we are concerned** that **perhaps its male** sex organ **was inverted toward its female** sex organ; therefore, it is of uncertain status. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, **holds** that **we are not concerned** about this possibility; rather, it is definitely a female. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda maintains **in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar ruled: With regard to** a firstborn **animal** that **urinates from the place** where **the female** sex organ is found, it is **non-sacred,** as it is certainly a female.


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

תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאן דְּלָא חָשׁ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא וּלְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? וְלֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי: מַאן דְּלָא חָשׁ לְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי? דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְטוּם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סְפֵיקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered** about this ruling of Rabbi Elazar: **Who** is the Sage **who is not concerned about** the opinion of **the first *tanna*** in the mishna **and about** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** who maintain that a *tumtum* is a case of uncertainty? The Gemara asks: **And let Rabbi Yoḥanan also say: Who** is this **who is not concerned about** the opinion of **the latter Rabbis** in the mishna, **as Rav Ḥisda says:** This **dispute** refers **to a hermaphrodite; but with regard to a *tumtum*, everyone agrees** that **it is an uncertain** case.


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

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אִי לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לֵימָא הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי? הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: מַאן שָׁבֵיק תְּרֵי וְעָבֵיד כְּחַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold** in accordance with that statement **of Rav Ḥisda;** rather, he maintains that according to the latter Rabbis a *tumtum* is a distinct entity. The Gemara asks: **If Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold** in accordance with Rav Ḥisda, why did he wonder about Rabbi Elazar’s ruling? **Let him say that** Rabbi Elazar **said** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **the latter Rabbis.** The Gemara answers: **That is indeed what he is saying: Who** is the Sage **who leaves** aside the opinion of **two** Sages, the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yishmael, **and acts in accordance with one** opinion, the latter Rabbis?


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

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּמַאן סָבְרַהּ? כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְטוּם סָפֵק אֶלָּא בְּאָדָם, הוֹאִיל וְזַכְרוּתוֹ וְנַקְבוּתוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה — מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם זַכְרוּת זָכָר, מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Elazar, in accordance with whose** opinion does **he hold?** The Gemara answers that he holds **in accordance with that which Reish Lakish says:** The Sages **said that** the halakhic status of **a *tumtum* is an uncertain** case **only with regard to a person, since the male** sex organ **and the female** sex organ **are in one place,** i.e., a man and a woman urinate from the same area of the body. Since that area is concealed in the case of a *tumtum*, its status is uncertain. **But** with regard to a *tumtum* **animal,** there is no uncertainty whether it is a male or a female, as the genitals of a male and a female are not found in the same place. Rather, if it **urinates from the place** of **the male** sex organ, it is **a male;** if it **urinates from the place of the female** sex organ, it is **a female.**


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ לְנַקְבוּתוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Oshaya objects to this: And let us be concerned** that **perhaps its male** sex organ **was turned round to** the place of **its female** sex organ. Abaye **said to him: In accordance with whose** opinion do you raise this objection? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who is concerned about the minority** of cases? The *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and therefore one should follow the majority of animals, to whom this does not occur.


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

אַבָּיֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חֲנַנְיָא בַּר אָבִין דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי. אִית דְּאָמַר אִישְׁתַּנִּי, וְאִית דְּאָמַר לָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥananya bar Avin both say: You** may **even say** that Rav Oshaya’s objection is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who are not concerned about a minority. The reason is that **since** in this case, the animal **has changed** in that it is different from typical animals, as it is a *tumtum*, perhaps it is also **changed** with regard to its male sex organ being inverted toward the female sex organ. If so, the Sages disagree with regard to this principle: **There are** those **who say** that since it has changed, it has **changed, and there are** those **who say** that the claim that since it has changed, it has **changed** is **not** accepted.


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

לֵימָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי וְלָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי תַּנָּאֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ — קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין, נִתְקַדֵּשׁ — קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the question of whether an animal that has changed in one respect has **changed** in a different respect, **or** whether it has **not changed,** is the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a *tumtum* who betrothed** a woman, the **betrothal is** considered **a betrothal,** due to uncertainty, as the *tumtum* might be a male; and similarly, if the *tumtum* **was betrothed** by a man, the **betrothal is** deemed **a betrothal** due to uncertainty, as the *tumtum* might be a female.


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

וְחוֹלֵץ, וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמְיַבְּמִים לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵשֶׁת טוּמְטוּם חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** if the brother of the *tumtum* died childless, and there is no other brother who can perform levirate marriage with the widow, the *tumtum* **performs *ḥalitza*,** i.e., his brother’s widow removes his shoe, as the *tumtum* might be a male, and she would require *ḥalitza* to release her from the levirate bond. **And** if the *tumtum* died, one of the brothers of the *tumtum* **performs *ḥalitza* with the wife of** the *tumtum*, **or enters into levirate marriage with the wife of** the *tumtum*, in case the *tumtum* was a male. **And it is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **The wife of a *tumtum* performs *ḥalitza* and does not enter into levirate marriage.**


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

סַבְרוּהָ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: סְרִיס חַמָּה לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to these two *baraitot*, the Sages **assumed that everyone** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says: A eunuch** whose condition is caused **naturally,** i.e., one who was entirely lacking in sexual capacity from birth, **does not perform *ḥalitza* and does not enter into levirate marriage** with his sister-in-law, as he is not included in the mitzva of levirate marriage. Likewise, if he died his brothers do not perform *ḥalitza* with his wife, and they may not enter into levirate marriage with her, as she is forbidden to them as a brother’s wife who does not require levirate marriage.


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

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹלֵץ, וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמְיַבְּמִים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, לָא אָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on this assumption, the Gemara suggests: **What, is it not** that the two *baraitot* **disagree about this, that the one who says** that a *tumtum* **performs *ḥalitza* and** one of the brothers **performs *ḥalitza* with the wife of** the *tumtum* **or enters into levirate marriage with the wife of** the *tumtum* holds that **we do not say** that **since** this *tumtum* has **changed** from an average person, he might also have **changed** in that he is a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and therefore the brothers would be prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with the wife? Rather, if the *tumtum* is a male, it is assumed that he is capable of fathering children, and consequently his wife requires levirate marriage.


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

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת, אָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the one who says** that the wife of a *tumtum* **performs *ḥalitza* and does not enter into levirate marriage** maintains that **we say** that **since** this person has **changed,** he has **changed,** i.e., the possibility that he might be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally is considered, and therefore his wife may not enter into levirate marriage.


###### Bekhorot 42b:13
[Bekhorot 42b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42b:13)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָמְרִינַן הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי, הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No; everyone** agrees that **we say** that **since** this person has **changed,** he has **changed,** and there is a concern that he might be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. Rather, the difference between the rulings is that **this** *baraita*, which permits the wife of the *tumtum* to enter levirate marriage, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and maintains that levirate marriage may be performed with the wife of a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, **and that** *baraita*, which prohibits levirate marriage, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** that the brothers of a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally do not enter into levirate marriage with the wife of the *tumtum*.


###### Bekhorot 42b:14
[Bekhorot 42b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42b:14)

וּמַאן תַּנָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָא וַדַּאי סָרִיס מְשַׁוֵּי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And who is the *tanna*** who holds **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva** that the wife of a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally does not require levirate marriage, and yet he maintains that the wife of a *tumtum* must perform *ḥalitza*? **If we say** it is **Rabbi Yehuda,** this cannot be, as in his opinion even if the genitals of a *tumtum* were revealed and he was found to be a male, **he deems him** like **a definite eunuch** whose condition is caused naturally, and therefore his wife does not require *ḥalitza* at all.


###### Bekhorot 42b:15
[Bekhorot 42b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42b:15)

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְלוֹץ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּסָרִיס!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 81a) that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** With regard to **a *tumtum* who was torn** open so that his genitals were exposed, **and he was found** to be **a male,** he **must not perform *ḥalitza*, because he is** treated **like a eunuch** whose condition is caused naturally. Just as this *tumtum* does not perform *ḥalitza*, so too, his widow does not require *ḥalitza*.


###### Bekhorot 42b:16
[Bekhorot 42b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42b:16)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם לֹא חוֹלֵץ, שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְיִמָּצֵא סָרִיס חַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that if a *tumtum* was torn open and he was found to be a male, he is considered as a matter of uncertainty to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, and consequently his wife requires *ḥalitza*. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A *tumtum* does not perform *ḥalitza*** with the wife of his late, childless brother if there are other brothers to perform *ḥalitza*, as **perhaps** the skin covering his genitals **will be torn** open **and he will be found** to be **a eunuch** whose condition is caused **naturally,** and the widow would not be released from the levirate bond by his *ḥalitza*. According to this opinion, it is not certain that a *tumtum* would be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally.


###### Bekhorot 42b:17
[Bekhorot 42b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42b:17)

אַטּוּ כֹּל דְּמִיקְּרַע זָכָר מִשְׁתְּכַח, נְקֵבָה לָא מִשְׁתְּכַח? שֶׁמָּא קָאָמַר, שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְיִמָּצֵא נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks: Why does this individual not perform *ḥalitza* due only to the possibility that he will be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally? **Is that to say** that **every** *tumtum* **whose** skin **was torn is found** to be **a male** and is **not found** to be **a female?** The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, **said** his opinion in the formulation of: **Perhaps,** which includes multiple uncertainties: A *tumtum* must not perform *ḥalitza*, as **perhaps he will be torn** open **and found** to be **a female,** who can certainly not perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Bekhorot 42b:18
[Bekhorot 42b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/42b:18)

אִי נָמֵי זָכָר נָמֵי, שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא סָרִיס חַמָּה. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** if he is found to be **a male,** he may **also** not perform *ḥalitza*, since **perhaps he will be found** to be **a eunuch** whose condition is caused **naturally.** The Gemara asks: Since both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, agree that a *tumtum* may not perform *ḥalitza* for his brother’s wife, **what is** the practical difference **between** their opinions? **Rava said:**