Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 29, 2019 | 讻状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 42

Is there a difference in the law of firstborns between tumtum and adroginus? Can one say that tumtum is according to all opinions a case of doubt whereas adroginus is a subject of debate – those who view is as doubt and those who view it as its own creature and not male or female and therefore excluded from firstborn laws?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

Why, then, is it taught in a baraita that the verse: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be for the male鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

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: 鈥淭he male,鈥 and in the following verse it states: 鈥淎nd if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita discussing the peace offering, with regard to which it states: 鈥淲hether male or female鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 谞拽讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪讟讛 讝讻专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: It states with regard to a burnt offering from cattle: 鈥淎 male鈥 (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: 鈥淎 male鈥 (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 鈥渁 male鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛谞注讘讚 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜诇谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐

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: 鈥淢ale,鈥 and: 鈥淔emale,鈥 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 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale.鈥

讜注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

But in the case of a bird offering, since 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讘转诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转诪讜专讛 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讛 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注讛 讗驻讬拽 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜注讬讬诇 讬转讜诐

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

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鈥檌m. 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: 鈥淢ales鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19), and wherever it is stated: Male,鈥 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讗讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讟讜诐 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讜拽讚讜砖 诪住驻讬拽讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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鈥檚 statement, but a tumtum is an uncertain case, and therefore it is sacred due to uncertainty. And Rabbi Shimon

讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 拽讚讜砖 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪住驻拽讗 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诪住驻拽讗

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.

诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讻专讜转 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讝讻专 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘讜转 诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞讛驻讻讛 讝讻专讜转讜 诇谞拽讘讜转讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘讜转 讞讜诇讬谉

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.

转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讞砖 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讞砖 诇专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讟讜诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 住驻讬拽讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan also say: Who is this who is not concerned about the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the mishna, as Rav 岣sda says: This dispute refers to a hermaphrodite; but with regard to a tumtum, everyone agrees that it is an uncertain case.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 砖讘讬拽 转专讬 讜注讘讬讚 讻讞讚

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold in accordance with that statement of Rav 岣sda; rather, he maintains that according to the latter Rabbis a tumtum is a distinct entity. The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold in accordance with Rav 岣sda, why did he wonder about Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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?

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诪讗谉 住讘专讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讟讜诐 住驻拽 讗诇讗 讘讗讚诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝讻专讜转讜 讜谞拽讘讜转讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讻专讜转 讝讻专 诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘讜转 谞拽讘讛

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 谞讛驻讻讛 讝讻专讜转讜 诇谞拽讘讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗

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.

讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬转 讚讗诪专 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜讗讬转 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬

Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nanya bar Avin both say: You may even say that Rav Oshaya鈥檚 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.

诇讬诪讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 谞转拽讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

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鈥檌m. 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.

讜讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讬讘诪讬诐 诇讗砖转讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗砖转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

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 岣litza, i.e., his brother鈥檚 widow removes his shoe, as the tumtum might be a male, and she would require 岣litza to release her from the levirate bond. And if the tumtum died, one of the brothers of the tumtum performs 岣litza 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 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 住专讬住 讞诪讛 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐

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 岣litza 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 岣litza with his wife, and they may not enter into levirate marriage with her, as she is forbidden to them as a brother鈥檚 wife who does not require levirate marriage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讬讘诪讬诐 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

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 岣litza and one of the brothers performs 岣litza 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.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

And the one who says that the wife of a tumtum performs 岣litza 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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 住专讬住 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛

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 岣litza? 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 岣litza at all.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞诇讜抓 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻住专讬住

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 岣litza, because he is treated like a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. Just as this tumtum does not perform 岣litza, so too, his widow does not require 岣litza.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛

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 岣litza. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum does not perform 岣litza with the wife of his late, childless brother if there are other brothers to perform 岣litza, 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 岣litza. According to this opinion, it is not certain that a tumtum would be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally.

讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讬拽专注 讝讻专 诪砖转讻讞 谞拽讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞 砖诪讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜讬诪爪讗 谞拽讘讛

With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks: Why does this individual not perform 岣litza 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 岣litza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a female, who can certainly not perform 岣litza.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讻专 谞诪讬 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗

Alternatively, if he is found to be a male, he may also not perform 岣litza, 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 岣litza for his brother鈥檚 wife, what is the practical difference between their opinions? Rava said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 42

讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

Why, then, is it taught in a baraita that the verse: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be for the male鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

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: 鈥淭he male,鈥 and in the following verse it states: 鈥淎nd if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita discussing the peace offering, with regard to which it states: 鈥淲hether male or female鈥 (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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 谞拽讘讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪讟讛 讝讻专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: It states with regard to a burnt offering from cattle: 鈥淎 male鈥 (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: 鈥淎 male鈥 (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 鈥渁 male鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛谞注讘讚 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜诇谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐

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: 鈥淢ale,鈥 and: 鈥淔emale,鈥 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 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale.鈥

讜注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

But in the case of a bird offering, since 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讘转诪讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转诪讜专讛 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讛 诇讗 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注讛 讗驻讬拽 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜注讬讬诇 讬转讜诐

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讝讻专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

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鈥檌m. 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: 鈥淢ales鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19), and wherever it is stated: Male,鈥 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讗讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讟讜诐 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讜拽讚讜砖 诪住驻讬拽讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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鈥檚 statement, but a tumtum is an uncertain case, and therefore it is sacred due to uncertainty. And Rabbi Shimon

讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 拽讚讜砖 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪住驻拽讗 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讜讗 讚诪住驻拽讗

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.

诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讻专讜转 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讝讻专 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘讜转 诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞讛驻讻讛 讝讻专讜转讜 诇谞拽讘讜转讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘讜转 讞讜诇讬谉

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.

转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讞砖 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讞砖 诇专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讟讜诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 住驻讬拽讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan also say: Who is this who is not concerned about the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the mishna, as Rav 岣sda says: This dispute refers to a hermaphrodite; but with regard to a tumtum, everyone agrees that it is an uncertain case.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 砖讘讬拽 转专讬 讜注讘讬讚 讻讞讚

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold in accordance with that statement of Rav 岣sda; rather, he maintains that according to the latter Rabbis a tumtum is a distinct entity. The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold in accordance with Rav 岣sda, why did he wonder about Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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?

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诪讗谉 住讘专讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讟讜诐 住驻拽 讗诇讗 讘讗讚诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝讻专讜转讜 讜谞拽讘讜转讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讻专讜转 讝讻专 诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘讜转 谞拽讘讛

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 谞讛驻讻讛 讝讻专讜转讜 诇谞拽讘讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗

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.

讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬转 讚讗诪专 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜讗讬转 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬

Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nanya bar Avin both say: You may even say that Rav Oshaya鈥檚 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.

诇讬诪讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 谞转拽讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

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鈥檌m. 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.

讜讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讬讘诪讬诐 诇讗砖转讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗砖转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

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 岣litza, i.e., his brother鈥檚 widow removes his shoe, as the tumtum might be a male, and she would require 岣litza to release her from the levirate bond. And if the tumtum died, one of the brothers of the tumtum performs 岣litza 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 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 住专讬住 讞诪讛 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诐

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 岣litza 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 岣litza with his wife, and they may not enter into levirate marriage with her, as she is forbidden to them as a brother鈥檚 wife who does not require levirate marriage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇抓 讜讞讜诇爪讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讬讘诪讬诐 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

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 岣litza and one of the brothers performs 岣litza 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.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

And the one who says that the wife of a tumtum performs 岣litza 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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 住专讬住 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛

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 岣litza? 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 岣litza at all.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞诇讜抓 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻住专讬住

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 岣litza, because he is treated like a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. Just as this tumtum does not perform 岣litza, so too, his widow does not require 岣litza.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 诇讗 讞讜诇抓 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛

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 岣litza. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum does not perform 岣litza with the wife of his late, childless brother if there are other brothers to perform 岣litza, 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 岣litza. According to this opinion, it is not certain that a tumtum would be found to be a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally.

讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讬拽专注 讝讻专 诪砖转讻讞 谞拽讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞 砖诪讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专注 讜讬诪爪讗 谞拽讘讛

With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks: Why does this individual not perform 岣litza 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 岣litza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a female, who can certainly not perform 岣litza.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讻专 谞诪讬 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗

Alternatively, if he is found to be a male, he may also not perform 岣litza, 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 岣litza for his brother鈥檚 wife, what is the practical difference between their opinions? Rava said:

Scroll To Top