Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 42 for kids: When Is It Certain?

בכורות מ״ב

🔎 This daf asks how to decide whether a tumtum is male or female. The answer matters for animal offerings, firstborn animals, and family laws.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 42a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 42b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 42

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 42 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 42a, in English Tab translation (13)
  1. Then your valuation shall be for the male — The word “the” teaches that a tumtum is excluded. Why, then, is the baraita taught otherwise?
  2. The valuation of a man and a woman — They are not equal, as explained in the chapter Behar Sinai.
  3. If she is a female — The word “if” teaches that a tumtum is excluded. Scripture cannot exclude it because its sex is uncertain, since there is no uncertainty before Heaven. It must exclude it as a distinct type of being.
  4. Omit the tumtum from here — The verse excludes only a hermaphrodite, as a distinct type of being. A tumtum is subject to valuation, stringently at the male rate.
  5. Whether male or female — This is written about peace offerings. Scripture would not exclude an animal merely because its sex is uncertain; besides, either sex is fit for a peace offering. It must be a distinct type of being.
  6. A male, but not a female — This is the verse about burnt offerings explained above as excluding a tumtum. Since Scripture excludes it, it must be a distinct type of being, not merely of uncertain sex. Do not include “an animal that mounts” in the text here; that category does not apply to birds.
  7. To exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite — This implies that a tumtum, too, is a distinct type of being.
  8. One worshipped as a deity — The entire discussion concerns bird offerings.
  9. Render garments impure at the throat — Like any other carcass of a kosher bird: pinching their necks is not valid sacrificial pinching, so they remain carcasses. If a tumtum were not a distinct type of being, why would its pinching be invalid? Whether male or female, it would be fit, since Scripture makes no distinction between the sexes for bird offerings. Rabbi Eliezer’s statement raises the same question: would Scripture exclude a tumtum merely because its sex is uncertain? It must be a distinct type of being. Where Scripture excludes it, it is excluded; for bird offerings, where Scripture does not exclude it, it remains fit.
  10. Do not become consecrated by substitution — Even substitution, which takes effect for an animal with a permanent blemish, does not take effect for these. The reason is explained in the chapter Yesh Bekorbanot in tractate Temura.
  11. And do not cause another animal to become consecrated by substitution — Even if they themselves are consecrated, they cannot generate a substitute. This can arise when they are offspring of consecrated animals and become holy through their mothers. If a tumtum’s sex were merely uncertain, why would it not be holy either way?
  12. An orphan — It resembles the others, which are disqualified from birth. As explained in the second chapter of tractate Chullin, this means that its mother died during birth: one departed toward death and the other toward life.
  13. Let us say this is a dispute between tanna’im — This refers to Rav Chisda’s position: some hold that a tumtum’s sex is uncertain.
Tosafot on Bechorot 42a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Why, then, is it taught, “The male—but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite”? — The exclusion is derived from an extra word in the verse; “male” alone would not exclude them, as explained in Niddah 28b. This accords with Rabbi Yehuda. In Shabbat 136b, Rav Hisda says that Rabbi Yehuda does not always regard a hermaphrodite as male: otherwise, one could be assigned a valuation, whereas this baraita excludes one. The baraita is from the Sifra, whose unattributed teachings are generally Rabbi Yehuda’s. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak also cites Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that neither a woman nor a hermaphrodite may prepare the water of purification. Why, then, does valuation require an extra word to exclude a hermaphrodite, preparation of the water require none, and circumcision require the extra phrase “every male” to include one? One could suggest that Rabbi Yehuda considers a hermaphrodite excluded from “male” without a special verse, but included in circumcision by “every male.” Valuation needs an exclusion because one might otherwise assign at least a woman’s valuation. On that reading, the earlier baraita about burnt offerings, which needs a verse to exclude a hermaphrodite from “male,” is not Rabbi Yehuda’s, despite being from the Sifra. We attribute an unattributed Sifra teaching to him where possible, and Arakhin 5b explicitly says in his name that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite may pledge others’ valuations but cannot themselves be assigned valuations. Yet Yevamot 72b calls a hermaphrodite’s preparation of the water invalid because it is uncertain whether one is a man or a woman. It therefore seems better to explain that Rabbi Yehuda considers the status uncertain: “every male” includes a hermaphrodite in circumcision on account of the male characteristics, even if one were otherwise treated as female; the valuation verses exclude one from both male and female valuations because one differs from either.
  2. A tumtum or a hermaphrodite does not render clothing impure while being swallowed — They are also fit to be offered, as Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning explains. He speaks of impurity while swallowing because the first tanna framed the dispute that way.
  3. And Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Yehuda, in Rabbi Shimon’s name, comes to say that a tumtum too is a distinct entity — This implies that he also regards a hermaphrodite as a distinct entity. Even if the conclusion excludes a tumtum who urinates from a female opening on the grounds that the tumtum is female, a hermaphrodite is still excluded as a distinct entity. Yet Yevamot 81b implies that Rabbi Shimon regards a hermaphrodite as definitely male: according to Rabbi Yochanan, he even permits a hermaphrodite priest’s wife to eat the breast and thigh of offerings. The answer is that even if a hermaphrodite is definitely male, the word “male” excludes one here. The conclusion likewise excludes a tumtum who urinates from a female opening even if the tumtum is definitely female, since it does not entertain the possibility that male organs have changed into female organs.
Rashi on Bechorot 42b, in English Tab translation (29)
  1. Everyone agrees that a tumtum is not a distinct entity — This lets Rav Ḥisda’s view fit the tannaitic dispute: one could say that the tanna who calls a tumtum a distinct entity follows the latter Rabbis. Instead, the tannaim in this baraita disagree about something else. All agree that a tumtum that urinates from the male location is male and has the sanctity of a firstborn.
  2. The first tanna holds that we are concerned its male organ may have been inverted — Its organ may have folded inward, causing it to urinate from the female location. Rabbi Shimon holds that we do not suspect this and that it is certainly female. Rav Ḥisda’s statement that everyone considers a tumtum uncertain teaches that the latter Rabbis do not regard it as a distinct entity to which firstborn sanctity can never apply. Rav Ḥisda nevertheless holds that one tanna sees no uncertainty at all: the location of urination establishes whether it is male or female. All agree with Rav Ḥisda that firstborn sanctity can apply to a tumtum.
  3. As Rabbi Ilai ruled — That is, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Ilai’s ruling.
  4. Non-sacred — Rabbi Ilai means that it does not have firstborn sanctity because it is certainly female. This Rabbi Ilai is an amora, not the tanna cited earlier in the baraita in Rabbi Yishmael’s name.
  5. Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered about it — He questioned Rabbi Ilai’s ruling.
  6. Neither the first tanna nor Rabbi Yishmael — In the mishna, they say a tumtum may be slaughtered neither in the Temple nor outside it because its status is uncertain. Rabbi Yishmael disagrees only about a hermaphrodite whose female organ has the form of a groove.
  7. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept it — He does not accept Rav Ḥisda’s statement; rather, he holds that the latter Rabbis also call a tumtum a distinct entity.
  8. If he does not accept it — Why does Rabbi Yoḥanan wonder? Rabbi Ilai could simply be ruling like the latter Rabbis.
  9. He leaves aside two — Rabbi Ilai leaves aside the first tanna and Rabbi Yishmael and rules like the one opposing view, that of the latter Rabbis.
  10. Because the male and female organs are in the same place — In a person, urination cannot resolve the uncertainty. In an animal, everyone agrees that the location of urination establishes its sex. When the first tanna of the mishna says it may not be slaughtered, he means one that urinates from the male location: it is certainly a sacred firstborn, so it may not be slaughtered outside the Temple. It also cannot be offered in the Temple, because its concealed organ makes it appear blemished; elsewhere, the verse’s word ‘male’ is understood to exclude a tumtum from being offered. Rabbi Yishmael and the latter Rabbis discuss a hermaphrodite. Thus Rabbi Ilai’s ruling follows everyone.
  11. Like Rabbi Meir? — Abaye asks in surprise: Are we to take account of this rare possibility, as Rabbi Meir does?
  12. Even according to the Rabbis — The objection can also follow the Rabbis: since this animal is already unusual in being a tumtum, perhaps its male organ has also been inverted toward the female location.
  13. Some say that, since it has changed, it has changed again — One view applies that reasoning to an animal. It is the view of the first tanna, who disagrees above with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and suspects that the organ was inverted. Rabbi Elazar agrees with Rabbi Shimon.
  14. Let us say — Is the question of whether one unusual condition makes us suspect another a dispute between tannaim?
  15. If a tumtum betrothed a woman, the betrothal is valid — As a stringency, she requires a bill of divorce, since the tumtum may be male.
  16. If a tumtum was betrothed, the betrothal is valid — The man who betrothed the tumtum is forbidden to the tumtum’s close relatives, such as its mother and sister, since the tumtum may be female.
  17. And the tumtum performs ḥalitza — As a precaution, if it is the deceased brother’s only surviving brother, the widow requires ḥalitza from it. If there is another brother, the tumtum does not perform ḥalitza, since this tanna also considers it possibly female.
  18. And they perform ḥalitza with its wife — This is a precaution, since the tumtum may have been male.
  19. And they enter into levirate marriage with its wife — Either way, this is permitted: if the tumtum was male, its brother properly enters into levirate marriage; if it was female, the brother simply marries an unrelated woman. The tumtum itself does not enter into levirate marriage, because it cannot father children and does not fulfill ‘to establish a name for his brother.’
  20. Does everyone not follow Rabbi Akiva, who says — In Yevamot, Rabbi Akiva says that a naturally occurring eunuch does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage, and his wife neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into levirate marriage, because he was never fit to father children.
  21. And they disagree about this — The view permitting levirate marriage with the tumtum’s wife reasons that, if the tumtum was male, its brother may marry her. It does not say that because the tumtum is unusual, it may also be a naturally occurring eunuch—even if it were opened and found male. A naturally occurring eunuch’s wife does not enter into levirate marriage.
  22. And the view that she does not enter into levirate marriage holds that we do say, ‘Since it has changed’ — Because the tumtum is unusual, it may also be a naturally occurring eunuch, even if found male. Its wife therefore cannot enter into levirate marriage: if it was male, their betrothal was valid, but if it was a naturally occurring eunuch, she has no levirate bond. His brother would then violate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife. She still requires ḥalitza, since we do not know that the tumtum was a eunuch.
  23. No; everyone says it may also have changed — All consider it possibly a naturally occurring eunuch. The view permitting levirate marriage follows Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the wife of a naturally occurring eunuch enters into levirate marriage, since men with that condition can be cured in Alexandria, Egypt. Thus the marriage is permitted either way. The view forbidding it follows Rabbi Akiva.
  24. And who is the tanna who follows Rabbi Akiva — Who says that she performs ḥalitza but does not enter into levirate marriage?
  25. He considers the tumtum certainly a eunuch — If so, even ḥalitza should not be required, since Rabbi Akiva does not require it for the wife of a naturally occurring eunuch.
  26. Rather, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — speaks of uncertainty. The tumtum must perform ḥalitza, since he may be male and may not be a natural eunuch. He may not enter levirate marriage, since he may be a male natural eunuch, whose brother’s widow is not bound to him; marrying her would then violate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife who is treated as having children.
  27. Perhaps he will be opened up, etc. — The ruling that he does not perform ḥalitza applies when there are other brothers, because he may be a natural eunuch. But if there is no other brother, he performs ḥalitza: his brother’s widow cannot be released without anything, since he may not be a eunuch. Likewise, if he dies, his wife requires ḥalitza because he may not have been a eunuch, but she may not enter levirate marriage because he may have been one.
  28. Does everyone who is opened up prove to be male? — This view considers only the uncertainty that the tumtum may be a natural eunuch, not the possibility that the tumtum is female.
  29. What is the difference between them? — Between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning a tumtum whose brother died: both say that the tumtum does not perform ḥalitza.
Tosafot on Bechorot 42b, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. They disagree when it urinates from the female place — Rav Hisda’s earlier statement that everyone considers a tumtum uncertain cannot refer to one that urinates from the male place, which is certainly male. It refers to one that urinates from the female place, according to the first tanna. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, however, has no doubt: he considers it certainly female. But how does Rav Hisda know that the latter Rabbis consider such a tumtum sacred because of uncertainty? Perhaps they agree with Rabbi Shimon that it is not sacred at all. Since, in Rav Hisda’s view, their reason for disagreeing about a hermaphrodite—that it is a distinct entity—cannot apply to a tumtum, which no tanna considers a distinct entity, they presumably agree with the first tanna, as Rabbi Yishmael does, that a tumtum is sacred because of uncertainty. But later, in Bekhorot 57a, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda excludes both a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from animal tithe by deriving its law from the exclusion of an animal that is not definitely male or definitely female from consecration. How can he apply that exclusion to animal tithe, which makes no distinction between males and females? For consecration, he excludes a tumtum that urinates from the female place because it is female. Rav Hisda would answer: Remove ‘tumtum’ from that teaching. Reish Lakish, whose statement follows, would answer likewise.
  2. They said a tumtum is uncertain only in a person — This follows Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s view, not everyone’s. The first tanna of the mishna plainly considers an animal tumtum uncertain: it may be slaughtered neither in the Temple nor outside it.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 42.