אמימר אמר אף אינו ממעט חלק בכורה שנא' (דברים כא, טו) וילדה לו בנים עד שיהא בן בשעת לידה
Ameimar says: A tumtum who was found to be male also does not reduce the additional portion of the firstborn. His portion is not taken into account in the calculation of the firstborn’s additional portion. For example, if there are three brothers: A firstborn, an ordinary brother, and a tumtum, the firstborn receives one-third of the property as his additional portion, as he would if he and the ordinary brother were the only heirs, and the remaining two-thirds are divided among all three brothers. This is because it is stated with regard to the portion of the firstborn: “And they have borne him sons” (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that the brother of a firstborn does not affect his additional portion unless he is recognized as a son at the moment of his birth.
רב שיזבי אמר אף אינו נימול לשמנה דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וביום השמיני ימול עד שיהא זכר משעת לידה
Rav Sheizevi says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not circumcised on the eighth day, if his eighth day occurs on Shabbat, although the mitzva of circumcision on the eighth day generally overrides Shabbat prohibtions. As the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3), which is interpreted to mean that he is not circumcised on the eighth day, in the event that it occurs on Shabbat, unless he is recognized as a male from the moment of his birth.
רב שרביא אמר אף אין אמו טמאה לידה דאמר קרא אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וטמאה שבעת ימים עד שיהא זכר משעת לידה
Rav Sherevya says: His mother is also not rendered ritually impure due to his birth, as the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, then she shall be unclean seven days,” which is interpreted to mean that she is not rendered impure unless he is recognized as a male from the moment of his birth.
מיתיבי המפלת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס תשב לזכר ולנקיבה תיובתי' דרב שרביא תיובתא
The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Nidda 28a): A woman who miscarries a tumtum or a hermaphrodite [ve’androginos] observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to a male and to a female. Since it is uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must observe the halakhot of ritual impurity according to both possibilities. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sherevya that a woman who gives birth to a tumtum is not rendered impure at all. The Gemara affirms: This is a conclusive refutation.
לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב שיזבי
The Gemara asks: Shall we say it is also a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sheizevi with regard to circumcision, as the halakha of circumsicion is stated together with the halakha of ritual impurity?
תנא ספוקי מספקא ליה ולחומרא
The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna in tractate Nidda is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a tumtum, and therefore he rules stringently, that she should observe the halakhot of ritual impurity for both possibilities. Rav Sheizevi’s ruling can follow the same logic: The infant should not be circumcised on Shabbat, as it is uncertain whether the mitzva of his circumcision overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat.
אי הכי תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה מיבעי ליה קשיא
The Gemara asks: If so, that the tanna of the mishna in tractate Nidda is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a tumtum, the mishna should have stated that the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and to a female, and also as a menstruating woman. If it is uncertain whether the halakhot of ritual purity after birth pertain to a woman who gives birth to a tumtum at all, she should observe the halakhot of ritual impurity for any blood that emerges in the time period following the birth, as it should have the status of the blood of a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty.
אמר רבא תניא כוותיה דר' אמי בן ולא טומטום בכור ולא ספק
Rava says that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami that a tumtum firstborn does not receive a double portion of the inheritance. The baraita states: From the phrase “the firstborn son” (Deuteronomy 21:15) it is derived that only a son receives a double portion, but not a tumtum, and only a definite firstborn receives a double portion, but not one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn.
בשלמא בן ולא טומטום כדר' אמי אלא בכור ולא ספק לאפוקי מאי
The Gemara asks: Granted, the halakha that a son receives a double portion but a tumtum does not is understandable, as it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami, but what case does the halakha that only a definite firstborn receives a double portion but not one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn serve to exclude? Why would one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn receive a double portion?
לאפוקי מדדרש רבא דדרש רבא שתי נשים שילדו ב' זכרים במחבא כותבין הרשאה זה לזה
The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude that which Rava taught, as Rava taught that if two wives of the same husband gave birth to two males in hiding, so that it is unknown which son was born first, and the husband subsequently had other sons, each of the two possible firstborns writes an authorization to the other. Since their brothers can claim against each of them individually that he is not the firstborn and does not deserve a double portion, each writes the other an authorization to collect his portion, so that they can jointly claim the additional portion in any event.
א"ל רב פפא לרבא והא שלח רבין דבר זה שאלתי לכל רבותי ולא אמרו לי דבר ברם כך אמרו משום ר' ינאי הוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו כותבין הרשאה זה לזה לא הוכרו אין כותבין הרשאה זה לזה
Rav Pappa subsequently said to Rava: But didn’t Ravin send a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, stating: I asked all my teachers about this matter and they did not tell me anything; but this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized, i.e., it was known which one of them was the firstborn, and they were ultimately mixed, and now the firstborn cannot be identified, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.
הדר אוקי רבא אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לכם טעות הן בידי ברם כך אמרו משום ר' ינאי הוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו כותבין הרשאה זה לזה לא הוכרו אין כותבין הרשאה זה לזה
Rava then established an amora to repeat his lesson to the masses aloud and taught: The statements that I said to you are a mistake on my part. But this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized and were ultimately mixed, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.
שלחו ליה בני אקרא דאגמא לשמואל ילמדנו רבינו היו מוחזקין בזה שהוא בכור ואמר אביו על אחר בכור הוא מהו שלח להו כותבין הרשאה
§ The residents of Akra De’Agma sent the following inquiry to Shmuel: Teach us, our master: If the court had a presumption concerning this son, that he is a firstborn, and his father says concerning another son of his: He is his firstborn, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in response: Both of these sons write an authorization,