אִם אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא — חוֹלֶצֶת. אִם אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן הִיא — אֵינָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת.
If she is the wife of an Israelite, meaning she became betrothed to an Israelite, who may marry a woman who has undergone ḥalitza, she performs ḥalitza due to uncertainty. Given that the child may have been stillborn and therefore never considered alive, in which case she would be obligated to undergo levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza, by performing ḥalitza, she removes any doubt and can remain with her new husband. However, if she is the wife of a priest, she does not perform ḥalitza, as if she were to perform ḥalitza she would be prohibited to her husband the priest. Since there are those who hold that that the baby is considered alive from the moment of its birth, based on that opinion, she is exempt from performing ḥalitza, after the fact.
וְרַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ — חוֹלֶצֶת.
Rav Sherevya said in the name of Rava: Both this, the woman married to an Israelite, and that, the woman married to a priest, perform ḥalitza, as the prohibition against marrying a woman not released from her bond of levirate marriage is a stringent one, and the fact that her husband is a priest is not taken into consideration.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא: בְּאוּרְתָּא אֲמַר רָבָא הָכִי, לְצַפְרָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁרִיתוּהָ? יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתִשְׁרוֹ תַּרְבָּא.
Ravina said to Rav Sherevya: In the evening Rava indeed said so, as you said; however, in the morning he retracted his statement, and that is what I cited. Rav Sherevya, however, did not accept this explanation, and said: Did you permit the wife of a priest without ḥalitza, despite the fact that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel deems the baby stillborn unless he survives to the age of thirty days? Since you have violated his ruling, may it be God’s will that you continue along this path and permit the eating of forbidden fat.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא לַכֹּל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס זָכָר הוּא, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, בַּעֲרָכִין יֵעָרֵךְ!
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda permits circumcising a hermaphrodite on Shabbat. Rav Sheizvi said that Rav Ḥisda said: Not with regard to all matters did Rabbi Yehuda say that a hermaphrodite is considered a male; it was only with regard to circumcision, as if you say so, that the legal status of a hermaphrodite is that of a male in every sense, then even with regard to vows of valuation, he should be valuated.
וּמְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיעֲרַךְ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַזָּכָר״ — וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִישׁ אֲבָל יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַזָּכָר״, ״וְאִם נְקֵבָה הִיא״. זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית — וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.
And from where do we derive that he is not valuated? As it was taught in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, with regard to the verse: “Then your valuation shall be for the male from the age of twenty years until the age of sixty years, your valuation shall be fifty shekel of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 27:3). The Sages inferred: “The male” means the definite male but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might have thought that these shall not be valuated according to the valuation of a man, but shall be valuated according to the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: “The male,” and in the following verse: “And if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels” (Leviticus 27:4), indicating: Only a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, which are categorized as neither male nor female.