Tumtum and Androginos: Tannaitic Sources

(1) An Androginus (a hermaphrodite, who has both male and female reproductive organs) is similar to men in some ways and to women in other ways, in some ways to both and in some ways to neither.

(2) In what ways is s/he similar to men? Like a man, s/he is considered unclean through semen; is required to perform yibum (to marry the widow of a childless brother) like a man; dresses and cuts hair like a man; marries others and is not married off, like a man; and is obliged to perform all the commandments in the Torah, like a man.

(6) [If] a priest who was a sun-eunuch married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right to eat Terumah [a portion of a crop given to a priest which becomes holy upon separation and may only be consumed by priests and their households]. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon said: [If] a priest who was an androginos [person with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender] married the daughter of an Israelite, he confers upon her the right to eat Terumah . Rabbi Yehudah said: [If] a tumtum [person with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male or female] was torn and found to be male he may not undergo Chalitzah because he is like a eunuch. An androginosmay marry [a woman] but may not be married [to a man]. Rabbi Eliezer said: [If one has relations with] an androginos he is liable to be stoned like one [who has relations with] a male.

(7) "I am a Nazirite once I have a son," and he has a son, he is a Nazirite. If he had a daughter, or a tumtum [person with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male or female] or an androginos [person with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender.] he is not a Nazirite. If he said, "when I see that I have had a child," even if he had a daughter, tumtum or androginos, he is a Nazirite.

(5) If she miscarries a tumtum [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female] [fetus], or an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender] [fetus], she should sit for [the number of days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. If [she miscarries] a tumtum [fetus] and a male [fetus, at once], or an androginosand a male, she should sit for [the required number of days for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. If [she miscarries] a tumtum [fetus] and a female [fetus, at once], or an androginosand a female, she should sit only for [the required number of days for one who gives birth to] a female. If it emerged in pieces or backwards, once the majority of it has emerged it is regarded as having been born. If it came out normally, [it is not considered born] until the majority of its head has emerged. And what is [considered to be] the majority of its head? Once its forehead emerges.

(1) 1) (12:5) "And if a female she shall bear": This tells me only of (a child that is clearly) a female. Whence do I derive the same for one whose sex is in doubt and for a hermaphrodite? From "she shall bear." The criterion (for what follows) is the bearing (And since the sex here is in doubt, we assign her the days of cleanliness for a male, and the days of uncleanliness for a female.) "then she shall be unclean shvuayim": two weeks, fourteen days.

(1) All are fit to evaluate [i.e., pledge one's own worth to the Temple fund], to be evaluated [by another's pledge], to vow [another's worth to the Temple fund] or to have their worth vowed: Priests, Levites, Israelites, women and slaves. The tumtum [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female], or the androginos [person with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender.], are fit to vow [on another's worth], to have their worth vowed, and to evaluate, but they are not fit to be evaluated, as only those who are definitely male or definitely female are evaluated. A deaf-mute, a shoteh, and a minor are fit to have their worth vowed, and to be evaluated, but they are not fit to vow [on another's worth] or to evaluate, because they are not considered capable of intent. A baby less than a month old can be vowed, but not evaluated.

(2) 2) R. Yehudah says: The children of Israel are assessed, but gentiles are not assessed. I might think that they (also) do not assess; it is, therefore, written "A man." R. Yehudah said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they assess but are not assessed? Because the power of the assessors is greater than that of the assessed. For a tumtum (one of unknown sex) and a hermaphrodite assess, but are not assessed.

(8) 8) (27:3) "Then your valuation shall be": What is the intent of this? I might think that all who are included in valuations are included in money (vows), and a tumtum (one of undetermined sex) and a hermaphrodite and one less than one month old, since they are not included in valuations are not included in money (vows); it is, therefore, written "shall be."

(9) 9) "For the male": and not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might think they are not included in the category of "man," but they are included in the category of "woman"; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) "And if she be a female" — either a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. And whence is it derived that the sixtieth year (itself) is regarded as below it? From (Ibid. 7) "And if from sixty years and above" — which teaches that the sixtieth year itself is (regarded) as below it.

(1) (Bamidbar 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit, and you will not have a portion in their midst. I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the children of Israel.": Why is (all of) this stated? Because it is written (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that all are included — Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtum (those of uncertain sex) and androgynous (hermaphrodites); it is, therefore, written: "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — This excludes (from inheritance) Cohanim." (Ibid. 23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they (the Levites) shall not inherit an inheritance" — This excludes Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — This excludes bondsmen and proselytes (Ibid. 54) "A man, according to his numbers shall his inheritance be given" — This excludes tumtum and androgynous. (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit" — in the division of the land. "and you will not have a portion in their midst" — ("a portion") of the spoils. "I am your portion and your inheritance" — At My table (i.e., from the sacrifices) you eat and at My table you drink. An analogy: A king gave gifts to (all of) his sons except one, saying to him: My son, I gave you a gift. At My table you eat and at My table you drink. And thus is it written (Vayikra 6:10) "Their portion have I given to them from My fire-offerings." (Devarim 18:1) "The fire-offering of the L-rd and His inheritance shall they eat." Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to the Cohanim, twelve in the sanctuary and twelve in the borders (i.e., outside of Jerusalem.) Twelve in the sanctuary: sin-offering, guilt-offering, the remnant of the log of oil of the leper, the remnant of the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, the remnant of meal-offerings, the terumah of the thank-offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14), the terumah of breast and thigh, the shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite.

(1) (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names": I would understand that all are included — Israelites, Cohanim, Levites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtumim (those of indeterminate sex), and hermaphrodites. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you shall not inherit" — to exclude Cohanim. (Ibid. 24) "In the midst of the children of Israel they shall not have an inheritance" — to exclude Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (Ibid. 59) "To a man, according to his numbers, shall his inheritance be given" — to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. R. Yoshiyah says: The land was apportioned to those who left Egypt, as it is written "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit." What, then, is the intent of "To these shall the land be apportioned"? (To such as these,) to exclude minors (below the age of twenty). R. Yonathan says: The land was apportioned according to those who came to the land, as it is written "To these shall the land be apportioned." And what is the intent of "By the names of the tribes of their fathers"? The L-rd changed this inheritance from all the inheritances in the Torah. For in all the inheritances in the Torah the living inherit the dead, whereas here, the dead inherit the living. Rebbi says: An analogy: Two brothers, Cohanim, were in a city. One had one son; the other, three. They go to the granary (to take their portion.) The first takes one sa'ah; the others, three, after which they go to their fathers' father and share equally. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: The land was apportioned to these and to these. How so? If they were of those who left Egypt, they took a share with those who left Egypt. If they were of those who entered the land, they took a share with those who entered the land. If they were both of these and of the others, they took a share of both — so that both verses are satisfied.

(2) (Bamidbar 26:54) "To the (more) numerous (tribe) you shall increase its inheritance, and to the less (numerous) you shall decrease its inheritance." If one had five sons when he left Egypt, and ten sons when he entered the land, I apply to them "To the numerous you shall increase its inheritance." If he had ten sons when he left Egypt, and five when he entered the land, I apply to them "and to the less you shall decrease its inheritance." "To a man": to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. "according to its numbers": We are hereby taught that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned to each tribe according to its (head-count). And thus is it written (Joshua 17:14-15) "And the children of Joseph said to Joshua: Why have you given me a single allotment as an inheritance, when we are a great multitude whom the L-rd had thus far blessed? And Joshua said to them: If you are a great multitude, go up to the forest country and clear an area for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzi and the Rephaim, the mountain of Ephraim constricting you." "shall his inheritance be given": I would understand this to mean (that each tribe took) indiscriminately. It is, therefore, written (55) "by allotment." If "by allotment," I would understand, by themselves (i.e., by their own lottery.) It is, therefore, written (56) "By the word (of the lottery"), whereby we are apprised that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by the Holy Spirit. I might think, by himself (i.e., the high-priest, by means of the urim vetumim). It is, therefore, written "shall its inheritance be divided," (connoting in the presence of the entire tribe).

(2) [If] he left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum [person with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male or female], in the event that his possessions are abundant, the males push [the tumtum] toward the females. If the possessions are sparse, the females push [the tumtum] toward the males. If one says, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall claim a maneh,” if she birthed a male, he claims a maneh. "A female - 200 zuz” - [and] she birthed a female, she claims 200 zuz. "If it is a male, a maneh and if it is a female, 200 zuz” - if she birthed a male and a female, the male claims a maneh and the female claims 200 zuz. If she birthed a tumtum, [the tumtum] does not claim anything. But if he said, “Whatever my wife births shall claim," the tumtum claims. . If there is no heir aside from [the tumtum], [the tumtum] inherits everything.

(13) Variantly: "and they bear him sons": Sons come under this ordinance (of bechor) and not daughters. Because we find that daughters divide the inheritance where there are no brothers, (viz. Bamidbar 27:8), we might think that this ordinance obtains with them (as well as with sons); it is, therefore, written "and they bear him sons" — Sons come under this ordinance and not daughters.

(14) "and the first-born son be the hated one's": and not a tumtum (one whose sex is concealed) or a hermaphrodite.

(15) "and the first-born": and not one whose first-born status is in doubt.

(2) (Ibid.) "and she bears him sons or daughters": This tells me only of sons or daughters. Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) and a hermaphrodite? From "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" — in any event. R. Nathan says: It is written "and she bears him": to include the master who lived with his bondswoman, that her children are slaves.

(1) (Exodus 21:31) "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter": Why is this stated? (Ibid. 29) "and it kill a man or a woman" tells me only of adults. Whence do I derive (the same for) minors? From "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter." This tells me only of a distinct son or daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) or a hermaphrodite? From "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter." This tells me only of another's son or daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) his own son or daughter? From "Or if it gore a son, or it gore a daughter" — in any event.

(4) A tube which was cut for the chatat [as a vessel in which to sanctify the water with the ashes], Rabbi Eliezer says: it should be immersed immediately; Rabbi Yehoshua says: it should be made impure [first] and then immersed. Everyone is valid to sanctify [the water for the ritual, by mixing it with the ashes] except for a deaf-mute, a shoteh, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda validates with a minor and invalidates with a woman or an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender].

(10) The cover of a kettle which is connected to a chain, Beit Shammai say: it is joined for impurity but not for sprinkling; Beit Hillel say: if he sprinkles onto the kettle he has sprinkled on the cover [i.e. the cover also becomes pure], but if he sprinkles on the cover, he has not sprinkled on the kettle. Anyone is valid to sprinkle, except for a tumtum [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female], an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender], a woman, and a child that does not possess understanding. A woman may assist in the sprinkling, and she can hold the water while he dips and sprinkles. If she held his hand [during the process], even at the time of sprinkling [and not just the dipping], it is invalid.

(15) Everyone is obligated in [saying] Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals), Kohanim (Priests), Leviim (Levites), and Yisraelim (Israelites, regular Jews), converts [to Judaism], freed [non-Jewish] slaves, Chalalim (Kohanim who have lost their priestly status), Natinim, Mamzerim (bastards), [a person] castrated by [a deliberate act of another] person, [a person who was] born castrated, [a person] with [one or both] testicles crushed, and [a person] with a cutoff member. All of them are obligated [in saying Birkat Hamazon] and they can absolve others (i.e. say it for others) of their obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon]. A Tumtum (a person of unknown sex), and a hermaphrodite are obligated [in saying Birkat Hamazon], but they cannot absolve others (i.e. say it for others) of their obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon].

(16) A hermaphrodite can absolve his own kind (i.e. say it for another hermaphrodite) of his obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], but he cannot absolve [another person] who is not his own kind (i.e. a man, a woman or a Tumtum (a person of unknown sex)). A Tumtum cannot absolve neither his own kind (i.e. say it for another Tumtum) of his obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon], nor [another person] who is not his own kind (i.e. a man, a woman or a hermaphrodite).

(17) [A person] who is half slave, half free person cannot absolve [another person of their obligation of saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], (i.e. say it for another person) not [if the other person is of] the same kind as him (i.e. a half slave, half free person), and not [if the other person is] not of the same kind as him (i.e. either a slave or a free person).

(18) Women, slaves and children are exempt [from saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], and they cannot absolve many [people, who include men] from their obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon]. In reality, they (i.e. the Rabbis) said that a woman can say [Birkat Hamazon] for her husband, a son can say [Birkat Hamazon] for his father, [and] a slave can say [Birkat Hamazon] for his master.

(19) A child who is able to eat a Kezait (olive size piece) [of bread] is included into [a group of three people to say] the Zimun. And [a child] who is not able to eat a Kezait [of bread] is not included into [a group of three people to say] the Zimun. And we do not check the child [if he is really capable of eating a Kezait or not].

(1) (Exodus 23:14) "Three festivals shall you celebrate for Me in the year": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 17) "Three times, etc.", I might think at whatever place or time that one wishes; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:16) "on the festival of Matzoth, and the festival of Shavuoth, and the festival of Succoth." (Exodus 23:17) "shall be seen" (yod, resh, alef, heh, [which can also be read as "shall see"]) — to exclude the blind. "your males": to exclude women. "all your males": to exclude tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite. (Devarim 31:11) "You shall read this Torah in the presence of all of Israel in their ears" — to exclude the deaf. (Ibid. 16:11) "And you shall rejoice" — to exclude one who is sick or a minor. (Ibid.) "before the L rd your G d" — to exclude one who is unclean — whence they ruled: All are obligated "to be seen" except a deaf-mute, a shoteh, a tumtum, a hermaphrodite, one who is blind, or sick, or aged.

(1) (Devarim 16:15) "Three times in the year": "times" signifies "festivals," as it is written (Isaiah 26:6) "the times" (i.e., festivals) of the poor," and (Song of Songs 7:3) "How beautiful are your (festival) times (of "steps" [to Jerusalem]) in sandals!"

(2) "shall be seen (all your males"): Yochanan b. Dehavai says in the name of R. Yehudah: One who is blind in one eye is exempt from "being seen," it being written "yeraeh" ("shall be seen," which can also be read as) "yireh" ("shall see"). Just as he comes to see (with both of his eyes), so shall be come to be seen.

(3) "males": to exclude females.

(4) "your males": to exclude a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) and a hermaphrodite.

(5) "all of your males": to include minors.

(6) Which minor is exempt? One who cannot "ride" on his father's shoulder and go up to Jerusalem to the Temple mount. These are the words of Beth Shammai, it being written "your males." Beth Hillel say: One who cannot hold on to his father's hand and go up to Jerusalem to the Temple mount, it being written (Shemoth 23:14) "Three regalim (festivals)," lit., "feet."

(3) One may wash the infant both before the circumcision and after the circumcision. And one may sprinkle [water] on him by hand but not with a utensil. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may bathe the infant on the third day [following the circumcision] that falls on Shabbat, for it is said "And it came to pass on the third day when they were in pain," (Bereishit 34:25). One may not violate Shabbat [to circumcise] a doubtful child [if it's unclear whether the child was born at nine months or earlier] or an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender]. And Rabbi Yehudah permits it in [the case of] a androginos.

We learned in the mishna: If there is uncertainty whether or not to circumcise a baby, and likewise in the case of a hermaphrodite baby, one does not desecrate Shabbat to perform the circumcision of a hermaphrodite, even on the eighth day following the birth. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), and they interpreted the verse: “His foreskin” indicates that only the circumcision of his halakhically certain foreskin overrides Shabbat, and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.

(5) Rabbi Eli'ezer ben Ya'akov says, a woman who is the daughter of converts cannot marry into the Kohen class, unless her mother is an Israelite; [this ruling applies to] both converts and freed slaves, and even after ten generations [from the original convert/freed slave], until their mother is an Israelite. A trustee of an estate, an agent, a slave, a woman, a Tumtum [person with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male or female] and an Androginos [person with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such a person is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender.] all bring but do not recite, since they cannot say, "[the land] that You, God, have given me."

(1) (Exodus 23:19) "The first of the first-fruits of your land": What is the intent of this section? (Devarim 26:2) "Then you shall take of the first of all the fruits of the earth" tells me only of fruits per se. Whence do I derive (the same for) first-fruits which he trod into liquids? From (Ibid.) "shall you bring to the house of the L rd your G d" — in any event. And what is the difference between the former (i.e., fruits) and the latter (i.e., liquids)? The first — he brings and recites (the bikkurim declaration); the second — he brings and does not recite. "the first-fruits of your land": to exclude (from the mitzvah of bikkurim) tenant-farmers, renters, thieves and extortionists. (Devarim 26:3) "which the L rd swore to our fathers": to exclude proselytes and servants. (Ibid.) "which the L rd your G d gives to you (singular)": to exclude women, tumtum (indeterminate gender), and hermaphrodite. Does this imply that they are excluded from reading (the bikkurim declaration) or from bringing (the fruit)? It is, therefore, written (Exodus 23:19) "shall you bring" — in any event. And what is the difference between the former and the latter? The former bring and read; the latter bring and do not read.

(32) "which you have given me, O L-rd": From here it was ruled: A caretaker, a bondsman, a messenger, a woman, a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) and a hermaphrodite bring bikkurim, but do not recite the formula, for "which You have given me" does not obtain with them.

(5) What is the intent of "according to the count of souls"? From (Ibid.) "A man (according to his eating"), I might think only a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "according to the count of souls." This would imply for inclusion even one who is sick and one who is old, who cannot eat an olive-size. It is, therefore, written "A man according to his eating," to exclude the above, in whose behalf the lamb is not slaughtered.

(1) (Ibid. 12) "Honor your father and your mother": I would think (that they are to be honored) with words. It is, therefore, written (Mishlei 3:9) "Honor the L rd from your wealth." Just as there, "wealth," here, too, food, drink, and a new garment (are understood). Variantly: "Honor your father and your mother': (Leviticus 19:3) "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman/ Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one of indeterminate six) or a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "Honor your father and your mother," — in any event. Just as with honor (of parents) there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with fear. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: It is written: "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." Just as with (keeping of) Sabbath, there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with honor (of parents), there is no distinction between man or woman, tumtum or hermaphrodite. Rebbi says: Beloved is the honoring of parents by Him who spoke and brought the world into being, His having equated their honor and fear to His honor, and their curse (i.e., their being cursed) to His. It is written "Honor your father and your mother" and, correspondingly, "Honor the L rd from your wealth" — their honor being equated. It is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear" and (Devarim 6:13) "The L rd your G d shall you fear" — their fear being equated. I is written (Exodus 21:17) "And one who curses his father and his mother" and "A man, if he curse his G d" — their cursing (i.e., their being cursed) being equated. Come and see their reward. It is written "Honor the L rd from your wealth" and, correspondingly, (Ibid. 10) "And your bread will be filled with grain"; Honor your father and your mother" and correspondingly, (Ibid.) "so that your days be prolonged." The L rd your G d shall you fear" — (Malachi 3:20) "And there shall shine for you, who fear My name, a sun of bounty." "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." It (fear of mother and father) is likened to Sabbath. What is written of Sabbath? (Isaiah 58:13) "If you keep your feet from (dishonoring) the Sabbath … (14) then you will find pleasure in the L rd and I will set you on the heights of the earth, etc." R. Eliezer says; It is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man honors his mother more than he does his father because she cajoles him with words — wherefore he placed father before mother vis-à-vis honor (i.e., "Honor your father and your mother"). And it is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man fears his father more than he does his mother because he teaches him Torah — wherefore he placed mother before father vis-à-vis fear (i.e., "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear"), "compensating," as it were, for the lack. __ But perhaps whoever comes first in Scripture takes precedence in practice? (This is not so,) for it is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," (the Hebrew phrasing implying that) they are equivalent vis-à-vis practice.

(1) (Exodus 21:7) "And if one curses his father and his mother, etc.": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 20:9) "Every man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "if one curses his father or his mother." "And if one curses his father and his mother": This ("and") tells me (that he is liable) for cursing only his father and his mother (together). Whence do I derive the same for (cursing) his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "His father or his mother he has cursed" — in any event (i.e., either one.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("his father and his mother") implies both together or either one, unless Scripture specifies one. And what is the intent of "And if one curses his father and his mother"? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Every man" I would think that only a man (who cursed) is liable. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of doubtful sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "if one curses his father and his mother." This tells me (that he is liable if he curses them) only when they are alive. Whence do I derive (the same for cursing) the dead? From "And if one curses his father and his mother" — in any event, (alive or dead).

(2) "And if one curses his father and his mother": with the explicit Name (i.e., the Tetragrammaton). __ But perhaps an epithet is intended? Let it not be written redundantly, (Leviticus 24:16) "When he blasphemes the Name he shall be put to death." (It is written thus) to include one who curses his father and mother. He is not liable until he curses them with the explicit Name. These are the words of R. Achai. R. Chanina b. Iddi says: Since Scripture states "Swear" and "Do not swear," "Curse" and "Do not curse," since swearing is by the Name, so, not swearing is by the Name (i.e., "Do not swear by the Name of"); just as cursing is by the Name, so not cursing is by the Name.

(3) "he shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning; but perhaps by one of the other "deaths" of the Torah? It follows thus: It is written here (in respect to cursing father and mother, Leviticus 2:9) "his blood is in him," and elsewhere (Ibid. 27) "their blood is in them." Just as there, (he is killed) by stoning, so, here, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Exodus 22:27) "Elohim you shall not curse." If your father is a judge, he is included in "Elohim you shall not curse." And if he is a Nassi ("president"), he is included in (Ibid.) "and a Nassi in your people you shall not curse." If he is neither, it follows by induction from both, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge. The common element between them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him. __ But perhaps the common element between them is that they are dignitaries, and it is their eminence that accounts for this, wherefore you are exhorted against cursing them — as opposed to (the status of) your father! It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 19:14) "You shall not curse a deaf-mute," the most abject of men, and you reason by induction among the three, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge, and neither is like a deaf-mute, and a deaf-mute is not like either. The common element among them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him.

(5) 5) (20:9) "For a man, a man": What is the intent of this? To include a daughter, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite. "who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death": This tells me only of his father and his mother. Whence do I derive the same for (one who curses) his mother without (cursing) his father, or his father without his mother? From "He has cursed his father and his mother," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("His father and his mother) implies both together or each by itself unless Scripture explicitly states "together" (as it does in the case of kilaim).

(6) "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire": Why is this written? From (22:4) "a man," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire" — in any event. This tells me only of beast and fire. Whence do I derive the same for all of the other damagers in the Torah? It follows inductively from both. Beast is not like fire, and fire is not like beast. What is common to both is that it is their nature to damage, that they are your property, that it is your obligation to guard them, and that when they cause damage, you must pay for the damage with the best (produce) of the land. Four general rules were stated by R. Yishmael in the name of R. Meir in respect to damages. Wherever the mazik ("the damager") has permission (to be), but not the nizak ("the damaged"), he (the mazik) is not liable. Wherever the nizak has permission, but not the mazik, he (the mazik) is liable for everything. Where neither the nizak nor the mazik have permission (to be), such as property which belongs to neither of them, he (the mazik) is liable for (damage of) "tooth" and "foot," and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages. Wherever both have permission (to be), such as property owned in common, open land, the public domain, and the like, for "tooth" and "foot" he is not liable and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages.

(1) All [persons] are made unclean through a zivah discharge, even converts, even slaves, whether they are emancipated or not emancipated, a deaf-mute, a shoteh, a minor, a eunuch [whether rendered impotent] by man or a eunuch from the time of seeing the sun [from birth]. [With regard to] a tumtum [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female], or an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender], we impose upon them the stringencies of the man and the stringencies of a woman; they render unclean through [menstruation] blood like a woman and through egglike substance [semen] like a man, but their uncleanliness remains in doubt.

(5) "that they send out of the camp": Is this speaking of all men or only the Levites, the carriers of the ark? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "From male until female shall you send out" — Scripture speaks of all men. R. Yoshiyah says "that they send out of the camp" connotes both adults and minors. You say both adults and minors, but perhaps the criterion (for inclusion) should be punishment, viz.: Just as we find re sanctuary defilement that only adults are punished, viz. (Ibid. 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off" — here, too, only adults are intended. It is, therefore, written "From male until female shall you send out," both adults and minors. R. Yochanan says: Why is it written "From male until female shall you send out"? Because it is written "They shall send out of the camp," I might think, only these (viz. (Ibid. 2). Whence do I derive (the same for) all the other types of tumah? From "From male until female — any (type of tumah) that affects male or female — shall you send out." This tells me only of male and female. Whence do we derive the same for one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From (the redundant) "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of one who can be sent away (i.e., of one who can walk). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who cannot be sent away (i.e., that he must be taken by another)? From "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) appurtenances (that have become tamei)? From "and they shall not make unclean their camps." R. Akiva says: "Outside of the camp shall you send them" connotes both men and appurtenances. R. Yishmael says: It is derived by induction, viz.: A man is subject to plague tumah and garments are subject to plague tumah. Just as a man is subject to being sent away, so, appurtenances. — No, this may be so for a man, who imparts tumah (to an object) by reclining (mishkav) or sitting (moshav [upon it]), for which reason he must be sent away — as opposed to appurtenances, which do not impart tumah in that manner! — No, this is refuted by (the instance of) stones from a leprous house, which, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav or moshav, require being sent away. Do not wonder, then, if appurtenances, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav and moshav are to be sent away. R. Yossi Haglili says "From male until female shall you send them out": Just as male and female are distinctive in being subject to becoming proto-tumah (av hatumah) require being sent away, so, all that are thus susceptible — to exclude earthenware vessels, which are not thus susceptible.

(1) 1) (13:29) ("And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard (30) then the Cohein shall see the plague-spot; and if its appearance is deeper than the skin and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the Cohein shall declare him tamei. It is a nethek (a scall); it is leprosy of the head or the beard.") "And a man": to include a nethek within a nethek (as being tamei). "a man or a woman": This tells me only of a (distinct) man or woman. Whence do I derive for inclusion a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite? From "or." "if there be in it a plague-spot in the head or in the beard": This teaches us that the head and the beard do not combine with each other (vis-à-vis the minimum size for tumah).

(12) For the following they do not slaughter [as a sacrifice on the mizbeach] - neither in the Temple nor outside the Temple: If it had non-persistent white spots in its eye, or non-persistent tearing or if its inner gums are missing a piece but not uprooted, or if it had eczema, a wart or boils or if it was old or sick or smelled bad, or if a sin [of bestiality] was committed with it or if it killed a man [as determined] by the word of one witness or by the owners admission, a tumtum or an androginos, neither in the Temple or outside it. Rabbi Yishmael says, there is no blemish greater than this [i.e. being an androginos;] but the Sages say it is not a first born and can be sheared and worked.

(3) [Original] holy [sacrifices] are more stringent [in some ways] than a substitute, and a substitute is [more stringent] than [original] holy [sacrifices] , as [original] holy [sacrifices] can make a substitute, yet a substitute cannot make a substitute. The public and partners can dedicate an animal, but they cannot substitute, and [one can] dedicate limbs and fetuses, but one cannot substitute [for them]. A substitute is more stringent, [in that] the holiness [imposed by the act of substitution] applies [even] to an animal with a permanent blemish, and it cannot be redeemed to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda said: They equated unintentional [action] with intentional action regarding substitution, but not with regards to [dedicating original] holy [sacrifices]. Rabbi Eliezer said: Kilayim [the products of forbidden crossbreeding], terefot [animals with a mortal condition such that they would die within one year], those born via Caesarian section, the tumtum [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female], or the androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender] - they neither can become sacred [offerings] nor [where already sacred] can they make [other animals] sacred [via substitution].

(2) If an animal gives birth to two males, one is offered as an Olah and the second is sold to one who needs to offer an Olah, and its payment is not holy. If it gave birth to two females, one is offered as a Shelamim and the second is sold to one who needs to offer a Shelamim, and the money is not holy. If it gave birth to a tumtum [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female], or an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender], Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: holiness does not take effect regarding them.

(1) (Ibid. 5) "seh": Included in "seh" is a goat and a sheep, viz. (Devarim 14:4) "the seh of the sheep and the seh of the goats." "unblemished": to exclude a blemished animal. "male": to exclude a tumtum (one of indefinite gender), a hermaphrodite, and a female. ...

(7) 7) (Ibid. 3): "from the cattle": As we have said before (Section 2:10) — to exclude treifah; "a male," and not a female. As for (Ibid. 10): "a male," this is to exclude a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite.

(8) 8) Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If peace-offerings, where female animals are kasher as well as males, tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher — a burnt-offering, where females are not kasher as well as males, should it not follow that tumtum and hermaphrodite not be kasher? (Why, then, is the exclusion clause needed?) __ No, this may be so in the case of peace-offerings, where fowl are not kasher (for the altar), but fowl are kasher for burnt-offerings (so that without the exclusion, tumtum and hermaphrodite would also be assumed to be kasher.) __ This is refuted by a sin-offering, where fowl are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

(9) 9) __ No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male are kasher, as opposed to a burnt-offering, where all species of male are kasher. __ This is refuted by a bechor (a first-born male), where all species of male are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

(10) 10) __ No, this may be so with bechor, which is holy from the womb, as opposed to a burnt-offering, which is not holy from the womb. __ This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), which is not holy from the womb, and where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher.

(11) 11) __ No, ma'aser is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive,) whereas a burnt-offering is "one out of one" (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since it is one out of one, tumtum or hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "male," and not female, and, again, (Ibid. 10), ("male") — to exclude tumtum and hermaphrodite.

(5) 5) R. Eliezer says: Wherever "male" and "female" are mentioned, tumtum (an animal of doubtful sex) or androgynus (a hermaphroditic animal) are pasul. "male" and "female," not being mentioned in respect to birds, tumtum and androgynus do not render them pasul.

(2) 2) (Ibid. 3:6): "male or female (without blemish shall he offer it"): a definite male or a definite female, not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite. Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If a burnt-offering, which may be brought from fowl, may not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite — peace-offerings, which may not be brought from fowl, how much more so should they not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite! __ No, this may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be brought as well as males, as opposed to peace-offerings, where females may be brought as well as males. __ This is refuted by a sin-offering, where females may be brought as well as males, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite may not be brought.

(3) 3) __ No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male and female are kasher. __ This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), where all species of male and female are kasher as offerings, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher. __ No, this may be so with ma'aser, which is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive), whereas shelamim are one out of one (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since they are one out of one, tumtum and hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written: "male" or "female" — a definite male or a definite female, and not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

(4) 4) "his guilt-offering for his sin": Just as with his guilt-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his sin-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.

(5) 5) (Ibid.): "a female" — not a tumtum (of unknown sex) or hermaphrodite. "flock" — anything that can be subsumed in "flock," even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. "of the flock" — not a pilgess (a thirteen month sheep, see Chapter 10:2). "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering": What does this come to teach us? If that if he did not find a lamb, he may bring a goat-kid, does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If for a sin-offering (a lamb) that is brought for all of the mitzvoth, a bird may not be substituted but a goat-kid may be substituted (viz. 4:32) — this offering, for which a bird may be substituted (viz. 5:7), a goat-kid may not be substituted? (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?)