1)

(a)Rav Chisda qualifies the opinion of the Chachamim in the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Eino B'chor, Ela Nigzaz ve'Ne'evad' - precluding from their ruling Tumtum (which, they concede, is a Safek).

(b)The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... the extra 'Hey' in the word "ha'Zachar" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Vehayah Erk'cha ha'Zachar") that - a Tumtum and Androginus are precluded from Erchin.

2. ... the Pasuk there "ve'Im Nekeivah hi" that - not only are they precluded from the (higher) Erech of a man, but from that of a woman, too (which means that a Tumtum and Androginus are independent species ...

(c)... like the Chachamim in our Mishnah.

(d)Rav Chisda counters Rava's query here (and in all the subsequent Beraisos) from the fact that the Tana includes Tumtum - by simply erasing Tumtum ...

(e)... who will have the lower Erech of a woman (mi'Safek).

2)

(a)Another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Zachar Im Nekeivah" that - a Tumtum and an Androginus (which are neither of the two) cannot be brought as a Shelamim.

(b)The Neveilah of a Tahor bird - is Metamei, but only through eating (when it also renders Tamei the clothes of the person eating it).

(c)This does not apply to a bird Korban with which a Kohen performed Melikah - since such a bird is not considered a Neveilah (and is a Kasher Korban in all respects).

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that a bird that is Ne'evad, Muktzah, Esnan (Zonah) M'chir (Kelev), Tumtum or Androginus, and with which the Kohen performed Melikah - are all Metamei the clothes of the person who eats them (because since they are all Pasul, the Melikah renders them Neveilah).

(b)Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with the Tana Kama with regard to Tumtum and Androginus - because, seeing as there is no Din of Zachar and Nekeivah by birds, the P'sul of Tumtum and Androginus does not apply to them either (presumably because he holds that they are [not an independent species, but] an independent gender).

(c)Rava queries Rav Chisda not only from the Tana Kama, according to whom the Melikah is not Kasher (because even a Tumtum, it appears, is an independent species), but also from Rebbi Eliezer - who would agree with the Tana Kama, if not for the fact that the gender of a bird plays no Halachic role).

(d)After Rav Chisda erases Tumtum from the Beraisa, a Nivlas Of Kodshim that is a Tumtum - is not Metamei the person who eats it.

4)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar lists five cases in his ruling: 'ha'Tereifah, ha'Kil'ayim, ve'Yotzei Dofen, ve'Tumtum ve'Androginus, Lo Kedoshim, ve'Lo Makdishin'. Shmuel interprets ...

1. ... Lo Kedoshim to mean that - it cannot become a Temurah.

2. ... Lo Makdishin that - one cannot make a Temurah on it.

(b)This time it is not so easy to simply erase Tumtum, since the Tana specifically listed five cases. Nevertheless, Rav Chisda gets round this - by replacing Tumtum with Yasom (whose mother died as it was born [which is not eligible to be brought as a Korban, either]).

5)

(a)We cite yet another Beraisa, where Rebbi Ila'i in the name of Rebbi Yishmael considers an Androginus a B'chor with a blemish (as we cited him earlier), whereas the Chachamim say simply 'Ein Kedushah Chalah alah'. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah citing Rebbi Shimon says that wherever the Torah writes "Zachar", it always comes to preclude - a Tumtum and an Androginus.

(b)To answer the Kashya on Rav Chisda, he cannot simply erase Tumtum from Rebbi Shimon's opinion) like he did in the previous cases) - because then he will be saying exactly the same as the Tana Kama (Rebbi Ila'i).

(c)We therefore suggest that the basis of the Machlokes between the Rebbi Ila'i and Rebbi Shimon is - whether a Tumtum is a regular Safek [the Tana Kama], or an individual species, like an Androginus [Rebbi Shimon]).

(d)We conclude however that they argue over a different point (as we shall now see), but as far as a Tumtum's status is concerned - they both agree that it is a Safek, like Rav Chisda.

6)

(a)We conclude that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon both hold that a Tumtum who urinates from its male organ - is a male ...

(b)... and they are arguing about - a Tumtum who urinates from its female organ.

(c)The Tana Kama holds that it might still be a Zachar, whose male organ has twisted inside its body and is emitting urine from its female organ. Rebbi Shimon however holds - that it is definitely a female.

(d)Rebbi Ila'i (the Amora) ruled that a B'chor Tumtum Beheimah which urinated from its female organ - is Chulin.

7)

(a)The problem Rebbi Yochanan had with Rebbi Ila'i's ruling, was - how he could simply ignore the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, both of whom who consider a Tumtum a Safek.

(b)He did not include the latter Rabbanan in his query (according to Rav Chisda, who omits Tumtum from their ruling, since he considers it a Safek) - because he does not agree with Rav Chisda ...

(c)... and his problem with Rebbi Ila'i is - how he can ignore the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yishmael, and follow the opinion of the Rabbanan (whom he [Rebbi Yochanan] considers an individual opinion).

8)

(a)We nevertheless justify Rebbi Ila'i by citing Resh Lakish - who restricts the status of Safek by a Tumtum to Adam, but not to Beheimah, whose status is determined by which organ it urinates from.

(b)What makes Tumtum Adam different than Tumtum Beheimah in this regard is the fact that (unlike Tumtum Beheimah) - the two organs are situated in the same location, and one cannot really determine from which organ he is urinating.

(c)Even though there is no Safek by a Tumtum Beheimah, and the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who holds 'Eino Nishchat ba'Medinah', is speaking by a Tumtum that urinates from its male organ, he nevertheless holds Eino Nishchat ba'Mikdash - because a Beheimah without a visible male organ resembles a Ba'al-Mum (for which reason the Torah precludes it).

(d)And we will reconcile Rebbi Ila'i with ...

1. ... Rebbi Yishmael, who says 'Ein l'cha Mum Gadol mi'Zeh', and with ...

2. ... the Rabbanan, who say 'Eino B'chor ... ' - by establishing them both by an Androginus (whereas they both agree that a Tumtum that urinates from its male organ is a Zachar).

9)

(a)When Rav Osahaya asked why Rebbi Ila'i does not suspect that perhaps the Tumtum's male organ twisted inside its body and is emitting urine from its female organ, we answered that this would conform to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who holds that - we contend with the minority, which we combine with the Chazakah. Consequently, in this case, the Tumtum, which has a Chezkas Zachar, will remain a male.

(b)According to Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin however, Rav Oshaya's query will go even according to the Rabbanan, who might concede that here we go after the minority - since in any event, the animal is different than other animals ('Ho'il ve'Ishtani, Ishtani').

(c)According to the latter opinion, Rebbi Ila'i will justify his opinion - by pointing to the Machlokes in the Beraisa between the Tana Kama (who holds 'Ho'il ve'Ishtani, Ishtani') and Rebbi Shimon (who doesn't), and he holds like Rebbi Shimon.

10)

(a)The Beraisa holds 'Tumtum she'Kidesh Kidushav Kidushin, Niskadesh, Kidushav Kidushin'. The ramifications of ...

1. ... Tumtum she'Kidesh ... are that - the woman becomes forbidden to marry anyone else until she receives a Get from him (as well as being forbidden to his relatives).

2. ... Tumtum she'Niskadesh ... are that - he becomes forbidden to all her close relatives.

(b)The Tana rules Choletz, ve'Choltzin le'Ishto (in case he is a male) u'Meyabmin le'Ishto. He rules Choletz - provided there are no other brothers (otherwise, they must perform Yibum or Chalitzah, in case the Tumtum turns out to be a female.

(c)He permits the Tumtum's wife to make Yibum - mi'Mah Nafshach (if he is a Zachar then she is Chayav, whereas if he is not, then they are not married, and the brother who marries will not transgress "Eishes Ach".

(d)A second Beraisa disagree with the previous Tana - inasmuch as the Tana rules Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes.

11)

(a)Rebbi Akiva rules that a S'ris Chamah (a Eunuch by birth) - performs neither Chalitzah nor Yibum.

(b)The disputant of Rebbi Akiva is Rebbi Eliezer, who rules that - the wife of a S'ris Chamah can even make Yibum (since a S'ris Chamah is curable).

(c)Assuming that both Beraisos concur with Rebbi Akiva, we try to establish the Machlokes - by whether we say Ho'il ve'Ishtani (since he is a Tumtum, he is probably a S'ris Chamah as well [the second Beraisa]), or not (the first Beraisa).

(d)We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold Ho'il ve'Ishtani, Ishtani (not like Rebbi Ila'i), and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether they hold like Rebbi Akiva regarding a S'ris Chamah (the second Beraisa) or like Rebbi Eliezer (the first Beraisa).

(e)We just established the Beraisa that holds Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes like Rebbi Akiva. We then establish the author as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (according to Rebbi Akiva), but not Rebbi Yehudah, who says in the Mishnah in Yevamos that a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a Zachar - is definitely a S'ris Chamah, in which case his wife does not require Chalitzah either (whereas the Beraisa rules that she does).

12)

(a)Having established the author as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, we object to the Beraisa, that quotes him as saying 'Tumtum Lo Yachlotz, Shema Yikara ve'Yimatzei S'ris Chamah' - which implies that every Tumtum that tears open finds that he is a Zachar, which is not true.

(b)What he really meant to say was - ' ... Shema Yikara ve'Yimatzei Nekeivah; ve'Im Yimatzei Zachar ... '.

(c)We give the ramifications of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah as Lif'sol be'Makom Achim, by which we mean that - according to Rebbi Yehudah, even though the Tumtum she'Nikra performed Chalitzah, he has not disqualified the Yevamah from the other brothers, whereas according to Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah, he has.

(d)The second difference between the two opinions is that - according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Tumtum she'Nikra is Patur from Chalitzah, even if there are no other brothers, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, he is Chayav.