1)

TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan Garav Zeh ha'Cheres

úåñôåú ã"ä ä''â âøá æä äçøñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we did not answer that this is not the Mum Garav.)

úéîä àîàé ìà ÷àîø (îääéà) [ö"ì ãäå' - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] âøá ãá÷ììåú ùì îùðä úåøä ãëúéá áâøá åáçøñ åääéà âøá ìàå äééðå çøñ åîåí ÷áåò äåà ãëúéá áéä àùø ìà úåëì ìäøôà

(a)

Question: Why doesn't it say [that Garav written among Mumim] is Garav written in the curses in Sefer Devarim? It says "uva'Garav uva'Cheres." That Garav is not Cheres, and it is a permanent Mum, for it says "Asher Lo Suchal Leherafei"!

åé''ì ãîùîò (ãð÷è) [ö"ì ìéä ã÷øà ð÷è - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äëà æå àó æå ãâøá ùäåà çøñ éáù îáçåõ åîáôðéí åäåé îåí åàôéìå éìôú ðîé ùäåà ìç îáçåõ åéáù îáôðéí ëã÷àîøéðï áñîåê äåé îåí

(b)

Answer: It connotes to [the Makshan] that the verse mentioned here this, and even this. Garav that is Cheres is dry outside and inside, and it is a Mum. And even Yalefes, which is wet outside and dry inside, like we say below, is a Mum. (What is wet is less like a Mum);

åâáé ÷ììåú ðîé - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ð÷éè æå àó æå ùéì÷ä áâøá åàôéìå áçøñ ã÷ùä èôé]:

1.

And [also] regarding the curses, it mentioned this, and even this. He will be stricken with Garav, and even Cheres, which is harsher.

2)

TOSFOS DH Ela Tilsa Havu v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà úìúà äåå ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes Garav from Shechin Mitzrayim.)

[ö"ì ìç îáôðéí åéáù îáçåõ ìà îãëø äëà ëìì åãìîà àéï øâéìåú âøá ìäéåú ëê - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

(a)

Observation: Wet inside and dry inside is not mentioned here at all! Perhaps it is not common for Garav to be so.

[ö"ì ã÷øà ô' - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ã÷øà ãâáé îåîéï ããøùéðï áéä æä äçøñ éáù îáôðéí åîáçåõ ãîöøéí ìç îáçåõ åéáù îáôðéí

(b)

Explanation: [Garav] of the verse, i.e. the verse about Mumim, in which we expound Garav is Cheres, is dry inside and outside. Of Mitzrayim was wet outside and dry inside;

åëéåï ãéáù îáôðéí ìà îúñé åàí ðúøôàå îîðå äîöøééí ùîà îòùä ðñ äéä

1.

Since it is dry inside, it does not heal. And if the Mitzriyim were cured from it, perhaps it was a miracle. (Yalkut Shimoni 184 says that the magicians were never cured from it - "they could not stand in front of Paro." It is not explicit whether or not the other Mitzrim were cured. The Midrash which says that every Makah was for seven days connotes that they were cured. Also, we find that other servants could stand in front of Paro - Shmos

åéù ìúîåä äà ùçéï îöøéí ãðëúá áøéùéä ã÷øà ã÷ììåú îàï ðéäå ãâøá åçøñ ùàéï ìäí øôåàä áääåà ÷øà ëúéáé:

(c)

Question: Shechin Mitzrayim written at the beginning of the verse in the curses - what is it? Garav and Cheresh, which have no cure, are written in that verse! (If so, Shechin Mitzrayim must be something else!)

41b----------------------------------------41b

3)

TOSFOS DH Ileima Tana Kama Sefeka Hu v'Asi Kra Lemi'utei Sefeka

úåñôåú ã"ä àéìéîà ú''÷ (ñáø) ñôé÷à äåà åàúé ÷øà ìîòåèé ñôé÷à

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we say that he holds that it is a Safek.)

åà''ú îðà ìéä ãèòîà ãú''÷ îùåí ñôé÷à ãéìîà äåé (áçåèéí) [ö"ì ëçåèéí] äôðéîéåú ùðôâîå åùðâîîå ãäåé îåí ìòðéï ãàéï ùåçèéï áî÷ãù åìà äåé îåí ìéùçè áîãéðä åìòåìí áëåø åãàé

(a)

Question: What is the source that the first Tana's reason is due to Safek? Perhaps it is like outer Chutin that are chipped or cracked. It is a Mum to forbid Shechitah in the Mikdash, but it is not a Mum to slaughter outside the Mikdash, and really, it is a Vadai Bechor!

åé''ì ãîã÷àîø ø' éùîòàì ááøééúà áëåø äåà åîåîå òîå îëìì ãìú''÷ ìà äåé åãàé. áëåø

(b)

Answer: Since R. Yishmael said in the Beraisa "it is a Bechor, and its Mum is with it", this implies that according to the first Tana, it is not a Vadai Bechor.

4)

TOSFOS DH v'Asi Kra Lemi'utei Sefeka

úåñôåú ã"ä åàúé ÷øà ìîòåèé ñôé÷à

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains which Sefekos a verse can exclude.)

ëé äàé âååðà ôøéê áô' áúøà ãéåîà (ãó òã.) âáé ëåé åáëøéúåú áôø÷ ãí ùçéèä (ãó ëà.) åáô''÷ ãçåìéï (ãó ëá:) âáé úçìú äöäåá ùáæä åùáæä

(a)

Observation: We ask like this also in Yoma (74a) regarding a Kvi, and in Kerisus (21a) and in Chulin (22b) regarding the beginning of yellowness in both of these (Turim and Bnei Yonah);

åìà ãîé ìùàø ãåëúé ãîîòèéðï ñô÷ î÷øà ì÷îï áô' áúøà (ãó ðç:) òùéøé åãàé àîø øçîðà åìà òùéøé ñô÷

1.

This is unlike other places where we exclude a Safek from a verse - below (58b) "the Torah said Vadai Asiri, and not Safek Asiri";

åëï áäøú áñåó ðæéø (ãó ñä:) ñô÷ áäøú ÷ãîä ñô÷ ùòø ìáï ÷ãí ãîîòè ìéä îìèäøå àå ìèîàå äåàéì åôúç äëúåá áèäøä úçìä

2.

And similarly Baheres in Nazir (65b) - if it is a Safek whether the Nega came first or the white hair[s] came first, we exclude this from "Letaharo Oh Letam'o" - the verse began with Taharah [to be Metaher this Safek].

(ôòîéí ùäéä) [ö"ì ãäúí îùúðä ìôòîéí ãôòîéí ùäåà ëê åôòîéí ùäåà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëê

(b)

Explanation: There it varies at times - sometimes it is like this, and sometimes it is like this;

åèåîèåí ðîé äåä ùééê ùôéø ìîòåèé ùéù îäí æëø åéù îäí ð÷áä (åôèøå) [ö"ì åôñìå - äøù"ù] äëúåá ëì æîï ùäåà ñô÷

1.

Also Tumtum it is proper to exclude, for some are male and some are female, and the Torah disqualified him as long as he is a Safek.

i.

Note: We use masculine pronouns "he" and "him" regarding Tumtum and Androginus, like Tosfos does. This does not connote that he is truly male.

àáì ëåé åúçìú äöäåá åàðãøåâéðåñ ëåìï ùåéí ã÷îé ùîéà âìéà ëåé àí çéä àí áäîä åàí úçìú öäåá çùåá âãåì àå ÷èï åàí àðãøåâéðåñ æëø àå ð÷áä

(c)

Distinction: However, Kvi, the beginning of yellowness, and Androginus, all cases [of any one of these] are all the same. In front of Shamayim it is revealed whether a Kvi is a Chayah or Behemah, and whether the beginning of yellowness is considered big or small, and whether Androginus is male or female.

åà''ú äà øá ãñ''ì ãàðãøåâéðåñ ñôé÷à äåà ëãîôøù áñåó äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëç.) ãîèîà áìåáï åáàåãí

(d)

Question: Rav holds that Androginus is a Safek, like he explains in Nidah (28a), that he is Metamei through white (emissions that resemble semen) or red (blood)...

(åîã÷àîø) [ö"ì å÷àîø - öàï ÷ãùéí] áñåó äòøì (éáîåú ãó ôâ.) äìëä ëø' éåñé ãìà äëøéòå áå àí æëø àå ð÷áä åáøéä áôðé òöîå ã÷àîø øáé éåñé ááøééúà ìàå ãå÷à åàô''ä îîòè ìéä øá ìòðéï áéàú î÷ãù îãëúéá îæëø åòã ð÷áä æëø åãàé ð÷áä åãàéú åìà èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ

1.

And he said in Yevamos (83a) that the Halachah follows R. Yosi, that Chachamim did not determine whether he is a male or female, and "a creation unto himself" that R. Yosi said in the Beraisa is not precise, and even so Rav excludes him regarding Bi'as Mikdash, since it says mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekevah - a Vadai male or Vadai female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus...

åäéëé àúé ÷øà ìîòåèé ñôé÷à

2.

How can the verse come to exclude a Safek?!

åéù ìåîø ãäëà ôøéê ùôéø ãîîòè ìéä àðãøåâéðåñ îäæëø éúéøà ãëúéá âáé òåìä

(e)

Answer: Here it asks properly, that he excludes Androginus from an extra "Zachar" written regarding Olah;

åàí áà ìîòåèé àôéìå äåà æëø îùåí ãîùåðä îùàø æëøéí à''ë îãîîòèéðï ìéä (îäæëø) [ö"ì îæëø - âîøà òåæ åäãø] ù''î æëø äåà åìà ð÷áä àìîà ìà àúéà ëú''÷ ãàîø ñôé÷à äåà

1.

If it comes to exclude him, even though he is a male, because he is unlike other males, if so, since we exclude him from "Zachar", this shows that he is a male, and not a female. This is unlike the first Tana, who says that he is a Safek!

àáì áääéà ãøá úøé îéòåèé ëúéáé ãäåä îöé ìîéëúá îæëø åòã àãí àå îð÷áä òã àãí åàúà çã îéðééäå ìèåîèåí åçã ìàðãøåâéðåñ

(f)

Explanation #1: However, in Rav's case there are two exclusions, for it could have written mi'Zachar v'Ad Adam, or mi'Nekevah Ad Adam. One comes for Tumtum, and one for Androginus;

åàí àðãøåâéðåñ äåà æëø àúéà îæëø ìîòåèé åàí äåà ð÷áä àúé òã ð÷áä ìîòåèé îèòí ùäåà îùåðä

1.

If Androginus is a male, mi'Zachar comes to exclude him. If [Androginus] is a female, Ad Nekevah comes to exclude him, [in both cases] because he is different.

åìôé èòí æä àéú ìéä ùôéø ìøá äà ãàîø øá çñãà áñîåê îçìå÷ú áàðãøåâéðåñ àáì áèåîèåí ñôé÷à äåä å÷ãåù äåà îñôé÷à

(g)

Consequence: We can properly say that Rav holds like Rav Chisda's teaching below, that they argue about Androginus, but Tumtum is a Safek, and it is Kadosh amidst Safek;

ôéøåù ãìéú ìï ìàå÷åîé îéòåèà ìèåîèåí ùäåà åãàé àå æä àå æä àìà ùäåà îëåñä

1.

Explanation: We should not establish the exclusion for Tumtum, who is surely either [male or female], just [the genitals] are covered.

åäà ãàå÷é øá îéòåèà ìèåîèåí îùåí ãàéëà éúåøà

2.

Distinction: Rav establishes an exclusion for Tumtum because there is an extra [exclusion].

åòåã éù ìôøù ãöøéëé äðê úøé îéòåèé ãøá ãëéåï ùäåöøê ìëúåá æëø ëãé ìîòè àðãøåâéðåñ àí äåà æëø ìôé ùäåà æëø îùåðä [ö"ì àå - äøù"ù] åòã ð÷áä ìîòåèé àí äåà ð÷áä

(h)

Explanation #2: We need the two exclusions of Rav, for since [the Torah] needed to write Zachar, in order to exclude Androginus if he is a male, because he is an abnormal male, or it needed to write v'Ad Nekevah in order to exclude [Androginus] if "he" is a female...

òì ëøçê öøéê ìëúåá ùðéäí ëãé ùìà úàîø æëø ãå÷à åìà ð÷áä àå ð÷áä ãå÷à (àáì) åìà æëø åìà ðôøù ãäåä îöé ìîëúá òã àãí

1.

You are forced to say that it needed to write both of them, lest one say that the Torah discusses only a male and not a female, or only a female and not a male. We do not say that it could have written "Ad Adam"...

åî''î ñáø øá ãîå÷îéðï ðîé îéòåèà ìèåîèåí åìà ëøá çñãà ãì÷îï ðîé àùëçï ø' éåçðï ãìéú ìéä ãøá çñãà

2.

And even so, Rav holds that we establish also a Mi'ut for Tumtum, and unlike Rav Chisda, for also below (42b) we find that R. Yochanan does not hold like Rav Chisda.

åîöéðå ìîéîø ðîé îùåí èåîèåí ìçåãéä öøéëé úøåééäå ìîòåèé ñôé÷à ãéãéä îãéï æëø àí àç''ë ðîöà æëø åîãéï ð÷áä àí àç''ë ðîöà ð÷áä

(i)

Explanation #3: We can say also that for Tumtum alone we need both [exclusions] to exclude his Safek from the law of a male if afterwards he is found to be a male, and from the law of a female if afterwards he is found to be a female.

åä''ä àðãøåâéðåñ ìôé ùäåà îùåðä îùàø æëø àå îùàø ð÷áä åù÷åìéí äï åìéú ìéä ìøá ãääéà ãøá çñãà

1.

The same applies to an Androginus, because he is unlike other males or females. They are equally [reasonable to exclude]. Rav does not hold like Rav Chisda's teaching;

åëï àáéé áô''÷ ãçâéâä (ãó ã.) îîòè èåîèåí îùåí ãàéëà éúåøà

2.

Similarly, Abaye in Chagigah (4a) excludes Tumtum because there is a Yitura (extra word in the verse).

åéù ìúîåä ã÷ôøéê ì÷îï àìà îòúä áòøëéï éòøê åîééúé (øàéä îáøééúà) [ö"ì áøééúà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãîîòéè ìéä îòøê àéù åàùä îäæëø àí ð÷áä åîùðé ñîé îëàï èåîèåí

(j)

Question: [The Gemara] asks below "if so, in Erchin he should be Ne'erach!", and brings a Beraisa that excludes him from the Erech of man or woman, from "ha'Zachar... Im Nekevah", and answers that we must delete "Tumtum" from the text.

îàé ÷åùéà äúí àéëà éúåø ãîùåí àðãøåâéðåñ ìà öøéê àìà çã

1.

What was difficult? There, there is a Yitura. To exclude Androginus, we need only one (ha'Zachar or Im Nekevah)!

åé''ì ãäúí ðîé öøéëé úøåééäå ìàðãøåâéðåñ ãàé ëúéá äæëø ìîòåèé ä''à ìà âøò îð÷áä åéäéä áòøê ð÷áä

(k)

Answer: Also there we need both for Androginus, for had it written [only] ha'Zachar to exclude it, one might have thought that he is no worse than a female, and he has Erech Nekevah.

; åà''ú åäà ãôøéê îàí æëø àí ð÷áä ìäåöéà èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ îàé ÷åùéà ãéìîà äà âáé ùìîéí àéëà úøé îéòåèé àí æëø àí ð÷áä ãàí äåà îéòåè ëã÷àîø áôø÷ äîôìú (ðãä ãó ëç.)

(l)

Question: [The Gemara] asks (42a) from "Im Zachar Im Nekevah" to exclude Tumtum and Androginus. What was the question? Perhaps regarding Shelamim there are two exclusions Im Zachar Im Nekevah, for "Im" is an exclusion, like it says in Nidah (28a)!

; åàåîø ø''é ãâøñ æëø àå ð÷áä ãëúéá á÷øà áùìîé öàï ãäëé ãøéù ìéä áúåøú ëäðéí

(m)

Answer (Ri): The text says "Zachar Oh Nekevah", which is written regarding Shelamim from Tzon, for so it expounds in Toras Kohanim;

àáì àí æëø àí ð÷áä ãëúéá áùìîé á÷ø ãøéù ìéä äúí áúåøú ëäðéí åìòéì áô''á (ãó èå:) åáúîåøä áôø÷ àìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éæ:) ìøáåú åìã áòìé îåîéï

1.

However, Im Zachar Im Nekevah, which is written regarding Shelamim from Bakar, it expounds there in Toras Kohanim, and above (15b) and in Temurah (17b) to include the child of Ba'alei Mumim ;

åäùúà ôøéê ùôéø ìøá çñãà ãáäàé ÷øà ìà ëúéá àìà çã îéòåèà åäåé àå ìîòè ëîå àå ëùá ôøè ìëìàéí àå òæ ôøè ìðãîä

2.

Now it asks properly according to Rav Chisda, that there is only one exclusion in this verse. "Oh" excludes, like "Oh Kesev" to exclude Kil'ayim, [and] "Oh Ez" to exclude Nidmeh.

5)

TOSFOS DH veka'Mi'atei Kulhu Minei

úåñôåú ã"ä å÷îòèé ëåìäå îéðéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what "all of them" are.)

ôéøåù ëåìäå ð÷áä èåîèåí åàðãøåâéðåñ

(a)

Explanation: "All of them" refers to a female, Tumtum and Androginus;

åìøá çñãà ðîé ãáñîåê ãàîø ñîé îëàï èåîèåí ð÷è ëåìäå îùåí ð÷áä åàðãøåâéðåñ

1.

And also according to Rav Chisda below, who says 'delete "Tumtum" from the text', it says "all of them" due to a female and Androginus.

6)

TOSFOS DH Iy Amrat Bishlama Mifshat Peshita Lei

úåñôåú ã"ä àé àîøú áùìîà îéôùè ôùéèà ìéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives three explanations why we need a verse to exclude a Ba'al Mum.)

ôéøåù ãáëåø äåà åîåîå òîå äééðå ãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé

(a)

Explanation: It is a Bechor, and its Mum is with it. This is why we need a verse to exclude it.

åúéîä îäàé èòîà âåôéä ìà ìéáòé ÷øà ãëéåï ãáòì îåí äåà ôñåì ìâáé îæáç

(b)

Question: For this reason itself we should not need a verse. Since it is a Ba'al Mum, it is Pasul for the Mizbe'ach!

åôé' á÷åðèøñ ãäëé ÷àîø äééðå ãàéöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé ãàò''â ãæëø äåà ìà ÷ãéù ùåí ÷ãåùä àí ÷ãùéä ìùí òåìä åàôéìå áâéæä åòáåãä ùøé

(c)

Answer #1 (Rashi): It means as follows. This is why we need a verse to exclude - even though it is a male, it has no Kedushah if he was Mekadesh it for an Olah, and one may even shear and work with it;

åîæëø ÷îà ìà ðô÷à ìï ìîòåèé î÷ãåùä ãäà âáé áëåø ëúéá çã æëø åìà îîòéè ìéä øáé éùîòàì îâéæä ãìà ùøé ìéä (îùåí îåí àìà) [ö"ì àìà îùåí îåí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìéùçè òë''ì

1.

We do not learn from the first "Zachar" to exclude from Kedushah, for regarding Bechor it is written one "Zachar", and R. Yishmael does not permit shearing, and he permits Shechitah only because it is a Mum. Until here is from Rashi.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå (îåí îòé÷øà) [ö"ì ãáòì îåí îòé÷øå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìà àñéø áâéæä åòáåãä àìà îãøáðï ëãîåëç (ìéä - ùéèä î÷åáöú îåç÷å) ìòéì áô''á (ãó éã.) ãàîø ÷ãåùú (îæáç) [ö"ì ãîéí ìîæáç - ùéèä î÷åáöú, öàï ÷ãùéí] ãîéçìôà á÷ãåùú äâåó âæøå áä øáðï

(d)

Question (against Rashi): A Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro (from birth) is forbidden for shearing and working only mid'Rabanan, like is proven above (14a)! It says that Kedushas Damim for the Mizbe'ach, which is confused with Kedushas ha'Guf, Rabanan decreed about it.

; åéù ôé' àçøéí îøù''é ùëúåá áäí äééðå ãàöèøéê ÷øà ìîòåèé ãàò''â ãæëø äåà ìà î÷øáéðà ìéä ãð÷áåú ùìå äåä îåí

(e)

Answer #2: In other Perushim of Rashi it is written "this is why we need a verse to exclude. Even though it is a male, we do not offer it, for its Nikvus (female genitals) is a Mum."

åìô''æ ö''ì ãàúà äàé ÷øà ìàùîòéðï [ö"ì ãçøåõ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] áî÷åí áùø äåä îåîà ìàôå÷é îãøùà ãàáéé åøáà ãìòéì

(f)

Consequence: We must say that the verse comes to teach that a crevice in the place of flesh is a Mum, unlike the Drashah of Abaye and Rava above (41a).

(åúéøõ) [ö"ì åø"é úéøõ - ùéèä î÷åáöú, ç÷ ðúï] ãàéöèøéê ìîòåèé ìàùîåòéðï ãâøò îáòì îåí ãáòì îåí ðúôñ áúîåøä

(g)

Answer #3 (Ri): We need a Mi'ut to teach that it is worse than a Ba'al Mum. Temurah takes effect on a Ba'al Mum [but not on an Androginus].

åà''ú à''ë îàé ÷ôøéê àéìéîà ìú''÷ ñôé÷à åàúé ÷øà ìîòåèé ñôé÷à ùôéø àéöèøéê ìîòåèé ãàéï ðúôñ áúîåøä

(h)

Question: If so, what was the question "if you will say that that the first Tana is unsure [about its gender], does a verse come to exclude a Safek?!"? We properly need to exclude, that Temurah does not take effect on it!

ãñ''ã ãðúôñ àôéìå äåé ð÷áä [ö"ì ëîå äîúôéñ ð÷áä - äøù"ù] ìàùí ãúøòä ìøáðï ãø''ù áúîåøä áôø÷ àìå ÷ãùéí (ãó éè:)

1.

One might have thought that it gets Kedushah even if it is a female, just like one who is Matfis a female for an Asham. According to Rabanan of R. Shimon, it is Ro'eh, in Temurah (19b);

åëéåï ùéù áä ÷ãåùú äâåó îùîò ãîéúôñ áúîåøä åâí òåùä úîåøä )÷ãåùä øàåéä( [ö"ì ì÷ãåùä ãçåéä - öàï ÷ãùéí] ëîå úîåøú äôñç (ãøàåé ùàéðä ÷øéáä) [ö"ì ùàéðä øàåéä ìé÷øá - öàï ÷ãùéí] åàô''ä (ðúôñ) [ö"ì îúôéñ - äøù"ù] áúîåøä ì÷ãåùä ãçåéä åøåòä

2.

Since it has Kedushas ha'Guf, this connotes that Temurah [of Asham] takes effect on [a female], and also [a female Asham] makes Temurah, just like Temurah of a [Pasul] Pesach that is not proper to be offered. Even so, [the Pasul Pesach] makes Temurah to [create] Kedushah Dechuyah, and [the Temurah] is Ro'eh;

åâáé àðãøåâéðåñ (ãîîòè) [ö"ì îîòè - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] ìéä ÷øà äëà àôéìå äåé ñôé÷à ìôé ùàéðå ìà æëø âîåø åìà ð÷áä âîåøä

i.

And regarding Androginus, the verse excludes here, even if it is a Safek, since it is not a full male and not a full female.

åé''ì ãäëé ôøéê (îãàéöèøéê ÷øà æëø) [ö"ì àîàé àéöèøéê ÷øà ãæëø - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ìîòèéä îä÷øáú òåìä ëéåï ãñô÷ ð÷áä

(i)

Answer: [The Makshan] asks as follows. Why do we need the verse "Zachar" to exclude offering it for an Olah, since it is a Safek female?

äåà ãàé ìîòèå îãéï úîåøä àôéìå äåé ð÷áä ìà äå''ì ìîéëúá éúåøà áæëø ãîùîò ãîîòè ìéä îèòí ãàéðå æëø âîåø

1.

If it were to exclude it from the law of Temurah, even if it is a female, it should not have written a Yitura in Zachar, which connotes that it excludes it because it is not a full male!

åàí úàîø äéëé ãéé÷ ãîéôùè ôùéèà ìéä ìøáé éùîòàì ãéìîà àúéà ëúðàé àçøéðé ãñáøé æëø äåà ëâåï øáé éåñé ãôø÷ (îëàï îãó äáà) äòøì (éáîåú ãó ôà.) (åàðãøåâéðåñ) [ö"ì ãñáø ãàðãøåâéðåñ - öàï ÷ãùéí, ç÷ ðúï] æëø

(j)

Question: How do we infer that it is obvious to R. Yishmael? Perhaps [the Beraisa] is like other Tana'im, who hold that it is a male, e.g. R. Yehudah in Yevamos (81a), who holds that Androginus is a male!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF