Strengthening of question: And there is an opinion that [an Androginus Kohen] even permits [his wife] to eat Chazah v'Shok, and R. Eliezer says there that a male who has Bi'ah with [an Androginus] is stoned like [for Bi'ah with] a male!

Or, [the Beraisa] is like the Tana'im of the Beraisos below, who exclude from "ha'Zachar" Tumtum and Androginus, and [the Beraisa] excludes [Androginus] from a Yitur!

Answer: According to what I explained [from Rashi], that it excludes it because it is a Mum, it is fine. He prefers to establish it like R. Yishmael, since it is totally established like him. (The latter "Zachar" teaches that it gets no Kedushah, or that a crevice in the place of flesh is a Mum.)

Question: Also without ha'Zecharim, we can exclude Androginus from ha'Zachar, like below regarding Erchin, and in Nidah (28a) regarding Tumtum and Androginus who saw white (emissions that resemble semen) or red (blood)!

Answer: Perhaps there are other Drashos, for many verses are written about Bechor, e.g. "Kol Miknecha Tizachar", and all of them are needed.

Implied question: We said above (9a) "you can even say that [the Mishnah about two Pitrei Chamorim born at once] is R. Yosi ha'Gelili. There (Tahor Bechoros) is different, for it says ha'Zecharim";

[The Gemara] asks "he should learn from it!", [and answers that] ha'Zecharim excludes [Pitrei Chamorim]. Here we establish [ha'Zecharim] for another Drashah!

Answer: [R. Yosi ha'Gelili] does not hold like Rabanan of the Seifa here.

Implied suggestion: Rav Chisda says that it is Kadosh amidst Safek, because the verse does not come to exclude a Safek.

Rejection: Regarding Tumtum, which some of them are male, and some are female, this does not apply (it is fine if a verse excludes Safek), like I explained above (41b DH v'Asi)!

Explanation: Rather, it is unreasonable to [Rav Chisda] to establish an exclusion for Tumtum, for he considers it a full male or a full female;

And R. Yochanan, who argues with Rav Chisda below (42b), it is because he holds that [Tumtum] is a different creation (not a male, and not a female), and Kedushah does not take effect on it, and even if it is found to be a male.

Question: Why don't we challenge Rav Chisda from [the Mishnah] in Temurah (24b, about one who was Makdish the fetus in a Korban, and said) "if it is a male, it will be offered for an Olah. If it is a female, it will be offered for a Shelamim. [R. Shimon ben Gamliel] says there that if it gave birth to a Tumtum and Androginus, they do not get Kedushah";

It explains there that [R. Shimon ben Gamliel] holds that Vlados Kodshim become Kodesh when they are born. If [they became Kodesh] in their mother's womb, they would get the mother's Kedushah;

According to Rav Chisda, who says that Tumtum is a Safek, a Tumtum would be Kodesh even if they become Kodesh when they are born, for he explicitly said that if it is a male, it will be offered for an Olah, and if it is a female, it will be offered for a Shelamim!

Suggestion: We can say "delete from here Tumtum."

Rejection: Still, [it is difficult;] why does [the Gemara] ask from Beraisos? It should ask from a Mishnah!

Answer: Rav Chisda explained that Kedushas Peh (verbal) does not take effect on them, but even so when they are born Kedushah takes effect on them, like all Vlados Kodshim, since it is Vadai a male or female.

Implied question: Why doesn't [the Gemara] answer that [R. Shimon ben Gamliel] means that Kedushas Piv does not take effect on them, and establish it to discuss [a fetus in] a Chulin animal, for which there is no Kedushah of the mother?

Answer: It connotes to [the Gemara] the Mishnah discusses both a Chulin animal (i.e. mother) and a Kadosh animal.

Explanation: He expounds a Yitur, but from "Zachar" alone we do not exclude [Tumtum and Androginus], like it says in Nidah (28a), and it is like R. Yehudah, like is proven in Shabbos (136b);

Citation (136b - Rav Chisda): R. Yehudah does not consider an Androginus to be male in every respect. If he did, he would have an Erech, but a Beraisa teaches that "[v'Hayah Erkecha] ha'Zachar" excludes a Tumtum [and Androginus]. I.e. and a Stam Sifra (Beraisa that expounds a verse in Vayikra) is R. Yehudah (below, 61a)!

Citation (cont. - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): A Mishnah teaches like this! R. Yehudah disqualifies a woman and Androginus to be Mekadesh Mei Chatas (mix ashes of the Parah Adumah with the water). Why is Milah different (for this, R. Yehudah considers an Androginus to be male)? It says "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar" [to include an Androginus].

Question: Why is Erchin different, that [R. Yehudah] needs a Yitur to exclude Androginus...

And for Kidush he does not need an exclusion, rather, he excludes him from the source that excludes a woman, from "v'Nasan", and not 'v'Nasnah', like we say in Yoma (43a)?

And for Milah, just the contrary he needs a Yitur to include him for the law of a male!

Partial Answer #1: For Kidush we could say that perhaps there is an exclusion (and the Gemara did not mention it). However, it is difficult from Milah!

Answer #2: R. Yehudah holds that Androginus is excluded from the category of a male, without any exclusion, [rather,] from reasoning. Therefore, he disqualifies him for Kidush. And for Milah, he needs a Yitur, Kol Zachar, to include him;

He needs an exclusion for Erchin, for from reasoning I would establish him at least to have the Erech of a female, if not that he is excluded from "Nekevah", and since he was excluded from "Nekevah", [the Torah] needed to exclude him also from Zachar, like we say that he was excluded from a female to establish him to have the Erech of a male.

The Beraisa of Olah above, which needs a verse to exclude him from Zachar, is not like R. Yehudah, even though it is a Stam Sifra, for R. Yehudah disqualifies [an Androginus] for Kidush without any Yitur...

Implied question: If so (not every Stam Sifra is R. Yehudah), why was it obvious to [Rav Chisda in Shabbos 136b, that the Beraisa] of (about) Erchin is R. Yehudah?

Note: This refers to the Beraisa that excludes a Tumtum and Androginus from Erchin from ha'Zachar. It seems that "Daf Dalet" should be deleted. The Beraisa is brought in Shabbos 136b and in Erchin 4b. Since Tosfos discusses what it says in Shabbos 136b, why should he call it 'the Beraisa of Erchin 4b'?

Answer #1: [Even so,] whenever we can establish a Stam Sifra like R. Yehudah, we do.

Answer #2: A Beraisa in Erchin (5b) explicitly says that R. Yehudah says that Tumtum and Androginus can pledge Erchin, but cannot be Ne'erachim (one cannot pledge their Erech, for they have no Erech).

Objection: What I explained is difficult, for in Yevamos (72b) it connotes that R. Yehudah disqualifies [an Androginus] for Kidush only due to Safek, for he is a Safek man, Safek woman!

Citation - (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Even an Androginus who was Mekadesh, his Kidush is Pasul, for he is a Safek woman, and a woman is Pasul for Kidush.

Answer #3: Really, it is a Safek to R. Yehudah. Regarding Milah, even if he is a total female, the Torah included him from "Kol Zachar", which connotes all Zachrus (male genitals);

And regarding Erchin, the verse excludes him from the Erech of a man or woman, since he is different.

Implied question: (Why does it say only that they have no Tum'ah?) They are also Kosher [for Korbanos ha'Of], like [the Gemara] explains the reason (the Torah did not mention male or female regarding birds)!

Answer: Since the first Tana said that they are Metamei, R. Eliezer said that they are not Metamei [for parallel structure].

Inference: This implies that [R. Shimon] holds that Androginus is a [separate] creation, like the reason for Tumtum. (It seems that Tosfos learns from the word "Nami", which is not in our text.)

Implied question: [The Gemara] concludes that he excludes Tumtum because it is a Vadai female when it urinates from [the back, the normal place of] Nikvus!

Answer: In any case, regarding Androginus the reason is due to Beriyah.

Question: In Yevamos (81a) it connotes that R. Shimon considers him a Vadai male according to R. Yochanan, who says there that [an Androginus Kohen] even feeds (permits his wife to eat) Chazah v'Shok!

Answer: Even if he is a Vadai male, [R. Shimon] excludes him from "ha'Zacharim", but a Tumtum he excludes because it is a female, i.e. if it urinates in the place of Nikvus, according to the conclusion that it is even a Vadai female, since he is not concerned lest Zachrus was switched to [the place of] Nikvus.

Consequence: Now, what Rav Chisda said above (41b) "but all agree that Tumtum is a Safek", you are forced to say that he did not say so when it urinates in the place of Zachrus, for that is a Vadai male! Rather, it is when it urinates in the place of Nikvus, and according to the first Tana;

However, R. Shimon holds that there is no Safek about Tumtum. If it urinates in the place of Nikvus, it is a Vadai female.

Question: What is Rav Chisda's source that according to the latter Rabanan, it is Kadosh amidst Safek? Perhaps they hold like R. Shimon, and it is not Kadosh at all!

Answer: Since from this reason that they argue about Androginus, because they hold that it is a Beriyah, they cannot argue about Tumtum, for according to Rav Chisda, no Tana holds that it is a Beriyah...

Presumably, they agree to the first Tana that a Tumtum is Kadosh amidst Safek, just like R. Yishmael agrees to him.

Question: Below (57a), R. Shimon ben Yehudah excludes Tumtum and Androginus from Ma'aser Behemah, because he excludes for Kodshim "ha'Zachar" [must be a] Vadai [male], and "Nekevah" [must be] Vadai, and he learns Ma'aser from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim;

What is the connection of one to the other? Regarding Kodshim it is excluded from Zachar because it is a female when it urinates in the place of Nikvus, but regarding Ma'aser there is no difference between male and female!

Answer: Rav Chisda would say that we must erase Tumtum from the text, and similarly Reish Lakish below.

Explanation: [Reish Lakish] holds like R. Shimon ben Yehudah. He did not say [so] according to everyone.

Source: Obviously, it is a Safek according to the first Tana of our Mishnah, for [he said that] we do not slaughter it, not in the Mikdash and not outside the Mikdash!