1)

(a)We have just seen that Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah consider an Androginus to be a Vaday Zachar. In a Beraisa however - Rebbi Yosi considers an Androginus to be an independent creature (i.e. a Safek - see Tosfos DH 'Beryah'), about whom Chazal remained undecided.

(b)Rav accepted the opinion of Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa in preference to what he said in the Mishnah - because, since he states his opinion there independently of Rebbi Shimon, it appears that he retracted, and went his own way.

(c)Shmuel, on the other hand - accepts the opinion of Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah, rather than that of the Beraisa, because he does not want to follow an individual opinion.

(d)We reconcile Shmuel here with Shmuel himself, who rules like the individual opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah (in the fourth Perek), like Rav does in this case - by pointing out that it is only when the individual opinion does not clash with a Mishnah that he will rule like it, but not when it does (as is the case here).

2)

(a)Amri Bei Rav - (Rav Huna) Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yosi in the cases of 'Androginus' and 'Harkavah'.

(b)We presume that Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah (unlike Rav above, who ruled like Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa) - because the other three cases mentioned by Rav and Shmuel refer to the combined opinion of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon (as opposed to Rebbi Yosi on his own), which then fits with Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah (but not with Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa).

(c)In the case of Harkavah, the Tana Kama forbids planting, converting the branch into a new tree or grafting, within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah of the Shemitah year. The opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah is - that any tree that has not taken root in three days will never take root.

2. ... Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon is - two weeks.

(d)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah adds - the thirty days of Elul to all three opinions (i.e. thirty plus thirty days, three plus thirty days, and two weeks plus thirty days).

3)

(a)Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yosi regarding 'Koshi' and 'Kidush'. 'Koshi' - is the birth pains to which one ascribes the blood of Zivus (should the birth take place during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah, and the woman has three sightings of blood whilst giving birth). We will not however, ascribe to it the blood of Nidus (to consider it to be a birth b'Taharah).

(b)When ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir says that Koshi is forty or fifty days - he means that, as long as the pains begin within the forty or fifty days preceding the birth, they will negate the Zivus at childbirth (but not before that).

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah says 'Dayah Chodshah' - he means that any pains that began on the calendar month in which the women gave birth (as little as one day if she gave birth at the beginning of the month - but pains from before that will not negate the Zivus - and the entire month, if she gave birth at the end of the month).

(c)Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon give the time period as - two weeks.

4)

(a)'Kidush' refers to the Mishnah in Kil'ayim. Rebbi Meir says - that someone who covers his neighbor's produce with his own vines renders the produce forbidden ...

(b)Beis-Din rule - that he is obligated to pay for the loss.

(c)According to Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon - a person cannot render forbidden something that belongs to somebody else.

5)

(a)On Amud Alef, we cited Amri bei Rav in the name of Rav that 'Halachah k'Rebbi Yosi b'Androginus (in our Mishnah) uv'Harkavah'. Shmuel ...

1. ... agrees with Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav regarding 'Androginus' - as he explicitly told Rav Ana (and as we learned on the previous Amud).

2. ... does not agree with Rav with regard to 'Harkavah' - because he told Rav Anan that he follows the opinion of the Tana who holds thirty plus three days (Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)We remain with 'Teiku' as to whether Rav agrees with Shmuel regarding 'Koshi'. With regard to 'Kidush', Rav Huna quotes Rav as saying 'Ein Halachah k'Rebbi Yosi' (not like Shmuel); whereas Rav Ada Amar Rav quotes him as saying 'Halachah k'Rebbi Yosi'. We accept Rav Huna's opinion however - because our She'eilah is really whether Amri Bei Rav Amar Rav agrees with Shmuel, and Amri Bei Rav is actually Rav Huna (as we stated above).

(c)The Sugya in Sanhedrin, which declares Amri Bei Rav to be Rav Hamnuna - is speaking specifically when Rav Huna quotes Amri Bei Rav.

6)

(a)Had Rebbi Yehudah (who declares a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a male a Saris), been there in the time of the Tumtum of Biri, whose wife bore him seven sons after that happened to him - he would have suggested that they make inquiries as to whose children they really were.

(b)We emend Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids a Tumtum to perform Chalitzah because 'Shema Yikra v'Nimtza Saris' - to read 'Shema Yikra v'Nimtza Nekevah, v'Im Nimtza Zachar, Shema Yimatzei Seris Chamah'.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah and his son Rebbi Yosi argue over - whether a Tumtum who tears open and discovers that he is a Zachar is a Vaday Saris (Rebbi Yehudah) or whether he is only a Safek Saris (his son Rebbi Yosi).

(d)One difference between them is whether, if he did perform Chalitzah, he invalidates the other brothers or not - the other difference is when there are no other brothers, in which case, according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, he will have to perform Chalitzah, whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, he will not.

7)

(a)When Rav says that an Androginus is Chayav Sekilah from two places - he means that someone who has relations with him as if he was a woman, is Chayav too.

(b)Rav justifies this in face of a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer explicitly says that he is only Chayav b'Makom Zachrus, but not b'Makom Nakvus - by establishing his own opinion like that of Rebbi Sima'i in another Beraisa.

(c)bar Hamduri explained to Rava that Rebbi Simai's source is the Pasuk "v'es Zachar Lo Sishkav Mishkevei Ishah" - which clearly refers to an Androginus, he says, who has two Mishkavos (whereas other people have only one).

(d)The Rabanan (Rebbi Eliezer) counter that Derashah from the same Pasuk - from the word "v'es Zachar", implying that he is only Chayav for the Makom Zachar.

8)

(a)The Rabanan learn from ...

1. ... "v'es Zachar ... " - that one is Chayav for indulging in homosexuality.

2. ... "Mishkevei Ishah - that one is Chayav for having unnatural relations with a woman.

(b)Rav Shizbi Amar Rav Chisda states that not in all regards does Rebbi Eliezer give an Androginus the Din of a Vaday Zachar, because if he did - then they ought to be subject to Hekdesh (and the fact is that, according to Rebbi Eliezer they are not, as we shall now see).

9)

(a)He learns this from a Beraisa, which lists a number of Pesulei Kodshim that are not Metamei the clothes of the person who is wearing them. The only kind of animal that is Metamei clothes of the person who is wearing them when he swallows them - is the Neveilah of a Tahor bird ...

(b)... and when it was slaughtered through Melikah (piercing the nape of its neck with his thumb-nail).

10)

(a)The Beraisa lists Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad, Esnan, Mechir, Tumtum and Androginus. 'Muktzah' - is an animal that has actually been worshipped, whereas 'Ne'evad' - is one that was designated for idolatry for seven years.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer differentiates between Kodshim of animals and Kodshim of birds with regard to Tumtum and Androginus - inasmuch as by animals, where the Torah writes "Zachar u'Nekevah", it comes to preclude a Tumtum and an Androginus, whereas by birds, where it does not, a Tumtum and an Androginus are subject to Kedushah.

(c)We learn from here - that according to Rebbi Eliezer, a Tumtum and an Androginus are not always considered pure males.

11)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings a further proof (for our interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer) from a Mishnah in Temurah. According to Rebbi Eliezer there, Kil'ayim, Treifah, Yotzei Dofen, Tumtum and Androginus have in common - the fact that they cannot become Kadosh, nor can they cause others to become Kadosh.

(b)Shmuel explains ...

1. ... 'Lo Kedoshin' - to mean that they cannot even become Kadosh in the form of a Temurah.

2. ... 'v'Lo Makdishin' - that if someone tries to swap another animal for them, the swap is not effective.

(c)Even though the above Pesulim cannot become Kadosh, the Tana still needs to teach us that they cannot make a Temurah in a case where someone sanctified an animal which then became a Tereifah, or of an Ubar, which then came out by means of a cesarean (on both of which the Kedushah takes effect). And it will apply to an animal of Kil'ayim, Tumtum or Androginus that were babies of Kodshim.

(d)A Ba'al Mum whose blemish preceded its declaration of Kedushah - will become Kadosh if it was declared a Temurah, even though it will not, if it was declared Kadosh initially.

12)

(a)If one does declare any of the above, Hekdesh - Kedushas Mizbe'ach does not take effect, only Kedushas Damim, which means that they may be redeemed even without a Mum, and following their redemption, they may be shorn or worked with.

(b)If, on the other hand, someone declare Hekdesh an animal that is a Rove'a or a Nirva, a Muktzah or a Ne'evad, an Esnan or a Mechir Kelev - his Hekdesh is effective, and they will adopt Kedushas ha'Guf, to require a Mum before they can be redeemed ...

(c)... and to remain forbidden to shear and to work with, even after the redemption (which in effect, only permits eating them).

(d)Tereifah Kodshim - must be buried.

13)

(a)When Rebbi went to learn Torah by Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, he describes how the latter's Talmidim surrounded him like a rooster of Beis Buki'ah - (which were very protective of their domain and would not allow any stranger to join their ranks), and only permitted him to learn one thing.

(b)The one thing that they permitted him to learn - was the quote from our Mishnah: 'Rebbi Eliezer Omer, Androginus Chayavin Alav Sekilah k'Zachar'.