Explanation (Ri): Here, "Beriyah [Bifnei Atzmah]" does not mean like elsewhere, that it is not a Safek;

Rather, here "Beriyah" means that it is a Safek, like he says "Chachamim did not determine..."

Support: In Nidah (28a), Rav said that if a Tumtum or Androginus saw white (semen) or red (blood) [from the place of their genitals], we do not burn Terumah due to this;

If one of them saw white and red together (i.e. without immersing in between), we burn Terumah due to this.

Inference: Rav explicitly considers it (their gender, and hence their Tum'ah) to be a Safek.

You are forced to say that this is like R. Yosi in the Beraisa, for according to R. Yosi in the Mishnah, [an Androginus] is a [Vadai] male.

Question #1: The Tosefta in Bikurim (2) concludes with the Beraisa of our Sugya "but a Tumtum is different. He is a Safek man, Safek woman."

Inference: An Androginus is not a Safek. Rather, he is not a man, and not a woman!

Question #2: The first Tana of R. Yosi in the Tosefta in Bikurim holds that an Androginus is a Safek. He is Metamei through red, like women, and through white, like men;

Inference: R. Yosi holds that he is not a Safek!

Answer (Ri): There, it means that a Tumtum is unlike an Androginus, who is a Safek because he is a different creation, who has male and female genitals; he is always a Safek;

A Tumtum is different. The Safek is whether he is a Vadai man, or he is a Vadai woman, just [his genitals] are covered, and it (his gender) is not recognized.

If he was Mekadesh a woman, and he was torn and found to be a male, it is revealed that from the beginning he was a man, and similarly if a man was Mekadesh "him", and he was found to be a female [it is Vadai Kidushin].

Explanation #1: R. Yosi does not argue with the first Tana. He merely comes to explain the first Tana's reason, even though it says "R. Yosi says..."

Alternatively, the entire Beraisa is R. Yosi. It should say "for R. Yosi says..."

Explanation #2: We can say that R. Yosi argues about one who said "I am a Nazir if this [Androginus] is a man and a woman", i.e. he is considered both. The first Tana says that he is a Nazir;

R. Yosi disagrees. He is not considered both a man and a woman. Rather, he is one or the other.

The first Tana holds that says that he is considered like both. He is partially like a man, and partially like a woman.

The first Tana also said that if one said "I am a Nazir if this [Androginus] is not a man and not a woman", he is a Nazir, for he is not a full man, and not a full woman.

Question: Perhaps he retracted from the Beraisa to hold like R. Shimon in our Mishnah! (The Rosh answers that presumably, the Mishnah was taught first. He must say that the Gemara's question was "perhaps the Beraisa argues with the Mishnah." Perhaps Tosfos understood that it asked "perhaps the Beraisa was after he retracted." If Rav assumes that the Mishnah was taught first, he should have answered so! Why did he rather answer "since he abandoned R. Shimon..."? That answer does not suffice! - Aruch l'Ner. He also answers that had R. Yosi retracted to hold like R. Shimon, R. Shimon's opinion should have been taught first in the Mishnah, even though normally we mention R. Yosi before R. Shimon.)

Implied question: Several Mishnayos hold that Androginus is a Safek - in Shabbos 134b, Nidah 28a, and Bechoros 41a!

Answer: In any case, R. Yosi holds that Androginus is a male, for the Mishnah is more authoritative than the Beraisa.

Implied question: If so, how do we infer below that Shmuel holds that Androginus is a male? Several Mishnayos hold that he is a Safek! (Perhaps he holds like them!)

Answer: If he held like those Mishnayos, he would not have rejected the Beraisa due to the Mishnah;

Since he holds that that reasoning (that he is a Safek) is primary, he would have said that the Beraisa is primary, which says so according to R. Yosi.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He rules like R. Yosi in our Mishnah.

Source #1: All the matters listed here, i.e. Androginus, grafting, Koshi (prenatal blood) and Kidush (of Kil'ai ha'Kerem) are Mishnayos, and R. Shimon is with R. Yosi (they teach the same law);

Inference: He refers to Androginus in our Mishnah.

Source #2: "They say in Rav's academy" refers to Rav Huna [who rules like R. Yosi here], and below Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that a man is stoned for Bi'ah with an Androginus in either place (the anus, or his uterus. This shows that he is a Vadai male, like R. Yosi in our Mishnah.)

Note: Below, in our text (83b), Rav Yehudah says so in the name of Rav. Gilyon ha'Shas points out that the text there of Tosfos and the Rishonim was "Rav Huna."

Explanation: He (Rav Huna) argues with what we said above according to Rav, that Leisa l'Masnisin (we do not heed our Mishnah, for R. Yosi retracted).

Inference: Since he said Leisa, this connotes that he holds like the Beraisa, like we infer below that Shmuel holds like R. Yosi of our Mishnah, since he said Leisa l'Beraisa;

Observation: Also in Nidah (28a), Rav holds like R. Yosi in the Beraisa about a Tumtum or Androginus who saw white or red.

Conclusion: Amora'im argue about the opinion of Rav.

Explanation (R. Tam): This does not refer to Shevi'is, for regarding saplings, there is no Tosefes Shevi'is to forbid a sapling that takes root in Tosefes Shevi'is;

Rather, it refers to Orlah. It means that according to the opinion that requires 30 days to take root, we require 30 and 30 days [before Rosh Hashanah, in order to count this towards the years] for Orlah.

Support (Ri): Rosh Hashanah (10b) proves like this;

Citation (10b - Beraisa): There is one law for planting, inserting [shoots into the ground] and grafting in Erev Shevi'is. If it was 30 days before Rosh Hashanah, it counts like a year, and one may keep it in Shemitah...

The Gemara deduces that we cannot establish this like R. Eliezer, who says that 30 days in a year are considered a year, for according to him, we require 30 and 30.

We establish it like R. Meir, who says that one day in a year is considered a year. Day 30 counts for this (taking root) and for this (like a year).

If it were true that Rav Nachman in the name of Rabah bar Avuha discusses Shevi'is, we could properly establish the Beraisa "there is one law for planting..." like R. Eliezer;

The Tana mentioned only the 30 days that are considered a year. He did not mention the 30 days to take root;

This is just like the Mishnah "one may not plant...", which mentions only the 30 days to take root, and omits the 30 days that are considered a year.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (100a), we rule like this teaching of R. Meir, who obligates Dina d'Garmi (causation of damage more directly than Gerama)!

Answer: In any case, perhaps the Halachah follows R. Yosi regarding that it does not forbid. Perhaps R. Yosi agrees to R. Meir that if it was Mekadesh, he must pay the loss;

Also there, it was brought only to show that from here we learn that he (R. Meir) obligates Dina d'Garmi;

It is regarding Dina d'Garmi that we rule like him in general, but here the Halachah follows R. Yosi, that it does not forbid.

Explanation: The same applies to one who seeds, like the episode R. Yosi brings in the Seifa [of this Mishnah];

It discusses draping a vine to teach a Chidush in R. Meir, that even through draping, it (the grain) is forbidden.

Citation: In the Seifa, R. Yosi brings an episode in which Reuven seeded Shimon's vineyard, and R. Akiva permitted. (Pores Yosef points out that the Seifa of this Mishnah (Kil'ayim 7:5) discusses one who seeded his own vineyard in Shemitah. The produce is Hefker, so it is not his.)

Possibility: R. Akiva permitted one who seeded grain, which is Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa.

Consequence: If so, the case in Menachos (15a) in which Levi seeded Yehudah's vineyard of Smader (the grapes had budded), and Chachamim forbade what grew from the seeds, and permitted the vines...

It seems that this refers to seeds of other species, which are mid'Rabanan. Had he seeded hemp or Luf (a kind of legume), or the five grains, which are Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa, they would have forbidden also the vines, which do not belong to the seeder (Levi).

If so, the case in Menachos (15a) is unlike R. Yosi, even though Shmuel rules like R. Yosi. Rather, it is like Rabanan.

Support: Also Rav Huna in the name of Rav says below that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.

Implied question: (In Menachos, we asserted that if something that can become Pigul made something else Pigul, all the more so it became Pigul. We challenged this from the episode, in which Chachamim forbade the Zera'im (what grew from the seeds), and permitted the vines. We answered that it was not Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa.) Why didn't we say that Chachamim held like R. Yosi, and permitted the vines even regarding Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa?

Answer: [The Tartzan] holds that R. Yosi permits even the Zera'im;

Since mid'Oraisa, a person cannot forbid another's property through Kil'ayim, there is no Kil'ayim, and everything is permitted.

Question: What is this different from one who put Neveilah or Chelev in another's pot? The food is forbidden!

Answer (Ri): We say [that one cannot forbid another's property] regarding something that depends on intent, e.g. one who bows to another's animal (to worship it - Chulin 40a);

Even if he did an action to it, e.g. he slaughtered it [for idolatry], there is an opinion that he did not forbid it.

Also the Isur Kil'ayim depends on intent, like it says in Kil'ayim (5:6) regarding one who saw vegetables [growing in his vineyard];

If he said "when I get there (i.e. at my first opportunity), I will detach it", even if it grew [in the interim] more than one part in 200 [of its current size, the limit for Bitul], it is permitted.

If he said "when I return [after engaging in something else first], I will detach it", it is forbidden.

Support: R. Tam explains that this is why in Bava Kama (100b) it mentions that he despaired [of fixing the breach in the fence between his vineyard and his neighbor's grain] and did not fence it;

This is only if he despaired. If he did not despair, and he was engaged in the fence and was unable to fence it until it grew another one part in 200, it did not forbid.

Implied question (Rashi): In Sanhedrin (17b), we say that "Amrei Bei Rav" refers to Rav Hamnuna!

Answer: That is only when Rav Huna cites Bei Rav, for then it is proven that "Bei Rav" cannot be Rav Huna;

However, Stam "Bei Rav" is Rav Huna.

Implied question: Rav Hamnuna was a Talmid Chaver of Rav Chisda, and Rav Chisda was a Talmid Chaver of Rav Huna. This is clear from Eruvin (62b);

Rav Huna would never cite a teaching in the name of Rav Hamnuna, who was his Talmid!

Answer: You are forced to say that there were two Chachamim named Rav Hamnuna.

Support: We find a Rav Hamnuna who was a Talmid of Rav, like it says in Bava Kama (106a) "Rav Hamnuna was a Talmid of Rav..."

In Eruvin (77b), regarding a Mitzri ladder, we say "did you not hear what Rav Acha bar Ada said in the name of Rav Hamnuna citing Rav;

In Eruvin (54a), Rav said to Rav Hamnuna "my son, if you have money to benefit yourself, do so..."

Question #1 (against Rashi - R. Tam): We said there (Sanhedrin 17b) that "they sent from there" refers to R. Yosi bar Chanina, and "they laughed at this in the west (Eretz Yisrael)" refers to R. Elazar. We asked, for it was taught "they sent from there, according to R. Yosi bar Chanina..."!

We answered that we [must] switch these. ("They laughed at this in the west" refers to R. Yosi bar Chanina, and "they sent from there" refers to R. Elazar.)

Summation of question: What forced us to switch both of them? We should say that when it is proven ["they sent from there" cannot be R. Yosi bar Chanina], it is R. Elazar, but Stam, it is R. Yosi bar Chanina!

[And we can say that] "they laughed at this in the west" always refers to R. Elazar!

Question #2: Also, since it says "Ela (which denotes retraction) Rav Hamnuna", this connotes that we totally retracted;

[According to Rashi,] it should have said "when it is proven [that it cannot be Rav Huna] is different"!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): [It says there] "Ela Rav Hamnuna", i.e. whenever you find Rav Huna citing Bei Rav, [it is mistaken]. It is not Rav Huna, rather, Rav Hamnuna citing Bei Rav.

Implied question: In Sanhedrin (57a) we find that "they said in Bei Rav" argues with Rav Huna, Rav Yehudah and all Rav's Talmidim!

Answer: Perhaps one (what is attributed to Rav Huna) is his own opinion, and one (Bei Rav) is what he (Rav Huna) heard from his Rebbi (Rav).

Question: It says in Zevachim (87a), "they said in Bei Rav, what is the reason of Rav Chisda?"

Rav Huna was Rav Chisda's Rebbi. It is astounding that he would explain his [Talmid's] words!

Explanation (R. Chananel): Perhaps he will be torn, and found to be a female. If he is found to be male, perhaps he will be found to be a Seris. This is the text in Bechoros 42b.

Question (Ri): What is his source? Perhaps he means that perhaps he will be torn and found to be a female, and if he is found to be male, he is a Vadai Seris, like R. Yehudah in our Mishnah!

Answer: We cannot say so, for if so what difference does it make what he said (whether or not it is possible that the Tumtum is a female)? In any case he is not proper at all to do Yibum. He should have said "a Tumtum is like a Seris"!

Question (R. Shmuel Bachur): In Bava Basra (140b, a Mishnah says that if a man died, and left sons, daughters, and a Tumtum, if there is much property, the Tumtum does not inherit. The boys say 'you are with the girls.' If there is little property, the Tumtum is not fed (with the girls). They say 'you are with the boys'. Rava explains that [in the Reisha] they dispel him, and he gets [fed like a girl];

Citation (140b) Question: The Seifa [says that if one said 'if my wife will give birth to a male, he should receive 100. If she will give birth to a female, she should receive 200', if she gave birth to a Tumtum, he does not receive. This shows that he is not a male or female!]

Citation (cont.) Answer: The Seifa is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, like a Beraisa says, if an animal give birth [for the first time] to a Tumtum or Androginus, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, it has no Kedushah. (We explain Tosfos like the Maharsha.)

Summation of Tosfos' question: How can we compare Kodshim to other matters?

Perhaps normally he holds that it is a Safek, but for Kodshim, we require that there is no Safek, like R. Eliezer says here, [that it must be] a known male or known female, to exclude a Tumtum!

Answer (Ri): The text there says "a Mishnah teaches", like Rashbam's text. We bring a proof that he is a Beriyah Bifnei Atzmah. (The Mishnah discusses one who stipulated 'if the fetus inside is a male, it is an Olah. If it is a female, it is a Shelamim'),

If it were a Safek, it would receive verbal Kedushah (i.e. due to the stipulation), even though we cannot offer it (since we are unsure which Korban it is), for it is no worse than a date tree! (I.e. at least its value would be Kodesh.)

Rather, surely it is not a male and not a female. Therefore, verbal Kedushah does not take effect on it, i.e. 'if it is a male, it is an Olah. If it is a female, it is a Shelamim.'

The text does not say "d'Tanya", like Ra'avan mi'Gash's text, i.e. a Beraisa about a Bechor;

Rava would not abandon the Mishnah and bring a Beraisa that does not prove anything! It is not proper to elaborate [about this].

Explanation: We do not count a Tereifah, which R. Meir, R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue about in Zevachim (69b), regarding one who did Melikah and found that it was Tereifah. They argue about whether it is Metamei Begadim;

Also there (68b) we explain that in any case that Pesulo b'Kodesh (after it was Mekudash in a Kli Shares, or if the Pesul is Kosher for Kodshim in a different setting) is not Metamei Begadim.

Implied question: We could say that likewise, they are Kosher to offer, like it says "you do not exclude Tumtum and Androginus from them (what may be offered)"!

Answer #1: Since the first Tana said that they are Metamei, he correspondingly taught that they are not Metamei.

Answer #2: Perhaps mid'Rabanan one may not offer them.