Categorizing the Ambiguous: Tumtum and Androginos in Bekhorot

How Tosafot defines the mechanics of scriptural exclusions, blemish severity, and intrinsic sanctity in sexually ambiguous animals.

Human Uncertainty Versus Heavenly Reality

The Gemara examines a baraita that excludes a טומטום (tumtum, an animal with concealed sex organs) and an אנדרוגינוס (androginos, a hermaphrodite) from serving as an עולה (olah, burnt offering) by interpreting a redundant biblical mention of the word "male". Challenging the attribution of this teaching to the first tanna of the Mishnah, who regards these animals as cases of ספק (safek, uncertainty), the Gemara asks whether a biblical verse would ever be needed to exclude a mere doubt.

Tosafot is troubled by this question because several passages in Shas do interpret verses as excluding uncertain cases, such as an uncertain tenth in tithes. Tosafot resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between two types of ambiguity: a טומטום is an ordinary physical doubt because it is definitely a male or a female whose anatomy is merely hidden from human eyes. By contrast, an אנדרוגינוס and a כוי (koy, a creature of undetermined wild or domestic status) represent an objective bodily reality whose precise classification is revealed before Heaven.

אבל כוי ותחלת הצהוב ואנדרוגינוס כולן שוים דקמי שמיא גליא כוי אם חיה אם בהמה

But a koy, the beginning of yellow plumage, and an androginos are all alike, for before Heaven it is revealed whether a koy is a wild beast or a domestic animal. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 41b:5:2)

Exclusion Beyond an Ordinary Blemish

The Gemara next suggests that the baraita follows Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that an אנדרוגינוס is a male whose female sex organ constitutes a visible מום (mum, blemish). If Rabbi Yishmael is certain that it is a male, the redundant verse is readily explained as excluding it from the altar.

Tosafot raises a fundamental difficulty against this logic: if Rabbi Yishmael already considers the animal a male with a blemish, why is an exclusionary verse needed at all, since every בעל מום (ba'al mum, blemished animal) is automatically disqualified from the altar? Rashi suggests that the verse prevents the animal from receiving any sanctity whatsoever when consecrated, thereby permitting shearing and labor. Tosafot rejects Rashi's view, noting that shearing an animal with an initial blemish is forbidden only rabbinically. Instead, Tosafot explains that the verse teaches an אנדרוגינוס is worse than an ordinary blemish, because an ordinary blemished animal can still take effect through תמורה (temurah, sacrificial substitution), whereas an אנדרוגינוס cannot.

ותירץ דאיצטריך למעוטי לאשמועינן דגרע מבעל מום דבעל מום נתפס בתמורה

And it can be answered that it was necessary to exclude it to teach us that it is worse than a blemished animal, for a blemished animal takes effect in substitution. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 41b:7:1)

The Inherent Sanctity of a Tumtum

Resolving another dispute, Rav Chisda asserts that all Sages agree a טומטום is an ordinary ספק, and therefore it becomes consecrated out of doubt. Tosafot notes that Rav Chisda does not base this on the rule that verses never exclude doubts, but on the fact that a טומטום is essentially a complete male or a complete female.

Tosafot questions why the Gemara did not challenge Rav Chisda from the Mishnah in Temurah (24b), which rules that if a consecrated dam gives birth to a טומטום or an אנדרוגינוס, no sanctity takes effect upon them. Tosafot resolves that the Mishnah in Temurah addresses only an attempt at verbal consecration, which fails because the owner cannot articulate a definite designation. According to Rav Chisda, however, intrinsic sanctity upon emergence successfully takes effect on a newborn טומטום, because underneath the skin it is undoubtedly either a male or a female.

While an androginos has a uniquely defective status known only to Heaven, a tumtum possesses ordinary anatomical concealment that permits intrinsic sanctity to take effect.

Learn Bekhorot 41 on Super Daf