A Tumtum Animal Urinating from the Female Site

The Sages debate whether an animal with concealed genitalia that urinates like a female is definitively non-sacred or remains an unresolved doubt.

Concealed Sex Organs and Firstborn Consecration

The Torah commands that the first male offspring of a kosher animal is consecrated as a בְּכוֹר (firstborn). However, an animal is sometimes born as a טוּמְטוּם (an individual whose genitalia are covered by skin). Because its physical sex cannot be observed directly, questions arise regarding whether it possesses sacrificial sanctity.

The Gemara clarifies that if such an animal urinates from the site of the male organ, all Sages agree it is considered male and is sacred. The core dispute emerges when the animal urinates from the site where female genitalia normally sit. Does this physical act prove that it is definitively female, or do we suspect that a male organ lies folded underneath?

Definite Female or Unresolved Uncertainty

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, ruling in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, maintains that an animal urinating from the female location is a definite female. Consequently, Rabbi Elazar issued a practical ruling that such an offspring is completely exempt from the sanctity of a firstborn. As Rashi explains, because it is definitively female, it has the status of חוּלִין (non-sacred property) and may be used without restriction.

In contrast, the תַּנָּא קַמָּא (first tanna, representing the Rabbis) holds that the animal remains a סָפֵק (doubt). The Rabbis maintain that the animal cannot be slaughtered freely because its sanctity is uncertain.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּמֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת: מָר סָבַר חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ לְנַקְבוּתוֹ, וּמַר סָבַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

Where they disagree is in the case of a tumtum that urinates from the place of the female sex organ: One Sage holds we are concerned that perhaps its male sex organ was inverted toward its female sex organ; and one Sage holds we are not concerned. (Bekhorot 42b:2)

Distinct Anatomy and Majority Rules

To support Rabbi Elazar's view, the Gemara cites Reish Lakish, who distinguishes between humans and beasts. In humans, male and female urinary tracts exist in the same anatomical area, making urination inconclusive. In four-legged animals, however, the male and female organs are located in entirely different parts of the body.

Rav Oshaya questioned this logic, asking whether bet din must fear that the male organ was inverted internally and opened at the female site. The Gemara answers that such an inversion is an extreme rarity. Under standard halachic principles, we do not suspect a rare minority, meaning the animal is דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא מְסַפְּקָא (categorized according to observable bodily function),.

אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה — מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם זַכְרוּת זָכָר, מֵטִיל מַיִם בְּמָקוֹם נַקְבוּת נְקֵבָה.

But with regard to an animal: if it urinates from the place of the male sex organ, it is a male; if it urinates from the place of the female sex organ, it is a female. (Bekhorot 42b:5)

The Logic of Compounded Anomalies

Defending the Rabbis' doubt, Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chananya bar Avin formulate the principle of הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי (since it has changed in one respect, it may have changed in another). Once an animal displays an abnormal condition by being born with covered anatomy, standard statistical assumptions about majority physical norms no longer apply.

According to this rationale, the animal's male organ may indeed have folded inside and discharged through the female opening. The Rabbis therefore insist that חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נֶהֶפְכָה זַכְרוּתוֹ (we suspect lest its maleness inverted), leaving its firstborn status perpetually unresolved.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתַּנִּי אִישְׁתַּנִּי. אִית דְּאָמַר אִישְׁתַּנִּי, וְאִית דְּאָמַר לָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי.

You may even say it accords with the Rabbis: since it has changed, it has changed. There are those who say it has changed, and there are those who say it has not changed. (Bekhorot 42b:7)

The Underlying Dispute in Human Levirate Law

The Gemara demonstrates that this fundamental question—whether an anomaly prompts further physiological suspicions—also divides the Tannaim regarding a human טוּמְטוּם,. When a childless brother dies, the widow is normally bound to perform יִבּוּם (levirate marriage) or חֲלִיצָה (the release ritual) with the surviving brother.

If a טוּמְטוּם is later surgically opened and discovered to be anatomically male, Rabbi Yehuda considers him a סָרִיס וַדַּאי (a definite congenital eunuch) because his developmental defect implies complete reproductive incapacity,,. He is entirely exempt from levirate obligations. Rabbi Yosei b'Rabbi Yehuda counters that he is merely a סָפֵק (doubtful eunuch). Therefore, stringency dictates that his widow must perform חֲלִיצָה but cannot enter into יִבּוּם.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוּמְטוּם לֹא חוֹלֵץ, שֶׁמָּא יִקָּרַע וְיִמָּצֵא סָרִיס חַמָּה.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum does not perform chalitza, lest he be torn open and found to be a congenital eunuch. (Bekhorot 42b:16)

While Rabbi Elazar views urination from the female site as definitive proof that an animal is a female non-sacred beast, the Rabbis rule that an anomalous birth leaves its gender in permanent doubt.

Learn Bekhorot 42 on Super Daf