(Mishnah - Chachamim): It has no Kedushas Bechor. One may shear it and work with it.

(Rav Chisda): The Tana'im argue about Androginus, but all agree that Tumtum is a Safek male or female, and is judged to be Kodesh because of reasonable possibility that it is a male.

Question (Rava): If so, a human Tumtum should be Ne'erach! (If one says "Erech Ploni Alai," this obligates him to give to Hekdesh a certain amount based on Ploni's age and gender.)

(Beraisa): "Ha'Zachar" excludes Tumtum and Androginus (from Erchin);

Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that Erech of a male does not apply to them, rather, Erech Nekevah!

Rejection: "V'Hayah Erkecha ha'Zachar... v'Im Nekevah Hi" teaches that Erchin applies to a known male or female, but not to a Tumtum or Androginus.

Answer (Rav Chisda): We must delete "Tumtum" from the text of the Beraisa.

Question (Beraisa): "Im Zachar Im Nekevah" teaches that a Shelamim must be a known male or female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus.

Answer: We must delete "Tumtum" from the text.

Question (Beraisa): (Olah must be) "Zachar", and not a female;

Question: Another verse requires Olah to be "Zachar". What do we learn from it?

Answer: It excludes Tumtum and Androginus.

Answer: We must delete "Tumtum" from the text.

Question (Beraisa): (The following are Pasul for Korbanos. Therefore,) if Melikah of such a bird was done, it (is a Nevelah, and) has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah (if one swallows it, he and his clothing become Tamei): a Ne'evad, Muktzah, Esnan (wages of a harlot), Mechir Kelev (something traded for a dog), Tumtum and Androginus;

R. Eliezer says, Tumtum or Androginus does not have Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah.

R. Eliezer: We exclude Tumtum and Androginus only when the Torah says Zachar and Nekevah. Regarding birds, it does not say Zachar and Nekevah.

Answer: We must delete "Tumtum" from the text.

Question (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): The following animals do not become Kadosh or be Mekadesh other animals (this will be explained):

Terefah, Kilayim, Yotzei Dofen, Tumtum and Androginus.

(Shmuel): They do not become Kadosh through Temurah, and (even if they are Kedoshim) they are not Mekadesh other animals through Temurah.

Answer: We must delete "Tumtum" from the text.

Question (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): There are five kinds of animals that do not become Kadosh or be Mekadesh:

Terefah, Kilayim, Yotzei Dofen, Tumtum and Androginus.

Suggestion: Perhaps we can delete "Tumtum" from the text.

Rejection: R. Eliezer said that there are five!

Answer: We must replace "Tumtum" with "Yasom" (an animal orphaned at birth).

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about this (whether Tumtum is a male or female, or a creation unto itself. This would refute Rav Chisda, who says that all agree that it is either a male or female);

(Beraisa - R. Ilai citing R. Yishmael): Androginus is a Bechor, and it has a Mum.

Chachamim say, Kedushas Bechor does not apply to it.

R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, "ha'Zachar" always excludes Tumtum and Androginus.

Suggestion: Perhaps we can delete "Tumtum" from the text.

Rejection: If so, R. Shimon ben Yehudah is just like Chachamim!

Conclusion: We must say that they argue about Tumtum:

Chachamim hold that Kedushas Bechor does not apply to Androginus, but Tumtum is a Safek male or female, so it is Safek Kadosh;

R. Shimon holds that Tumtum is a creation unto itself. It is not Kadosh.

Answer: No, no one considers it to be a creation unto itself. The only doubt is whether it is a male or female;

If it urinates from the front (where the male Ever should be), all agree that it is a definite male;

They argue about one that urinates from the back (the place of female genitals):

Chachamim are concerned lest it is a male, and the Ever is in the wrong place;

R. Shimon is not concerned for this.

R. Elazar ruled like (this understanding of) R. Shimon. If a firstborn Tumtum urinates from the back, it is Chulin.

R. Yochanan: How can you rule (leniently) against the first Tana (of our Mishnah) and R. Yishmael?!

Question: R. Yochanan should also mention that he ruled against the latter Chachamim of our Mishnah, for Rav Chisda taught they argue only about Androginus, but all agree that Tumtum is Safek Kodesh!

Answer: R. Yochanan disagrees with Rav Chisda.

Question: If so, R. Yochanan holds that the latter Chachamim say that Tumtum is Chulin. Why did he object to R. Elazar's ruling? It is like the latter Chachamim!

Answer: Indeed, he objected because R. Elazar ruled like one opinion in the Mishnah against two opinions.

Question: Whom does R. Elazar hold like? (I.e. why did he rule like the minority opinion?)

Answer: He holds like Reish Lakish;

(Reish Lakish): Only a human Tumtum is a Safek, because the male and female genitals are in the same place, but there is no doubt about an animal;

If it urinates from the front it is a male. If it urinates from the back, it is a female.

Objection (R. Oshaya): Also regarding animals, we are concerned lest the Ever is in the wrong place!

Question (Abaye): Does R. Oshaya hold like R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority?!

Answer (Abaye bar Avin): No, he asks even according to Chachamim (who normally rely on the majority. The Halachah follows them.) Ho'il v'Ishtani, Ishtani. (Since it is different than normal animals in one way (its genitals are covered), we are concerned lest it is different also in other ways, i.e. its genitals are in the wrong place);

The first Tana (of the Beraisa) says Ho'il v'Ishtani Ishtani. R. Shimon does not. (This sums up the question against Reish Lakish, who says that no Tana has doubts about a Tumtum animal.)

Suggestion: Tana'im argue (elsewhere) about whether we say Ho'il v'Ishtani Ishtani:

(Beraisa #1): If a Tumtum was Mekadesh a woman, she is (Safek) Mekudeshes. If a man was Mekadesh the Tumtum, the Tumtum is (Safek) Mekudeshes;

If the Tumtum's brother died without children, the Tumtum can do Chalitzah. If the Tumtum died (without children), his widow can do Yibum or Chalitzah;

(Beraisa #2): The Tumtum's widow can do Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

Suggestion: Both Tana'im hold like R. Akiva, who says that a Seris Chamah (a male who does not have normal male development and never had potential to have children) does not do Chalitzah or Yibum;

Tana #1 does not say Ho'il v'Ishtani Ishtani (even though he is a Tumtum, we are not concerned lest he is a Seris Chamah). Tana #2 says Ho'il v'Ishtani Ishtani.

Rejection: No, all say Ho'il v'Ishtani Ishtani;

Tana #1 holds like R. Eliezer (who says that Yibum and Chalitzah apply to a Seris Chamah, because he can be healed and have children). Tana #2 holds like R. Akiva.

Question: Within R. Akiva's opinion, like which Tana does Tana #2 hold?

He cannot hold like R. Yehudah (in the following Mishnah), for then he would be a definite Seris!

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If (the skin covering the genitals of) a Tumtum was torn and he was found to be male, he does not do Chalitzah, for he is like a Seris.

Answer: He holds like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah:

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): A Tumtum does not do Chalitzah, lest he be torn and found to be a Seris Chamah.

Objection: This implies that he is definitely a male, and the only doubt is whether he is a Seris;

Perhaps "he" is really female!

Answer: Indeed, the Tana discusses two concerns;

He does not do Chalitzah, lest he be torn and found to be female;

Even if he is male, perhaps he is a Seris!

Question: What difference does it make if a Tumtum (found to be male) is a definite or Safek Seris?