Question: Why doesn't it say [that Garav written among Mumim] is Garav written in the curses in Sefer Devarim? It says "uva'Garav uva'Cheres." That Garav is not Cheres, and it is a permanent Mum, for it says "Asher Lo Suchal Leherafei"!

Answer: It connotes to [the Makshan] that the verse mentioned here this, and even this. Garav that is Cheres is dry outside and inside, and it is a Mum. And even Yalefes, which is wet outside and dry inside, like we say below, is a Mum. (What is wet is less like a Mum);

And [also] regarding the curses, it mentioned this, and even this. He will be stricken with Garav, and even Cheres, which is harsher.

Observation: Wet inside and dry inside is not mentioned here at all! Perhaps it is not common for Garav to be so.

Explanation: [Garav] of the verse, i.e. the verse about Mumim, in which we expound Garav is Cheres, is dry inside and outside. Of Mitzrayim was wet outside and dry inside;

Since it is dry inside, it does not heal. And if the Mitzriyim were cured from it, perhaps it was a miracle. (Yalkut Shimoni 184 says that the magicians were never cured from it - "they could not stand in front of Paro." It is not explicit whether or not the other Mitzrim were cured. The Midrash which says that every Makah was for seven days connotes that they were cured. Also, we find that other servants could stand in front of Paro - Shmos

Question: Shechin Mitzrayim written at the beginning of the verse in the curses - what is it? Garav and Cheresh, which have no cure, are written in that verse! (If so, Shechin Mitzrayim must be something else!)

Question: What is the source that the first Tana's reason is due to Safek? Perhaps it is like outer Chutin that are chipped or cracked. It is a Mum to forbid Shechitah in the Mikdash, but it is not a Mum to slaughter outside the Mikdash, and really, it is a Vadai Bechor!

Answer: Since R. Yishmael said in the Beraisa "it is a Bechor, and its Mum is with it", this implies that according to the first Tana, it is not a Vadai Bechor.

Observation: We ask like this also in Yoma (74a) regarding a Kvi, and in Kerisus (21a) and in Chulin (22b) regarding the beginning of yellowness in both of these (Turim and Bnei Yonah);

This is unlike other places where we exclude a Safek from a verse - below (58b) "the Torah said Vadai Asiri, and not Safek Asiri";

And similarly Baheres in Nazir (65b) - if it is a Safek whether the Nega came first or the white hair[s] came first, we exclude this from "Letaharo Oh Letam'o" - the verse began with Taharah [to be Metaher this Safek].

Explanation: There it varies at times - sometimes it is like this, and sometimes it is like this;

Also Tumtum it is proper to exclude, for some are male and some are female, and the Torah disqualified him as long as he is a Safek.

Note: We use masculine pronouns "he" and "him" regarding Tumtum and Androginus, like Tosfos does. This does not connote that he is truly male.

Distinction: However, Kvi, the beginning of yellowness, and Androginus, all cases [of any one of these] are all the same. In front of Shamayim it is revealed whether a Kvi is a Chayah or Behemah, and whether the beginning of yellowness is considered big or small, and whether Androginus is male or female.

Question: Rav holds that Androginus is a Safek, like he explains in Nidah (28a), that he is Metamei through white (emissions that resemble semen) or red (blood)...

And he said in Yevamos (83a) that the Halachah follows R. Yosi, that Chachamim did not determine whether he is a male or female, and "a creation unto himself" that R. Yosi said in the Beraisa is not precise, and even so Rav excludes him regarding Bi'as Mikdash, since it says mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekevah - a Vadai male or Vadai female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus...

How can the verse come to exclude a Safek?!

Answer: Here it asks properly, that he excludes Androginus from an extra "Zachar" written regarding Olah;

If it comes to exclude him, even though he is a male, because he is unlike other males, if so, since we exclude him from "Zachar", this shows that he is a male, and not a female. This is unlike the first Tana, who says that he is a Safek!

Explanation #1: However, in Rav's case there are two exclusions, for it could have written mi'Zachar v'Ad Adam, or mi'Nekevah Ad Adam. One comes for Tumtum, and one for Androginus;

If Androginus is a male, mi'Zachar comes to exclude him. If [Androginus] is a female, Ad Nekevah comes to exclude him, [in both cases] because he is different.

Consequence: We can properly say that Rav holds like Rav Chisda's teaching below, that they argue about Androginus, but Tumtum is a Safek, and it is Kadosh amidst Safek;

Explanation: We should not establish the exclusion for Tumtum, who is surely either [male or female], just [the genitals] are covered.

Distinction: Rav establishes an exclusion for Tumtum because there is an extra [exclusion].

Explanation #2: We need the two exclusions of Rav, for since [the Torah] needed to write Zachar, in order to exclude Androginus if he is a male, because he is an abnormal male, or it needed to write v'Ad Nekevah in order to exclude [Androginus] if "he" is a female...

You are forced to say that it needed to write both of them, lest one say that the Torah discusses only a male and not a female, or only a female and not a male. We do not say that it could have written "Ad Adam"...

And even so, Rav holds that we establish also a Mi'ut for Tumtum, and unlike Rav Chisda, for also below (42b) we find that R. Yochanan does not hold like Rav Chisda.

Explanation #3: We can say also that for Tumtum alone we need both [exclusions] to exclude his Safek from the law of a male if afterwards he is found to be a male, and from the law of a female if afterwards he is found to be a female.

The same applies to an Androginus, because he is unlike other males or females. They are equally [reasonable to exclude]. Rav does not hold like Rav Chisda's teaching;

Similarly, Abaye in Chagigah (4a) excludes Tumtum because there is a Yitura (extra word in the verse).

Question: [The Gemara] asks below "if so, in Erchin he should be Ne'erach!", and brings a Beraisa that excludes him from the Erech of man or woman, from "ha'Zachar... Im Nekevah", and answers that we must delete "Tumtum" from the text.

What was difficult? There, there is a Yitura. To exclude Androginus, we need only one (ha'Zachar or Im Nekevah)!

Answer: Also there we need both for Androginus, for had it written [only] ha'Zachar to exclude it, one might have thought that he is no worse than a female, and he has Erech Nekevah.

Question: [The Gemara] asks (42a) from "Im Zachar Im Nekevah" to exclude Tumtum and Androginus. What was the question? Perhaps regarding Shelamim there are two exclusions Im Zachar Im Nekevah, for "Im" is an exclusion, like it says in Nidah (28a)!

Answer (Ri): The text says "Zachar Oh Nekevah", which is written regarding Shelamim from Tzon, for so it expounds in Toras Kohanim;

However, Im Zachar Im Nekevah, which is written regarding Shelamim from Bakar, it expounds there in Toras Kohanim, and above (15b) and in Temurah (17b) to include the child of Ba'alei Mumim ;

Now it asks properly according to Rav Chisda, that there is only one exclusion in this verse. "Oh" excludes, like "Oh Kesev" to exclude Kil'ayim, [and] "Oh Ez" to exclude Nidmeh.

Explanation: "All of them" refers to a female, Tumtum and Androginus;

And also according to Rav Chisda below, who says 'delete "Tumtum" from the text', it says "all of them" due to a female and Androginus.

Explanation: It is a Bechor, and its Mum is with it. This is why we need a verse to exclude it.

Question: For this reason itself we should not need a verse. Since it is a Ba'al Mum, it is Pasul for the Mizbe'ach!

Answer #1 (Rashi): It means as follows. This is why we need a verse to exclude - even though it is a male, it has no Kedushah if he was Mekadesh it for an Olah, and one may even shear and work with it;

We do not learn from the first "Zachar" to exclude from Kedushah, for regarding Bechor it is written one "Zachar", and R. Yishmael does not permit shearing, and he permits Shechitah only because it is a Mum. Until here is from Rashi.

Question (against Rashi): A Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro (from birth) is forbidden for shearing and working only mid'Rabanan, like is proven above (14a)! It says that Kedushas Damim for the Mizbe'ach, which is confused with Kedushas ha'Guf, Rabanan decreed about it.

Answer #2: In other Perushim of Rashi it is written "this is why we need a verse to exclude. Even though it is a male, we do not offer it, for its Nikvus (female genitals) is a Mum."

Consequence: We must say that the verse comes to teach that a crevice in the place of flesh is a Mum, unlike the Drashah of Abaye and Rava above (41a).

Answer #3 (Ri): We need a Mi'ut to teach that it is worse than a Ba'al Mum. Temurah takes effect on a Ba'al Mum [but not on an Androginus].

Question: If so, what was the question "if you will say that that the first Tana is unsure [about its gender], does a verse come to exclude a Safek?!"? We properly need to exclude, that Temurah does not take effect on it!

One might have thought that it gets Kedushah even if it is a female, just like one who is Matfis a female for an Asham. According to Rabanan of R. Shimon, it is Ro'eh, in Temurah (19b);

Since it has Kedushas ha'Guf, this connotes that Temurah [of Asham] takes effect on [a female], and also [a female Asham] makes Temurah, just like Temurah of a [Pasul] Pesach that is not proper to be offered. Even so, [the Pasul Pesach] makes Temurah to [create] Kedushah Dechuyah, and [the Temurah] is Ro'eh;

And regarding Androginus, the verse excludes here, even if it is a Safek, since it is not a full male and not a full female.

Answer: [The Makshan] asks as follows. Why do we need the verse "Zachar" to exclude offering it for an Olah, since it is a Safek female?

If it were to exclude it from the law of Temurah, even if it is a female, it should not have written a Yitura in Zachar, which connotes that it excludes it because it is not a full male!

Question: How do we infer that it is obvious to R. Yishmael? Perhaps [the Beraisa] is like other Tana'im, who hold that it is a male, e.g. R. Yehudah in Yevamos (81a), who holds that Androginus is a male!