Explanation: This is a cooked hide. There was in the hide the mold of a person and his form. Even after he is burned on it, his form and delineation of limbs is recognized.

Explanation: Rav holds that an Androginus is a Safek male, Safek female;

If he were a Beriyah (a special creation that is neither male nor female), he would not be Tamei through white (semen) or red (blood)! Rather, surely he holds that he is a Safek.

Implied question: Rav ruled in Yevamos (83a) like R. Yosi regarding Androginus [that he is a male]!

Answer: He did not rule like R. Yosi in the Mishnah there, that (if he is a Kohen, and married a Bas Yisrael) he permits her to eat Chazah v'Shok (for she is considered a Kohen's wife), for he is a Vadai male;

Rather, he ruled like R. Yosi in the Beraisa, who says that he is a Beriyah unto himself, and Chachamim did not resolve whether he is a male or female.

This does not mean that he is a special creation. Rather, he is a Safek.

Support: The expression "Chachamim did not determine" is like Rav holds in our Sugya.

Distinction: In Yoma (74a), it says that "Kol Chelev" includes a Kvi (a Safek Behemah, Safek Chayah) and Chetzi Shi'ur;

The Gemara asks "do we need a verse to include a Safek?!", and answers that Kvi is a Beriyah. There, it is truly a special creation, and not a Safek.

Question #1 (R. Shmuel Bachur - Tosefta Bechoros 2:2): If one said "I am a Nazir that this [Androginus] is a man or woman", he is a Nazir;

Citation (cont.): R. Yosi says, Androginus is a Beriyah unto itself. Chachamim could not determine whether he is a male or female;

However, Tumtum is different. Rather, he is a Safek man or woman.

Summation of question: If R. Yosi holds that also Androginus is a Safek, what do he and the first Tana argue about?

Question #2: Also, why does it say "however, Tumtum is different"?

Answer: Really, [Androginus] is a Safek. He is unlike the Safek of a Tumtum. Regarding Tumtum, we could not teach "Chachamim could not determine", for not all of them are the same;

Sometimes when (the flesh covering the genitals) is torn, he is found to be a male, and sometimes he is found to be a female. His Safek can become clarified;

However, every Androginus is male, or [all are] female. Chachamim did not determine which.

Consequence #1: If a Tumtum was Mekadesh a woman, or he became Mekudeshes, and he was torn [we can rule Vadai about whether the Kidushin took effect].

Consequence #2: Also regarding Shofar, we say (Rosh Hashanah 29a) that an Androginus is Motzi his Min (another Androginus). A Tumtum is not Motzi his Min, and not other Minim;

Answer (cont.) Possibility #1: R. Yosi does not argue with the first Tana. Rather, he explains the first Tana's words.

Possibility #2: Alternatively, the entire [Beraisa] is R. Yosi;

Possibility #3: Alternatively, they argue, and he says that since Chachamim did not determine, he is not a Nazir. He intended to be a Nazir only if he is a Vadai male or Vadai female;

Since Chachamim did not determine, he is always a Safek.

Question: Granted, we need to exclude a Tumtum, since there are Tumtumim who are male, and some are female. The Torah exempted him as long as he is a Safek;

This is like regarding Ma'aser Behemah. If one of the animals already counted jumped back into [the pen of animals not counted yet and became mixed with them, all are exempt. We cannot make another animal Ma'aser, for perhaps it is the one that was already counted, and] the Torah said "Asiri", and not a Safek 10th.

Above (19a), regarding a Safek whether the Tzara'as preceded the white hair, in Nazir (65b) we expound from verses;

However, regarding Androginus, why do we need a verse to exclude him? Since Rav holds that he is a Safek, and all of them are the same, it is clear to Hash-m whether he is a male or female. Why does the verse exclude him? (The Torah need not exclude a female. Why didn't Rav infer that an Androginus is a male, and he is exempt due to a Gezeras ha'Kasuv, that the verse applies only to normal males?)

Strengthening of question: The Gemara asks like this in Bechoros (41b) regarding the Beraisa 'why does it say below [regarding Olas Tzon] "Zachar"?' This is not needed (we could have learned from Olas Bakar. Rather,) it excludes Tumtum and Androginus;

The Gemara asks "like whom is this? If it is the first Tana, he holds that Androginus is a Safek. Do we need a verse to exclude a Safek?!

Answer: There, we ask properly, for we exclude Androginus from the extra Zachar written regarding Olah [of Tzon];

Therefore, we ask why do we need a verse to exclude a Safek, since it is clear to Hash-m? If it is a female, why must the verse exclude it?

If it is a male, and the Torah comes to exclude it because it is different than other males, this shows that it is a male, and not a Safek!

However, here it is written mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekevah. (Both are included, but Androginus is excluded);

We can say that [the verse] is to exclude it, because it is different, and we do not know if it excludes it from "Zachar", and it is a male, or whether it excludes it from "Nekevah", and it is a female!

Answer: There are two exclusions. The Torah could have written 'mi'Zachar v'Ad Adam', or 'mi'Nekevah v'Ad Adam.' One of them [excludes] Androginus, and one [excludes] Tumtum.

Alternatively, from the exclusion that excludes Androginus, we exclude also Tumtum, and we should not say that they are two exclusions;

If we exclude them from "mi'Zachar", it needed to write Nekevah, lest we say that "Zachar" excludes [only] a female, or vice-versa [had the Torah written only Nekevah].

Implied question: In Yevamos (83b), R. Eliezer says that if a man has Bi'ah with an Androginus, he is stoned like one who has Bi'ah with a male! (This shows that he is a Vadai male. The Beraisa considers him to be a Safek female!)

Answer #1: We say there that R. Eliezer did not say regarding everything that Androginus is a male.

Answer #2: Here, we say that the Tana who says that they are not liable for Bi'as Makdish expounds "Sheretz" like R. Eliezer (but he himself did not teach this Beraisa).

Explanation: The text says no more than this. It does not say "for it has no Taharah in a Mikveh."

Proof: In Eruvin (104b) we [suggested this, and rejected this, and] want to say "because it cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah."

Rejection: We need not delete this from the text. Even though it is not part of the Beraisa, the Gemara says so because it concludes there that the same applies to a Sheretz, even though it is an Av ha'Tum'ah.

Question: It says in Sotah (20b) and Pesachim (67a) that one may bring even a Mes into Machaneh Levi, for it says "va'Yikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo"...

Why does it say "even [a Mes]"? Just the contrary, a Mes is more lenient, for it has no Taharah in a Mikveh. It should be permitted even in Machaneh Shechinah!

Answer #1: There is an opinion in Eruvin (104b) that one is liable for entering a Sheretz into the Mikdash (Machaneh Shechinah), even though it has no Taharah in a Mikveh. The same applies to a Mes.

Answer #2: One is liable more for a Mes because its species has Taharah in a Mikveh, e.g. a live person.

Implied question: Why didn't it say Klei Shetef (those that can be immersed in a Mikveh)?

Answer: It mentioned metal Kelim because they are severe. A sword becomes Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah (it is Metamei people for seven days), like a corpse.

Explanation: We expound from "Ad", like Rashi explained. This connotes everything that has this law that is from male until female, i.e. has Taharah in a Mikveh.

Question: If so, what do we learn from v'Chol Tamei "la'Nafesh"?

Answer: In Pesachim (66b) we expound it properly [to teach about which Teme'im may bring Pesach ha'Ba b'Tumah, and which are detained to Pesach Sheni].

Explanation: Since you expound "mi'Zachar v'Ad Nekevah" to teach about one who has Taharah in a Mikveh, if so you establish the verse to discuss also other Tum'os that are not white (Keri) or red (Dam Nidah. Clearly, white and red apply only to people, who can immerse.)

If so, also for Tum'as Mes and Sheretz, Tumtum and Androginus should not be sent [outside of the Mikdash, since the verse excludes them]!

Explanation: The Hava Amina is that we expound ha'Zachar.

Question: In Bechoros (41b) we say that here is different, for it does not say "ha'Zachar", rather, "ha'Zecharim";

Note: Rashi there explained that we expound that it says ha'Zachar and in another verse ha'Zecharim. However, it is clear from the next line that Tosfos explains differently.

Inference: We expound [the plural] ha'Zecharim, but the Hei of ha'Zachar is not considered extra to exclude Androginus!

Answer: Perhaps there is some Drashah there from the Hei.

Explanation: This Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, like is proven in Shabbos (136b) regarding R. Yehudah's teaching that [Bris Milah of] an Androginus overrides Shabbos;

Rav Chisda said that R. Yehudah did not say regarding everything that Androginus is a male. If you would say so, one should be able to be Ma'arich him! (When one says "Erech Ploni Alai", he must pay to Hekdesh an amount based on Ploni's age and gender);

(Beraisa): "Ha'Zachar" excludes a Tumtum [and Androginus from having an Erech. We assume that this is like R. Yehudah, for] a Stam Sifra (Beraisa that expounds a verse in Vayikra) is [assumed to be] R. Yehudah;

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said that a Mishnah teaches this! R. Yehudah says that an Androginus is Pasul for Kidush of Mei Chatas (putting the ashes on the water).

The Gemara asks why Milah is different, and answers that it says "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar."

Summation of question: Here regarding Erchin we need an extra verse to exclude Tumtum and Androginus. We do not exclude them from "Zachar" and "Nekevah." Regarding Milah, we need an inclusion to include [Androginus];

Regarding Kidush, we exclude him, even though there is nothing else extra for Androginus, just it says v'Nasan (he will put), and not v'Nasnah, to exclude a woman!

Answer: We can say that since the Torah revealed regarding Erchin that he is not included in "Zachar", we learn Kidush from Erchin;

Also Milah we would have learned from Erchin, if not that "Kol Zachar" reveals [that he is included].

Implied question: Why don't we learn Kidush from Milah?'

Answer: It is better that we learn from Erchin to be stringent.

Implied question: Here we ask 'whenever it says "Zachar", does this exclude Tumtum and Androginus? Regarding Erchin...'

Why didn't we answer that we learn from Erchin?!

Answer: Just the contrary, we should learn from Milah that he is included in Zachar, in order to obligate expelling him [from Machaneh Shechinah], and not from Erchin, to be lenient!

Implied question: In Bechoros (41b) we require an extra verse to exclude Tumtum and Androginus;

Citation (41b): Why does it say "ha'Zachar" below? This was not needed [for Olas Tzon, since it says so above about Olas Bakar].

Why don't we learn from Erchin to be stringent, and not be Machshir it for an Olah, and obligate another Korban [for one who is obligated to bring an Olah]?

Answer: There, we need the verse [to disqualify it] for a Korban Nedavah, e.g. he said "this is an Olah." This is a leniency, that it is not Kadosh;

We would not have learned from Erchin to be lenient, rather, from Milah, to be stringent. Therefore, we need a verse.

Question: In Yevamos (72b), it connotes that R. Yehudah disqualifies [an Androginus] for Kidush only because he is a Safek man, Safek woman;

Citation (72b - Mishnah - R. Yosi): If an Androginus did Kidush, it is Pasul, for he is a Safek woman, and a woman is Pasul for Kidush.

Answer: Regarding Erchin, even though he is a male or female, the verse excludes him from the Erech of a man and the Erech of a woman, because he is different;

If we had only the exclusion "Zachar", one might have thought that the Torah uprooted him from Erech Zachar, and established him to have Erech Nekevah, even though he is a male, and similarly oppositely. (If we had only the exclusion "Nekevah", one might have thought that she has Erech Zachar, even though she is a female.)

Regarding Milah, if she is a female, we need a verse to include [a Mitzvah to circumcise her]. If he is a male, perhaps there is a Drashah from which we would have excluded him, had the verse not included him.

Implied question: In Bechoros (41b), why do we need "ha'Zachar" to exclude Tumtum and Androginus?

Answer: That is unlike R. Yehudah. Since [he holds that] it (Androginus) is a Safek, we do not need a verse to exclude a Safek.

Implied question: A Stam Sifra is [assumed to be] R. Yehudah!

Answer: That refers to other Stam [Beraisos in] Sifra, but you are forced to say that this is not R. Yehudah.