Rav Chisda said, “Even if an androgyne (a being with both male and female genitals) is to be considered a separate gender, but a being of undefined gender (genitals covered by skin) is definitely either a male or a female, except that we don't know which. A practical consequence of this viewpoint is that a firstborn animal of undefined gender is to be treated as a potential firstborn male, not to be worked, and not to be slaughtered until it develops a blemish. Talmud is now going to challenge this.
One can donate a personal valuation to the Temple (subject of the next Tractate), which is defined only for a definite male or a female, but not an androgyne and not an undefined gender. But God knows about every being of undefined gender what it really is, so why did the Torah have to exclude it?! Rav Chisda will answer, “The text of the rule is incorrect, it should not include undefined gender.” Several more challenges will be deflected in a similar way, and it will turn out that the disagreement dates back to much earlier times, with both points of view being equally valid.
Art: David The Younger Teniers - Domestic Worker Holding a Broom
No comments:
Post a Comment