Bechoros, Chapter 6, Mishnah 12. In the previous Mishnah we concluded the list of permanent blemishes - those lasting blemishes that permit one to slaughter the bechor outside the Temple and eat it there. Our Mishnah deals with an intermediate situation: blemishes that do not permit one to slaughter the bechor and eat it outside the Temple, and yet the animal is lacking or flawed to such an extent that one may not slaughter it and offer it as a sacrifice.
We have two separate matters before us:
Passing blemish: A temporary blemish that can be expected to pass on its own, at which point the animal will once again be permitted for sacrifice. In the meantime, nothing can be done but wait and see: either it will develop a permanent blemish, or the temporary blemish will pass.
Not from the choicest: This is neither a permanent blemish nor a passing blemish in the sense of permitting or forbidding slaughter. The animal is sanctified with the inherent sanctity of a sacrifice, as it has no blemish, and nevertheless, it is not choice enough to offer. The verse says "Mivchar nidreichem" - the choicest of your vows, and from there it is derived and extended to all sacrifices: even if they are not strictly required to be "from the choicest," they must be in a relatively ideal condition, and not second-rate sacrifices.
In both cases, the result is identical: since according to Torah law the animal has no blemish, it cannot be slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, and at the same time, it is unfit for sacrifice and therefore cannot be offered.
The Mishnah states: "Eilu she'ein shochatin aleihen lo bamikdash velo bamedinah" - These are the problems that can occur in a bechor (and largely apply even to animals that are not a bechor) which cause it not to be offered in the Temple because it is unfit for a sacrifice, and also not to be slaughtered in the provinces, outside the Temple, and eaten there.
"Chavror vehamayim she'einam kvu'in" - We learned earlier in the chapter that if there is a permanent problem of those small white spots in the eye that remain for eighty days, it is a permanent blemish. 'Chavror' is derived from the word for white, white spots in the eye. Here it refers to temporary spots that come and go, and as long as they exist temporarily, this is a blemish that is not permanent and it cannot be offered. 'Mayim she'einam kvu'in' - watering eyes that do not tear permanently, and can perhaps be healed with the prescription the Mishnah mentioned earlier. Until it is clarified whether the condition is permanent or not, one cannot slaughter it: perhaps it is permanent and perhaps it is not permanent.
"V'chitin hapnimiyos shenifgemu aval lo shene'ekru" - We discussed that in a bechor, and all types of animals, there are eight incisor teeth in the front, and if they are damaged, it is a permanent blemish. However, in the molar teeth in the back, there is no permanent blemish unless one of them is completely extracted. What is the law when it is only damaged? This is certainly a permanent condition, as the tooth will not grow back, but it is not considered a blemish because it is not visible from the outside. Nevertheless, a damaged tooth downgrades the animal from being from the choicest, and again: it cannot be offered and it cannot be slaughtered.
"U'vaal garav" - The verse states that one with a garav is blemished, except that the garav in the verse is a skin lesion or infection that is a permanent condition. Here it refers to a type of scab that grows over a skin wound, which can be expected to heal on its own. Since it will eventually heal, it is not a permanent blemish, but as long as it is moist and the animal has not healed, it is repulsive and flawed, and this is a passing blemish.
"U'vaal yabeles" - An animal that has something like a wart on its eye. We learned earlier in the chapter two things: first, that things in the white of the eye do not matter; and subsequently, that if there is a wart on the eye - not only on the black of the eye but even on the white - and a hair grows out of it, it is a permanent blemish. Here we are dealing with a wart on the eye that does not have a white hair growing from it. Therefore, since it is permanent and is not about to pass, but it is not so severe, it is not considered a blemish upon which it is permitted to slaughter, and on the other hand, the animal is not from the choicest fit for sacrifice.
"U'vaal chazazis" - Another type of skin lesion. This does not refer to the Egyptian chazazis, but to an animal that has some kind of skin disease, boils and the like.
"V'zaken v'choleh u'mezoham" - These three are derived from the word "min" which appears three times in the verses. 'Zaken' objectively - a sheep or goat that has passed two years of age, and a cow or ox that has passed its third year; or an animal that trembles when it stands due to its old age. 'Choleh' - a sickly animal, which when it stands it trembles because it does not feel well. 'Mezoham' - a foul-smelling animal. This does not mean an animal that needs a bath, whose sweat smells bad, but an animal that for whatever reason continues to smell foul even after it has been washed. An animal that has such a foul odor is not fit to be slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, and on the other hand, it is not from the choicest and can no longer be offered as a sacrifice.
Those disqualified based on a single witness or the owner:
Two additional things disqualify the animal, and their subject is an act that happened to it or an act that it did:
Nirba: An animal that was involved in an act of bestiality, whether it was the male or the female, and here we are dealing with a male. Had there been two witnesses, the animal would be liable to stoning and executed; but when there is only one witness, it cannot be executed and it also cannot be offered. This is also the case if the person involved admitted to the act, or if the owners said that this occurred - he is believed to consider it a nirba, but this is not enough. The laws of executing an animal are equal to the laws of a person, and two witnesses are required for them.
Heimis es ha'adam: An animal that killed a person, subject to the law of an ox that is stoned. If there were two witnesses - the animal is executed; but if there are not two witnesses but only one witness, it is not executed and it also cannot be offered as a sacrifice. The law remains this way even if the owner of the animal admitted that his animal killed a person, and all this is derived from the verses.
Tumtum and androgynus:
Tumtum - An animal that has a membrane covering its private parts, and it is impossible to determine whether it is male or female. This is a case of doubt whether it is a male or female, which means it is a doubtful bechor: it is the first issue of the womb, but there is no way of knowing if it is a male. Therefore, it cannot be slaughtered and offered, lest it is a female, and it cannot be slaughtered outside the Temple and eaten, lest it is a male and a bechor.
Androgynus - An animal that has both male organs and female organs, and its categorization is more complex. The question is what its status is: is this a male that also has female organs, akin to a doubtful male, or perhaps it is a completely third creation, an additional category that is neither male nor female. The Tanna'im in our Mishnah debate this question.
First opinion: "Lo bamikdash velo bamedinah" - We do not slaughter it in the Temple or in the provinces, meaning it cannot be offered as a sacrifice and it cannot be eaten outside the Temple, exactly like a tumtum, because we do not know its status. This is a case of doubt where we must be stringent in both directions: we are obligated to give it to a kohen, but the kohen cannot shear it or work with it, and he cannot even eat it. The animal remains unusable.
Rabbi Yishmael: "Ein mum gadol mizeh" - Rabbi Yishmael disagrees, and holds that specifically regarding an androgynos, and not a tumtum, we are dealing with a male firstborn that has female body parts, and this is an absolute, permanent blemish. There is no question about this, as there is no greater blemish in the world than having female organs, and therefore it is permitted to slaughter it outside the Temple. However, until it is slaughtered, the law of a firstborn still applies to it, because in his opinion it is a male, just a blemished one, and it may not be sheared or worked with.
Sages: "Eino bechor ela nigzaz vene'evad" - According to the Sages, the androgynos is neither male nor female, but rather a creature unto itself. Since it is not a male, it is not a firstborn, and the laws of a firstborn do not apply to it at all, exactly as if it were a female. Therefore, it is not given to a kohen, and it is permitted to shear it, work with it, and do with it as the owner wishes.
In summary: The halachah follows the Sages, as stated by the Bartenura. Therefore, we treat the androgynos as a creature unto itself: it is not a male, and therefore it is not a firstborn. The tumtum, however, is a case of doubt, and since we do not know what it is, we must be stringent in both directions.