For the source text click/tap here: Bechorot 42
To download, click/tap here: PDF
While discussing the implications of finding that a firstborn animal is a tumtum or an anderoginos, the Gemara brings support from the way these conditions are viewed by Jewish law in the context of marriage and divorce. For example, a baraita teaches that if a tumtum – who does not appear to have any external sexual organs that would identify it as either male or female – were to betroth a woman, his betrothal is valid, i.e. he must give her a divorce, since the tumtum might be male and a full marriage took place.
The importance of this sugya extends well beyond the laws of firstborn animals. It raises a fundamental question about the nature of halakhic knowledge: when the law confronts an ambiguous object, is the ambiguity merely a deficiency in our understanding, or can ambiguity belong to the very nature of the object being judged?
Ordinarily, a safek is an epistemological condition. The object itself possesses a definite status, but we do not know what that status is.
We explore how the conceptual methods of the Brisker school and particularly through an interpretation attributed to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik by Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, reaches beyond the laws of firstborn animals.
It touches upon the character of halakhic knowledge itself, the philosophical status of categories, the relationship between language and reality.