(15) Everyone is obligated in [saying] Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals), Kohanim (Priests), Leviim (Levites), and Yisraelim (Israelites, regular Jews), converts [to Judaism], freed [non-Jewish] slaves, Chalalim (Kohanim who have lost their priestly status), Natinim, Mamzerim (bastards), [a person] castrated by [a deliberate act of another] person, [a person who was] born castrated, [a person] with [one or both] testicles crushed, and [a person] with a cutoff member. All of them are obligated [in saying Birkat Hamazon] and they can absolve others (i.e. say it for others) of their obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon]. A Tumtum (a person of unknown sex), and a hermaphrodite are obligated [in saying Birkat Hamazon], but they cannot absolve others (i.e. say it for others) of their obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon].

(16) A hermaphrodite can absolve his own kind (i.e. say it for another hermaphrodite) of his obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], but he cannot absolve [another person] who is not his own kind (i.e. a man, a woman or a Tumtum (a person of unknown sex)). A Tumtum cannot absolve neither his own kind (i.e. say it for another Tumtum) of his obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon], nor [another person] who is not his own kind (i.e. a man, a woman or a hermaphrodite).

(17) [A person] who is half slave, half free person cannot absolve [another person of their obligation of saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], (i.e. say it for another person) not [if the other person is of] the same kind as him (i.e. a half slave, half free person), and not [if the other person is] not of the same kind as him (i.e. either a slave or a free person).

(18) Women, slaves and children are exempt [from saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], and they cannot absolve many [people, who include men] from their obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon]. In reality, they (i.e. the Rabbis) said that a woman can say [Birkat Hamazon] for her husband, a son can say [Birkat Hamazon] for his father, [and] a slave can say [Birkat Hamazon] for his master.

(19) A child who is able to eat a Kezait (olive size piece) [of bread] is included into [a group of three people to say] the Zimun. And [a child] who is not able to eat a Kezait [of bread] is not included into [a group of three people to say] the Zimun. And we do not check the child [if he is really capable of eating a Kezait or not].

(3) One may wash the infant both before the circumcision and after the circumcision. And one may sprinkle [water] on him by hand but not with a utensil. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may bathe the infant on the third day [following the circumcision] that falls on Shabbat, for it is said "And it came to pass on the third day when they were in pain," (Bereishit 34:25). One may not violate Shabbat [to circumcise] a doubtful child [if it's unclear whether the child was born at nine months or earlier] or an androginos [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender]. And Rabbi Yehudah permits it in [the case of] a androginos.

We learned in the mishna: If there is uncertainty whether or not to circumcise a baby, and likewise in the case of a hermaphrodite baby, one does not desecrate Shabbat to perform the circumcision of a hermaphrodite, even on the eighth day following the birth. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), and they interpreted the verse: “His foreskin” indicates that only the circumcision of his halakhically certain foreskin overrides Shabbat, and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.

(1) (Bamidbar 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names": I would understand that all are included — Israelites, Cohanim, Levites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtumim (those of indeterminate sex), and hermaphrodites. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18:20) "And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you shall not inherit" — to exclude Cohanim. (Ibid. 24) "In the midst of the children of Israel they shall not have an inheritance" — to exclude Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit" — to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (Ibid. 59) "To a man, according to his numbers, shall his inheritance be given" — to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. R. Yoshiyah says: The land was apportioned to those who left Egypt, as it is written "By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit." What, then, is the intent of "To these shall the land be apportioned"? (To such as these,) to exclude minors (below the age of twenty). R. Yonathan says: The land was apportioned according to those who came to the land, as it is written "To these shall the land be apportioned." And what is the intent of "By the names of the tribes of their fathers"? The L-rd changed this inheritance from all the inheritances in the Torah. For in all the inheritances in the Torah the living inherit the dead, whereas here, the dead inherit the living. Rebbi says: An analogy: Two brothers, Cohanim, were in a city. One had one son; the other, three. They go to the granary (to take their portion.) The first takes one sa'ah; the others, three, after which they go to their fathers' father and share equally. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: The land was apportioned to these and to these. How so? If they were of those who left Egypt, they took a share with those who left Egypt. If they were of those who entered the land, they took a share with those who entered the land. If they were both of these and of the others, they took a share of both — so that both verses are satisfied.

(2) (Bamidbar 26:54) "To the (more) numerous (tribe) you shall increase its inheritance, and to the less (numerous) you shall decrease its inheritance." If one had five sons when he left Egypt, and ten sons when he entered the land, I apply to them "To the numerous you shall increase its inheritance." If he had ten sons when he left Egypt, and five when he entered the land, I apply to them "and to the less you shall decrease its inheritance." "To a man": to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. "according to its numbers": We are hereby taught that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned to each tribe according to its (head-count). And thus is it written (Joshua 17:14-15) "And the children of Joseph said to Joshua: Why have you given me a single allotment as an inheritance, when we are a great multitude whom the L-rd had thus far blessed? And Joshua said to them: If you are a great multitude, go up to the forest country and clear an area for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzi and the Rephaim, the mountain of Ephraim constricting you." "shall his inheritance be given": I would understand this to mean (that each tribe took) indiscriminately. It is, therefore, written (55) "by allotment." If "by allotment," I would understand, by themselves (i.e., by their own lottery.) It is, therefore, written (56) "By the word (of the lottery"), whereby we are apprised that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by the Holy Spirit. I might think, by himself (i.e., the high-priest, by means of the urim vetumim). It is, therefore, written "shall its inheritance be divided," (connoting in the presence of the entire tribe).

(32) "which you have given me, O L-rd": From here it was ruled: A caretaker, a bondsman, a messenger, a woman, a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) and a hermaphrodite bring bikkurim, but do not recite the formula, for "which You have given me" does not obtain with them.

(5) What is the intent of "according to the count of souls"? From (Ibid.) "A man (according to his eating"), I might think only a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "according to the count of souls." This would imply for inclusion even one who is sick and one who is old, who cannot eat an olive-size. It is, therefore, written "A man according to his eating," to exclude the above, in whose behalf the lamb is not slaughtered.

(1) (Ibid. 12) "Honor your father and your mother": I would think (that they are to be honored) with words. It is, therefore, written (Mishlei 3:9) "Honor the L rd from your wealth." Just as there, "wealth," here, too, food, drink, and a new garment (are understood). Variantly: "Honor your father and your mother': (Leviticus 19:3) "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman/ Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one of indeterminate six) or a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "Honor your father and your mother," — in any event. Just as with honor (of parents) there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with fear. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: It is written: "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." Just as with (keeping of) Sabbath, there is no distinction between a man or a woman, so, with honor (of parents), there is no distinction between man or woman, tumtum or hermaphrodite. Rebbi says: Beloved is the honoring of parents by Him who spoke and brought the world into being, His having equated their honor and fear to His honor, and their curse (i.e., their being cursed) to His. It is written "Honor your father and your mother" and, correspondingly, "Honor the L rd from your wealth" — their honor being equated. It is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear" and (Devarim 6:13) "The L rd your G d shall you fear" — their fear being equated. I is written (Exodus 21:17) "And one who curses his father and his mother" and "A man, if he curse his G d" — their cursing (i.e., their being cursed) being equated. Come and see their reward. It is written "Honor the L rd from your wealth" and, correspondingly, (Ibid. 10) "And your bread will be filled with grain"; Honor your father and your mother" and correspondingly, (Ibid.) "so that your days be prolonged." The L rd your G d shall you fear" — (Malachi 3:20) "And there shall shine for you, who fear My name, a sun of bounty." "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear and My Sabbaths shall you keep." It (fear of mother and father) is likened to Sabbath. What is written of Sabbath? (Isaiah 58:13) "If you keep your feet from (dishonoring) the Sabbath … (14) then you will find pleasure in the L rd and I will set you on the heights of the earth, etc." R. Eliezer says; It is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man honors his mother more than he does his father because she cajoles him with words — wherefore he placed father before mother vis-à-vis honor (i.e., "Honor your father and your mother"). And it is revealed and known to Him who spoke and brought the world into being that a man fears his father more than he does his mother because he teaches him Torah — wherefore he placed mother before father vis-à-vis fear (i.e., "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear"), "compensating," as it were, for the lack. __ But perhaps whoever comes first in Scripture takes precedence in practice? (This is not so,) for it is written "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear," (the Hebrew phrasing implying that) they are equivalent vis-à-vis practice.

(1) (Exodus 21:7) "And if one curses his father and his mother, etc.": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 20:9) "Every man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "if one curses his father or his mother." "And if one curses his father and his mother": This ("and") tells me (that he is liable) for cursing only his father and his mother (together). Whence do I derive the same for (cursing) his father and not his mother, or his mother and not his father? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "His father or his mother he has cursed" — in any event (i.e., either one.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("his father and his mother") implies both together or either one, unless Scripture specifies one. And what is the intent of "And if one curses his father and his mother"? From (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Every man" I would think that only a man (who cursed) is liable. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of doubtful sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "if one curses his father and his mother." This tells me (that he is liable if he curses them) only when they are alive. Whence do I derive (the same for cursing) the dead? From "And if one curses his father and his mother" — in any event, (alive or dead).

(2) "And if one curses his father and his mother": with the explicit Name (i.e., the Tetragrammaton). __ But perhaps an epithet is intended? Let it not be written redundantly, (Leviticus 24:16) "When he blasphemes the Name he shall be put to death." (It is written thus) to include one who curses his father and mother. He is not liable until he curses them with the explicit Name. These are the words of R. Achai. R. Chanina b. Iddi says: Since Scripture states "Swear" and "Do not swear," "Curse" and "Do not curse," since swearing is by the Name, so, not swearing is by the Name (i.e., "Do not swear by the Name of"); just as cursing is by the Name, so not cursing is by the Name.

(3) "he shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning; but perhaps by one of the other "deaths" of the Torah? It follows thus: It is written here (in respect to cursing father and mother, Leviticus 2:9) "his blood is in him," and elsewhere (Ibid. 27) "their blood is in them." Just as there, (he is killed) by stoning, so, here, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Exodus 22:27) "Elohim you shall not curse." If your father is a judge, he is included in "Elohim you shall not curse." And if he is a Nassi ("president"), he is included in (Ibid.) "and a Nassi in your people you shall not curse." If he is neither, it follows by induction from both, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge. The common element between them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him. __ But perhaps the common element between them is that they are dignitaries, and it is their eminence that accounts for this, wherefore you are exhorted against cursing them — as opposed to (the status of) your father! It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 19:14) "You shall not curse a deaf-mute," the most abject of men, and you reason by induction among the three, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge, and neither is like a deaf-mute, and a deaf-mute is not like either. The common element among them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him.

(6) "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire": Why is this written? From (22:4) "a man," I would know only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex), and a hermaphrodite? From "Pay shall he pay, the lighter of the fire" — in any event. This tells me only of beast and fire. Whence do I derive the same for all of the other damagers in the Torah? It follows inductively from both. Beast is not like fire, and fire is not like beast. What is common to both is that it is their nature to damage, that they are your property, that it is your obligation to guard them, and that when they cause damage, you must pay for the damage with the best (produce) of the land. Four general rules were stated by R. Yishmael in the name of R. Meir in respect to damages. Wherever the mazik ("the damager") has permission (to be), but not the nizak ("the damaged"), he (the mazik) is not liable. Wherever the nizak has permission, but not the mazik, he (the mazik) is liable for everything. Where neither the nizak nor the mazik have permission (to be), such as property which belongs to neither of them, he (the mazik) is liable for (damage of) "tooth" and "foot," and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages. Wherever both have permission (to be), such as property owned in common, open land, the public domain, and the like, for "tooth" and "foot" he is not liable and, for the rest, mued pays full damages, and tam, half damages.

(5) "that they send out of the camp": Is this speaking of all men or only the Levites, the carriers of the ark? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "From male until female shall you send out" — Scripture speaks of all men. R. Yoshiyah says "that they send out of the camp" connotes both adults and minors. You say both adults and minors, but perhaps the criterion (for inclusion) should be punishment, viz.: Just as we find re sanctuary defilement that only adults are punished, viz. (Ibid. 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off" — here, too, only adults are intended. It is, therefore, written "From male until female shall you send out," both adults and minors. R. Yochanan says: Why is it written "From male until female shall you send out"? Because it is written "They shall send out of the camp," I might think, only these (viz. (Ibid. 2). Whence do I derive (the same for) all the other types of tumah? From "From male until female — any (type of tumah) that affects male or female — shall you send out." This tells me only of male and female. Whence do we derive the same for one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From (the redundant) "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of one who can be sent away (i.e., of one who can walk). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who cannot be sent away (i.e., that he must be taken by another)? From "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) appurtenances (that have become tamei)? From "and they shall not make unclean their camps." R. Akiva says: "Outside of the camp shall you send them" connotes both men and appurtenances. R. Yishmael says: It is derived by induction, viz.: A man is subject to plague tumah and garments are subject to plague tumah. Just as a man is subject to being sent away, so, appurtenances. — No, this may be so for a man, who imparts tumah (to an object) by reclining (mishkav) or sitting (moshav [upon it]), for which reason he must be sent away — as opposed to appurtenances, which do not impart tumah in that manner! — No, this is refuted by (the instance of) stones from a leprous house, which, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav or moshav, require being sent away. Do not wonder, then, if appurtenances, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav and moshav are to be sent away. R. Yossi Haglili says "From male until female shall you send them out": Just as male and female are distinctive in being subject to becoming proto-tumah (av hatumah) require being sent away, so, all that are thus susceptible — to exclude earthenware vessels, which are not thus susceptible.