Pt. I: Defining Queerness
From "Tendencies," Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick:
That's one of the things that "queer" can refer to: the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone's gender, of anyone's sexuality aren't made (or can't be made) to signify monolithically. The experimental linguistic, epistemological, representational, political adventures attaching to the very many of us who may at times be moved to describe ourselves as (among many other possibilities) pushy femmes, radical faeries, fantasists, drags, clones, leatherfolk, ladies in tuxedoes, feminist women or feminist men, masturbators, bulldaggers, divas, Snap! queens, butch bottoms, storytellers, transsexuals, aunties, wannabes, lesbian-identified men or lesbians who sleep with men, or...people able to relish, learn from, or identify with such.
Pt. II: Hybrid Species
(ח) כּוֹי, יֶשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַחַיָּה, וְיֶשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַבְּהֵמָה, וְיֶשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַבְּהֵמָה וְלַחַיָּה, וְיֶשׁ בּוֹ דְרָכִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא לַבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא לַחַיָּה:
(8) A koy [hybrid species] is in some ways like a wild animal (hayyah); in some ways it is like a domesticated animal (behemah); in some ways it is like both a behemah and a hayyah, and in some ways it is like neither a behemah nor a hayyah.
(א) אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַנָּשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא לַאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא לַנָּשִׁים:
(1) The androgynos is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.
Pt III: Defining "Safek"
זֶה הַכְּלָל בְּיוֹרְשִׁין. כָּל שְׁנֵי יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁאֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹרֵשׁ וַדַּאי וְהַשֵּׁנִי סָפֵק אֵין לַסָּפֵק כְּלוּם. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא זֶהוּ הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא זֶה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּן וְטֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכּל שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס סָפֵק. הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס יוֹרְשׁוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַחַת מִן הַבָּנוֹת:
The following principles apply with regard to questions concerning the right of inheritance: Whenever there are two prospective heirs, one who is definitely an heir and one whose right to inherit is a matter of question, the person whose right is in doubt does not receive anything. If there are two claimants whose rights are a matter of question, perhaps this one is an heir or perhaps the other is an heir, they divide the estate equally.
Accordingly, if a person died and left a son and a tumtum or an androgynus? the son inherits the entire estate. For the status of the tumtum or the androgynus is a matter of question. If he left daughters and a tumtum or an androgynos, they share equally in the inheritance. The tumtum or androgynus is considered as one of the daughters.
(ו) מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ בֻלְמוּס, מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דְבָרִים טְמֵאִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כֶלֶב שׁוֹטֶה, אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלוֹ, וְרַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶן חָרָשׁ מַתִּיר. וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי מַתְיָא בֶן חָרָשׁ, הַחוֹשֵׁשׁ בִּגְרוֹנוֹ, מַטִּילִין לוֹ סַם בְּתוֹךְ פִּיו בְּשַׁבָּת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת, וְכָל סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת:
(6) In the case of one who is seized with the life-threatening illness bulmos, causing him unbearable hunger pangs and impaired vision, one may feed him even impure foods on Yom Kippur or any other day until his eyes recover, as the return of his sight indicates that he is recovering. In the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one may not feed him from the lobe of the dog’s liver. This was thought to be a remedy for the bite, but the Rabbis deem it ineffective. And Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash permits feeding it to him, as he deems it effective. And furthermore, Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said: With regard to one who suffers pain in his throat, one may place medicine inside his mouth on Shabbat, although administering a remedy is prohibited on Shabbat. This is because there is uncertainty whether or not it is a life-threatening situation for him, as it is difficult to ascertain the severity of internal pain. And a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat.
Pt. IV: What is a Mamzer/Mamzeret?
(3) No one misbegotten shall be admitted into the congregation of ה׳; no descendant of such, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of ה׳.
(א) אֵי זֶהוּ (דברים כג ג) "מַמְזֵר" הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. זֶה הַבָּא מֵעֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת. חוּץ מִן הַנִּדָּה שֶׁהַבֵּן מִמֶּנָּה פָּגוּם וְאֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שְׁאָר הָעֲרָיוֹת בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וְאֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת אֲסוּרִין לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) "גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי" כְּלוֹמַר לְעוֹלָם:
(1) What is meant by the Torah's prohibition against relations with a mamzer? [The term refers to a person conceived from] a forbidden sexual relationship. A niddah is an exception. A son conceived from such relationships is blemished, but is not a mamzer. When, however, a man enters into any other forbidden sexual relationships, whether through rape, or willingly, whether conscious of the prohibition or not,* the offspring produced is a mamzer. Both male and female [mamzerim] are forbidden forever, as [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: "[A mamzer shall not enter God's congregation.] Also the tenth generation...," i.e., [the prohibition is] everlasting.
*The difference between whether relations were willful, forced, or inadvertent is relevant only with regard to the punishment received by the man and woman. The child born of the offspring is considered as a mamzer regardless.