Rebellion Child of Undetermined Gender

The gemara recently covered a series of rulings regarding tumtum, one with uncertain sexual features, who is later resolved to be male. One of these is the Ben Sorer Umoreh. At the bottom of Bava Batra 126b:

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַף אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן כְּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as the verse states: “If there will be [yihyeh] to a man a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deuteronomy 21:18), which is interpreted to mean that one is not judged in this manner unless he is recognized as a son from the moment of his coming into being.

עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה presumably means from birth, and that is how Rashbam explains the immediately preceding derasha. That derasha was that a firstborn tumtum later found to be male doesn’t take a double portion, interpreting ״וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכוֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה״ in the same manner, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה. Rashbam comments there, הויה - לידה:

Another possibility: A rebellious youth drinking wine in Hawaii

However, the Rambam appears to rule otherwise. In Mishneh Torah, we read:

טֻמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יח) "כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הַתְרָאָה:

When an operation is performed on a tumtum and it is discovered that he is a male, he is not judged as a "wayward and rebellious son." The rationale is Deuteronomy 21:18 states: "If a person will have a wayward and rebellious son...." Implied is that he must be a son at the time he receives the warning.

The word at the end is hatra’a, warning, rather than havaya, becoming. Rambam should be bound by the gemara, so his commentators discuss it.

Lechem Mishneh writes:

עד שיהיה בן משעת התראה בפרק יש נוחלין (דף קכ"ו:) אמרו אינו נדון כבן סורר ומורה דאמר קרא כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה עד שיהא בן משעת הויה ופירשב"ם ז"ל הויה לידה, כלומר דמשעה שנולד צריך שיהיה זכר גמור ואע"פ שקודם התראה נקרע ונמצא זכר משמע לרשב"ם ז"ל דאינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה אבל רבינו כתב משעת התראה משמע דאם קודם ההתראה נקרע ונמצא זכר נעשה בן סורר ומורה ולדעתו ז"ל צריך לומר דהויה קרי ליה התראה כלומר משעה שנהיה בן סורר דהיינו שהתרו בו: סליקו להו הלכות ממרים בס"ד

That is, he points to our sugya in Bava Batra 126, but quotes it with הויה. Then cites Rashbam, perhaps on the preceding statement but this as well, or perhaps understanding it specifically on our statement, that הויה means birth. Thus, the ben sorer umore needs to be (definitively and observably) absolutely male since birth. Thus, even though before the warning issued to the rebellious child, they conducted surgery and determined the sex, it seems that this excludes him from being a Ben Sorer Umore. Meanwhile, Rambam writes התראה, indicating that if the surgery preceded it, the child would become a Ben Sorer Umoreh. Rambam’s position, perforce, is that “becoming” is the name for “warning here”, that is to say, from the time that he becomes a Ben Sorer Umoreh, which is when they warned him.

In this dispute, I would side with Rashbam.

1. That is how הויה was used in context, so it makes sense that the Amoraim would be consistent in how they darshen such words and phrases.

2. This is quite a chiddush to then rework the word, and on the basis of what exactly? Rambam should have a convincing argument that it is not the peshat meaning of the midrash.

3. The nature of the derashot of Ben Sorer Umoreh are such that they drastically minimize the possibility of such a case occurring. Just as one opinion expressed is that there was no such practical case of Ben Sorer Umoreh, and it was just given to learn the Torah thereof and receive reward, other derashot do their best to eliminate any practical case. It is only within a limited six month period. The father and mother have to have the same voice. And so on.
   

   A similar midrashic agenda prevails by the disfavored Eved Nirtza, by the way, such that it is hard to imagine that one could exist.
   
   If this is the midrashic vibe, Rambam’s limited application ends up increasing cases of Ben Sorer UMoreh, whereas Rashbam’s adds years to this exclusion.

More so, it really seems that הַתְרָאָה is a scribal error for הֲוָיָה. After all, there are lots of shared letters. Also, if you look at Mechon Mamre, which has an extremely accurate version of Mishneh Torah in digital form, indeed makes this switch.

This isn’t my own chiddush. I was listening to Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz’s daf yomi and he mentioned the dispute and that it may also be a ta’ut sofer.

Also, Rav Adin Steinsaltz has a commentary to Mishneh Torah, and he quotes the text as havaya:

עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה. שיהיה ברור שהוא בן משעה שנולד.