Niddah 28b — the Talmud in English

The source for the fact that they are not liable for entering the Temple while impure, despite their certainly being impure, is derived from the verse:

“From male to female ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

you shall send them out,”

which indicates that specifically

a “male

whose sex is certain” or

a

“female whose sex is certain”

is required to be sent outside the Temple,

but not a tumtum or an androgynos,

whose sex is uncertain.

Come and hear a proof supporting Rav

from the following source:

“A tumtum or an androgynos who saw white or red discharge is not liable for entering the Temple, and teruma is not burned on account of them.”

If they saw white and red discharge simultaneously,

they are not liable for entering the Temple, but teruma is burned on account of them!

The Gemara analyzes this:

What is the reason

that they are not liable for entering the Temple, despite their certainly being impure, when they saw both red and white discharge?

Is it not because it is stated: “From male to female you shall send them out,”

meaning: a male whose sex is certain and a female whose sex is certain, but not a tumtum or an androgynos,”

as Rav says?

Ulla said: No!

The source does not support Rav, because

this

source

is

the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

and the Sages disagree with him.

As we learned:

[In the passage concerning impurity upon entering the Temple it is stated: “A person who touches anything impure... the carcass of an impure creeping creature, and it was hidden from him [and he entered the Temple], and he is impure, and he bears his iniquity.”]

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The verse is to be interpreted as follows:

“The creeping creature

—and it was hidden from him!”

He is liable for failing to know about the creeping creature, but he is not liable for failing to know about the Temple!

That is, he is liable to bring an offering only when he forgot that he had touched the creeping creature and had thereby become impure, and consequently entered the Temple. But if he remembered his impurity and his error was that he forgot that this place was the Temple, he is exempt.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The end of the verse is to be interpreted differently:

“And it was hidden from him

—and he is impure”—

for

failing to know about the impurity he is liable, but he is not liable for failing to know about the Temple!

And we say: What is the difference between them?

What is the difference between “failing to know about the creeping creature” and “failing to know about the impurity,” since both expressions apparently have the same meaning: that the person forgot his impurity?

Ḥizkiyya said: A creeping creature and a carcass

were before him, and he touched one of them but does not know which one he touched;

that is the difference between them!

Rabbi Eliezer holds that we require him to know whether he became impure through the creeping creature or whether he became impure through the carcass,

and one who does not know what made him impure is exempt from bringing an offering. He cannot be held liable on the grounds that, whichever way one looks at it, he became impure and entered the Temple unknowingly, because “failing to know about the creeping creature”—that is, knowing also what caused the impurity—is required for liability; it is not enough that he knows only that he is impure.

And Rabbi Akiva holds that this knowledge is not required!

It is enough that he knows that he became impure for him to be liable to bring an offering; it makes no difference that he does not know what caused the impurity.

The Gemara returns to explain Ulla’s rejection of the proof from the source in support of Rav:

No; Rabbi Eliezer said there that we require him to know whether he became impure through the creeping creature or through the carcass,

and a vague awareness that he became impure is insufficient.

Here too,

in the case of a tumtum or an androgynos who saw white or red discharge,

we require him to know

whether the tumtum or androgynos

became impure through the white discharge or through the red discharge,

and a vague awareness that he is impure, based on whichever way one looks at it, is insufficient. For this reason, the source exempts him from bringing an offering, since it follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

But according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that one is liable on account of impurity,

and it makes no difference whether he knows what caused the impurity,

here too,

in the case of a tumtum or an androgynos who do not know whether they are impure because of white discharge or because of red discharge,

he should be liable on account of impurity,

and not as Rav says, that he is exempt from bringing an offering even according to Rabbi Akiva, based on his interpretation of the verse, “From male to female you shall send them out.”

The Gemara now questions the substance of Rav’s statement:

But Rav,

who exempts a tumtum and an androgynos from liability for entering the Temple while impure, based on his interpretation of the verse, “From male to female you shall send them out,”

what is different about entering the Temple, that they are not liable,

in the case of a tumtum and an androgynos,

as it is written: “From male to female you shall send them out,”

and we interpret it to mean:

a male whose sex is certain and a female whose sex is certain, but not a tumtum or an androgynos? If so, we should not burn teruma either

because a tumtum or an androgynos touched it, since it is written:

“And the zav, with his discharge, for male and for female,”

and we should interpret it, as we interpreted the verse concerning entering the Temple while impure, to mean:

a male whose sex is certain and a female whose sex is certain, but not a tumtum or an androgynos. Why, then, does Rav hold that teruma touched by them is burned?!

The Gemara answers:

“The verse

that

states ‘for male and for female’ concerning a zav

is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yitzḥak,

and therefore it cannot also be used for the interpretation that excludes a tumtum and an androgynos whose sex is uncertain.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “The male”

comes to include a leper with regard to his bodily discharges,

for just as the saliva and urine of a zav are primary sources of impurity, so too are the saliva and urine of a leper.

“And for the female”

comes to include a female leper with regard to her bodily discharges!

The Gemara asks:

This

verse, “From male to female you shall send them out,” which is written concerning impurity upon entering the Temple and from which Rav derives the exclusion of a tumtum and an androgynos,

is also needed

for another interpretation! From this verse the Sages learned that sending out from the Temple applies only

to one who can become pure in a ritual bath, excluding an earthenware vessel,

which cannot become pure in a ritual bath; if it becomes impure, it need not be removed from the Temple.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yose!

How, then, can Rav derive an additional interpretation from the same verse, excluding a tumtum and an androgynos?

The Gemara answers:

If so,

if the words “From male to female you shall send them out” were written only to exclude an earthenware vessel, which cannot become pure in a ritual bath,

the Merciful One should have written: “You shall send out a person

and we would know that impure earthenware vessels need not be removed from the Temple. Why did the Torah lengthen the wording and write “for male and for female,” if not to teach the additional interpretation that the male and female must have certain sexes?!

The Gemara considers rejecting this answer:

And if you would say

that this is not a valid inference, because one cannot write, “You shall send out a person,” since if

the Merciful One had written “person,” we might have thought

even

metal vessels are not

to be sent out, because we might have incorrectly interpreted the verse to mean that only an impure person is commanded to be sent out from the Temple, but not vessels, including metal vessels, which can become pure in a ritual bath. To prevent this error, the Torah lengthened its wording and wrote “male and female.” It follows that the entire verse is needed for the law requiring vessels to be sent out from the Temple, and the question returns: From where does Rav derive the exclusion of a tumtum and an androgynos?

The Gemara rejects this and upholds the previous answer: Even if “person” had been written, we would not have excluded metal vessels from being sent out, because from the verse

“from every impure person”

it follows,

and from that verse we would have included metal vessels. The previous answer therefore stands: To exclude earthenware vessels, it would have been sufficient for the verse to state simply “person.” If so,

“male and female,”

which is written in the verse,

why do I need it?

Rather, it is

for the teaching of Rav,

who excluded a tumtum and an androgynos, whose sex is uncertain, from those whose sex is certain.

The Gemara asks in the opposite direction:

And perhaps the entire

interpretation of the verse, “From male to female you shall send them out,”

comes only for Rav’s teaching,

and from where does Rabbi Yose derive the additional teaching that impure earthenware vessels need not be sent out from the Temple?

The Gemara answers:

If so, the verse should have stated “male and female.” What is the meaning of “from male to female”?

The word “to” is interpreted as an exclusion:

“To every object that can become pure in a ritual bath” 227 ,

but not an earthenware vessel!

The Gemara discusses the main point of Rav’s teaching: A tumtum and an androgynos who saw white and red discharge simultaneously are not liable for entering the Temple because their sex is unknown, despite their impurity being certain:

If so, when

a tumtum and an androgynos become impure

through other impurities,

such as impurity from a corpse or from a creeping creature,

should they not be sent out

from the Temple [that is, they should not be liable to bring an offering for entering it while impure], since the verse “From male to female you shall send them out,” from which Rav excludes a tumtum and an androgynos, refers to all forms of impurity, as is explained in the preceding verse: “They shall send out from the camp every leper, everyone with a discharge, and everyone impure through contact with a corpse; male and female you shall send out.” Why did Rav exclude them only with regard to impurity from a discharge?!

The Gemara answers:

The verse states: “From male”—

from an impurity that issues from a male!

The Gemara discusses another point:

And

is it true that

whenever the verse states, “from male to female,”

it comes to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos?

But concerning valuations, where it is written: “And your valuation shall be for

the

male

fifty silver shekels, according to the sacred shekel. And if she is female, your valuation shall be thirty shekels.”

And a baraitha teaches: “The male”—

but not a tumtum or an androgynos!

The definite article attached to “male” teaches that this law applies only to a male whose sex is known.

One might have thought that he would not be

valued

according to the valuation of a man,

and thus required to pay fifty silver shekels,

but he would be

valued

according to the valuation of a woman, and required to pay thirty?

The verse therefore states: “And your valuation shall be

the

male, and if female

she is.” From the superfluous word “and if” we derive:

male

whose sex is certain, female

whose sex is certain, but not a tumtum or an androgynos!

The Gemara infers:

The reason

that a tumtum and an androgynos are excluded from the laws of valuations is

that it is written “the male,”

with the definite article:

“And if female”

—this

would imply that had the verse stated merely “male” and “female,” without the definite article and without the additional word “if,”

it would not exclude

a tumtum and an androgynos?!