Niddah 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

The source for the fact that they are not liable for entering the Temple despite certainly being impure is from what

is stated: “From male to female

you shall send out,”

meaning that specifically

a “definite male

” or

a

“definite female”

is obligated to be sent outside the Temple,

but not a tumtum or an androgynos,

whose sex is uncertain.

Let us say that this supports

Rav:

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

The Gemara infers:

What is the reason

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

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

“a definite male, a definite female, but not a tumtum or an androgynos,”

as Rav stated?

Ulla said: No!

The baraita does not support Rav, because

this

baraita

is in accordance with whom?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

and the Sages disagree with him.

As we learned:

In the passage concerning impurity associated with the Temple, it is stated: “A person who touches anything impure… the carcass of an impure creeping animal, 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 expounded in the following manner:

“The creeping animal”—

“and it was hidden from him!”—

He is liable for being unaware of the creeping animal, but he is not liable for being unaware of the Temple!

For he is liable to bring an offering specifically when he forgot that he had touched the creeping animal and had thereby become impure, and consequently entered the Temple; but if he remembered his impurity and his error consisted of forgetting that this place was the Temple, he is exempt.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The end of the verse is to be expounded differently:

“And it was hidden from him

and he is impure”—

for

being unaware of his impurity he is liable, but he is not liable for being unaware of the Temple!

And we say: What difference is there between them?

What is the difference between “being unaware of the creeping animal” and “being unaware of impurity,” since both expressions have the same meaning: that the person forgot his impurity?

And Ḥizkiyya said: A creeping animal 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!

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

and one who does not know through what he became impure is exempt from bringing an offering. He cannot be made liable on the grounds that, whichever way one looks at it, he became impure and entered the Temple unwittingly, because only “being unaware of the creeping animal”—that is, knowing also what caused the impurity—creates liability for an offering; it is not enough that he knows merely that he is impure.

But Rabbi Akiva holds that we do not require this!

It is sufficient that he knows that he became impure in order to make him liable to bring an offering; it makes no difference that he does not know through what he became impure.

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

No, Rabbi Eliezer said there that we require him to know whether he became impure through the creeping animal or whether he became impure 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 certainly impure is insufficient. For this reason the baraita exempted him from bringing an offering, as it follows Rabbi Eliezer.

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

and it makes no difference whether he knows through what he became impure,

here too,

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

he is liable on account of the impurity,

and not as Rav stated, who exempted him from bringing an offering even according to Rabbi Akiva, based on his exposition of the verse, “From male to female you shall send out.”

The Gemara now asks about the substance of Rav’s statement:

And Rav,

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

what distinguishes entering the Temple, for which they are not liable,

from other cases in which a tumtum and an androgynos are impure,

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

and we expound:

a definite male, a definite female, but not a tumtum or an androgynos? If so, we should not burn the teruma either

on account of the contact of a tumtum or an androgynos, since it is written,

“And the zav, his discharge, whether male or female,”

and we should expound it as we expounded the matter of entering the Temple while impure:

a definite male, a definite female, but not a tumtum or an androgynos.

Why, then, does Rav hold that teruma touched by them is burned?!

The Gemara answers:

That—

“whether male or female,” written concerning a zav—

is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yitzḥak,

and therefore it cannot also be expounded to teach “a definite male and a definite female, but not a tumtum or an androgynos.”

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “The male”—

to include a leper with regard to his sources,

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 the female”—

to include a female leper with regard to her sources!

The Gemara asks:

This—

“From male to female you shall send out,” written concerning impurity associated with the Temple, from which Rav derived the exclusion of a tumtum and an androgynos—

is also needed

for another exposition! From this verse they learned that sending out from the Temple applies only

to one who has purification in a ritual bath, excluding an earthenware vessel,

which has no purification in a ritual bath, and which need not be removed from the Temple if it becomes impure,

the words of Rabbi Yosei!

How, then, can Rav derive an additional exposition from the same verse to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos?

The Gemara answers:

If so,

if “From male to female you shall send out” was written solely to exclude earthenware vessels, which have no purification in a ritual bath,

the Merciful One should have written: “A person

you shall send out,” and we would know that impure earthenware vessels need not be removed from the Temple. For what purpose did the Torah extend the wording and write “male and female,” if not to teach us the additional exposition that the male and female must be definite?!

The Gemara raises a possibility to reject this answer:

And if you would say

that this is not a valid inference, because it would be impossible to write, “A person you shall send out,” since if

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

even

metal vessels should not be sent out,

as we would incorrectly expound the verse to mean that only an impure person is commanded to be sent out of the Temple, but not vessels, including metal vessels , which can be purified in a ritual bath. To prevent this error, the Torah extended the wording and wrote “male and female” . It follows that the entire verse is needed for the law of sending vessels out of the Temple, and the question returns: From where did Rav derive the exclusion of a tumtum and an androgynos?

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

“From every impure person”

it would be derived,

and from it we would include metal vessels. The previous answer therefore stands: To exclude earthenware vessels, it would have been sufficient for “a person” alone to have been written. If so,

“male and female,”

which was written in the verse,

why do I need it?

Rather, it is

for Rav’s teaching,

that a tumtum and an androgynos, whose status is uncertain rather than definite, are excluded.

The Gemara asks in the opposite direction:

And perhaps the entire

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

came for Rav’s teaching,

and from where does Rabbi Yosei derive in addition that impure earthenware vessels need not be sent out of the Temple?

It answers:

If so, “male and female” should have been written; what is the meaning of “from male to female”?

And the word “to” is expounded to exclude

everything that has purification in a ritual bath 227 ,

227 ,

but not an earthenware vessel!

The Gemara discusses the substance 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 being certainly impure:

If so, when

a tumtum and an androgynos become impure

through other impurities,

such as impurity imparted by a corpse or by a creeping animal,

should they not be sent out

of 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 out,” from which Rav excludes a tumtum and an androgynos, refers to all impurities, as is explained in the preceding verse: “They shall send out from the camp every leper, every zav, and everyone impure through contact with a corpse; from male to female you shall send out” . Why did Rav exclude them only with regard to zav impurity?!

The Gemara answers:

The verse says: “From male”—

from an impurity that issues from a male!

The Gemara discusses the matter further:

And

if

everywhere that it is written, “from male to female,”

it comes to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos,

what about the case of 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 it was taught in a baraita: “The male”—

but not a tumtum or an androgynos!

The addition of the definite article in the word “the male” teaches that this law applies only to a known male.

One might have thought that he would not be

valued

according to the valuation of a man,

to be obligated to pay fifty silver shekels,

but he would be

valued

according to the valuation of a woman, to be obligated to pay thirty?

The verse states: “And your valuation shall be

the

male, and if she is female,”

and from the superfluous word “and if” we derive:

a male—

a definite one; a female—

a definite one; but not a tumtum or an androgynos!

The Gemara infers:

The reason

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

because it is written, “the male,”

with the definite article:

“and if she is female”—

here,

if the words “male” and “female” had been written without the definite article and without the superfluous word “if,”

it would not exclude

a tumtum and an androgynos?!