Niddah 28b

תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

you shall send out, out of the camp you shall send them, so that they not impurify their camp, in the midst of which I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). It is derived from the verse that only a definite male or a definite female is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס שֶׁרָאוּ לוֹבֶן אוֹ אוֹדֶם — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רָאוּ לוֹבֶן וְאוֹדֶם כְּאַחַת — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav: In the case of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite who saw white ziva or red blood, they are not liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, and if they touch teruma , one does not burn the teruma due to their contact. If they saw white ziva and red blood as one, i.e., they emitted both ziva and blood, they are still not liable for entering the Temple, but one burns teruma due to their contact.

מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מִזָּכָר וְעַד נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ״, זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס? אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא, הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

The Gemara reasons: What is the reason that they are not liable for entering the Temple despite the fact that they are definitely impure? Is it not because it is stated in the verse: “Both male and female you shall send out,” from which it is derived that only a definite male or a definite female could be liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite? Ulla says: No, Rav’s opinion cannot be proved from this baraita , as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita ? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַ״שֶּׁרֶץ... וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ״ — עַל הֶעְלֵם שֶׁרֶץ הוּא חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ.

As we learned in a mishna ( Shevuot 14b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: “Or if a person touches any impure thing…or the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:2). A precise reading of this verse indicates that if one has a lapse of awareness that he contracted ritual impurity by touching a carcass of a creeping animal, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for defiling the Temple or the sacrificial food, but he is not liable to bring such an offering for a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא״ — עַל הֶעְלֵם טוּמְאָה הוּא חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ.

Rabbi Akiva says that it is derived from the phrase: “And it is hidden from him, so that he is impure” (Leviticus 5:2), that for a lapse of awareness that one had contracted ritual impurity, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, but he is not liable to bring an offering for a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? וְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: שֶׁרֶץ וּנְבֵלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן עַד דְּיָדַע אִי בְּשֶׁרֶץ אִיטַּמִּי אִי בִּנְבֵילָה אִיטַּמִּי, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן.

And we say with regard to this mishna: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva? They are apparently stating the same halakha . And Ḥizkiyya says: There is a practical difference between them in a case where one initially knew that he had contracted ritual impurity, but he did not know whether the impurity was contracted from a carcass of a creeping animal or from the carcass of an unslaughtered animal. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that for one to be liable to bring an offering, we require that he initially know whether he contracted impurity from a carcass of a creeping animal or whether he contracted impurity from an unslaughtered animal carcass, and if he never knew this, he does not bring an offering. And Rabbi Akiva holds that for him to be liable to bring an offering, we do not require that he know this detail, since he knows in general terms that he contracted impurity.

לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם בָּעֵינַן דְּיָדַע אִי בְּשֶׁרֶץ אִיטַּמִּי, אִי בִּנְבֵלָה אִיטַּמִּי; הָכָא נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן דְּיָדַע אִי בְּלוֹבֶן אִיטַּמִּי, אִי בְּאוֹדֶם אִיטַּמִּי.

The Gemara infers: Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer say there, in that mishna, that we require one to bring an offering for entering the Temple in a state of impurity only if he knew initially whether he contracted impurity from a carcass of a creeping animal or whether he contracted impurity from an unslaughtered animal carcass? Here, too, with regard to a hermaphrodite or a tumtum who emitted both ziva and blood, they are not obligated to bring an offering according to Rabbi Eliezer, as we require one to bring an offering only if he knew whether he became impure due to the white ziva he emitted or whether he became impure due to the red blood he emitted.

אֲבָל לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה מִיחַיַּיב, הָכָא נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה מִיחַיַּיב.

But according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that one is obligated to bring an offering due to his initial knowledge of his impurity even if he did not know the exact cause of his impurity, here too, in the case of a hermaphrodite or a tumtum who emitted both ziva and blood, he is obligated to bring an offering due to his initial knowledge of his impurity, despite the fact that he does not know whether he is impure due to the blood or the ziva .

וְרַב, מַאי שְׁנָא בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ דְּלָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִזָּכָר וְעַד נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, who holds that an impure tumtum or hermaphrodite is not liable for entering the Temple but that any teruma that he touches is burned, what is different with regard to entering the Temple, for which he is not liable? The reason it is different is that it is written: “Both male and female you shall send out,” from which it is derived that a definite male or a definite female is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.

אִי הָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי לָא נִשְׂרוֹף, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס!

If so, we should not burn teruma that he touches either, as it is written in a verse dealing with these types of impurity: “This is the law of the zav , and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges, so that he is thereby impure; and of her that is sick with her menstrual status, and they who have an issue, whether a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:32–33). It can similarly be derived from this verse that these types of impurity apply only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.

הַהוּא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: ״לַזָּכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְּצוֹרָע לְמַעְיְנוֹתָיו, ״וְלִנְקֵבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְצוֹרַעַת לְמַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ.

The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for the halakha of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The term “whether a male” serves to include a male leper as a primary source of impurity with regard to the sources of his bodily emissions. In other words, the various emissions of a leper, e.g., his saliva and urine, have the status of a primary source of impurity, and therefore they transmit impurity to a person or utensil that touches them. And the term “or a female” serves to include a female as a primary source of impurity with regard to the sources of her bodily emissions.

הַאי נָמֵי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ טׇהֳרָה בַּמִּקְוֶה — פְּרָט לִכְלִי חֶרֶס, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This verse: “Both male and female you shall send out” (Numbers 5:3), from which Rav derives that the prohibition against an impure person entering the Temple does not apply to one whose sex is uncertain, is also necessary for another halakha . That halakha is that the obligation to remove from the Temple any impure person or item applies only to one that has the option of attaining ritual purity by immersing in a ritual bath; this excludes an impure earthenware vessel, which cannot be purified by immersing it in a ritual bath. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Consequently, Rav’s halakha cannot be derived from that verse.

אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אָדָם״.

The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse serves to teach Rabbi Yosei’s halakha alone, let the Merciful One write: Any person you shall send out, as this would also exclude earthenware vessels. Rav’s halakha is derived from the fact that the wording of the verse is: “Both male and female.”

וְכִי תֵימָא, אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אָדָם״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת לָא, מִ״כֹּל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ״ נָפְקָא! ״זָכָר״ וּ״נְקֵבָה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב.

And if you would say in response that if the Merciful One had written: Any person you shall send out, I would say that impure metal vessels need not be removed from the Temple either, as they are not included in the term: Any person, this is not correct. The Gemara elaborates: The halakha that impure metal vessels must be removed from the Temple is derived from the previous verse: “That they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue, and whatever is impure by the dead” (Numbers 5:2). Therefore, why do I need the verse to write: “Both male and female you shall send out,” instead of simply stating: Any person you shall send out? Clearly, the phrase: “Both male and female,” is necessary for the halakha of Rav.

וְאֵימָא, כּוּלֵּיהּ לְכִדְרַב הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״! מַאי ״מִזָּכָר וְעַד נְקֵבָה״? עַד כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ טׇהֳרָה בַּמִּקְוֶה.

The Gemara asks: But if so, one can say that the entire phrase comes for Rav’s halakha , and not the halakha of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: Male and female. What is the meaning of the phrase: “Both male and female”? The verse is referring to any ritually impure item that has the same halakha that applies to both males and females, i.e., it can attain purity by being immersed in a ritual bath; this excludes earthenware vessels.

אִי הָכִי, כִּי אִיטַּמִּי בִּשְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת, לָא לִישַׁלְּחוּ? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִזָּכָר״ — מִטּוּמְאָה הַפּוֹרֶשֶׁת מִן הַזָּכָר.

With regard to Rav’s halakha that the prohibition of entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity does not apply to one who is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, the Gemara asks: If so, then even when they become impure with other types of impurity, in addition to the impurity of a zav or a menstruating woman, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite should likewise not be sent out of the Temple, as the passage from which a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded is also referring to other types of impurity: “That they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue, and whatever is impure by the dead” (Numbers 5:2). The Gemara answers: The next verse states: “Both male,” which is referring to impurity caused by a substance that is emitted from the male organ, i.e., ziva .

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״מִזָּכָר עַד נְקֵבָה״ לְמַעוֹטֵי טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס הוּא דַּאֲתָא? וְהָא גַּבֵּי עֲרָכִין דִּכְתִיב ״הַזָּכָר״.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav’s derivation: And is it correct that anywhere that the phrase “both male and female” is written in the Torah, this comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite? But isn’t a similar expression stated with regard to valuations, as it is written: “For the male… fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary. And if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels” (Leviticus 27:3–4).

וְתַנְיָא: ״הַזָּכָר״ — וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִישׁ, אֲבָל יְהֵא בְּעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַזָּכָר... וְאִם נְקֵבָה״ — זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

And it is taught in a baraita that it is derived from the term “the male”: But not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. One might have thought that a tumtum or a hermaphrodite shall not be valuated according to the valuation of a man, which is fifty shekels, but shall be valuated according to the valuation of a woman, which is thirty shekels. Therefore, the verse states: “The male,” and the following verse states: “And if she is a female,” indicating that these halakhot apply only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.

טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״הַזָּכָר... וְאִם נְקֵבָה״, הָא מִ״זָּכָר״ וּ״נְקֵבָה״ לָא מְמַעֵט. הַהוּא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ

The Gemara explains the difficulty: The reason a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded is that it is written: “The male…and if she is a female,” which indicates that if the verse had written: Male and female, without the superfluous words “the” and “if,” it would not have been derived that the verse excludes a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav, who excludes a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from the prohibition of entering the Temple in a state of impurity merely due to the phrase: “Male and female” (Numbers 5:3). The Gemara answers: In that verse with regard to valuations, the words “male” and “female” are themselves necessary