## Niddah Daf 28a

###### Niddah 28a:1
[Niddah 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:1)

וְטִהֲרוּ לוֹ פְּתָחִים קְטַנִּים. וְקָא דָיְיקַתְּ מִינַּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּשִׁלְדּוֹ קַיֶּימֶת, הָא לָאו הָכִי טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But they deemed pure** all items that were under the **small openings** to the house, i.e., those whose width was less than four handbreadths. **And you infer from** this statement that **the reason** the large openings are impure in such a case is **that the form of** the corpse still **exists; but otherwise,** i.e., if the corpse was deformed, then even the large openings are **pure.**


###### Niddah 28a:2
[Niddah 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:2)

אַדְּרַבָּה, דּוֹק מִינַּהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא: שִׁלְדּוֹ קַיֶּימֶת הוּא דְּטִהֲרוּ לוֹ פְּתָחִים קְטַנִּים, הָא לָאו הָכִי — פְּתָחִים קְטַנִּים נָמֵי טְמֵאִין, דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד חֲזֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי חַד חַד אֵבֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why one cannot infer from here that a deformed corpse does not impart impurity to other items that are under the same roof: **On the contrary,** one can **infer from** this statement **in** the opposite **manner: It is** only because **the form of** the corpse still **exists that** the Sages **deemed pure** the **small openings** of the house; **but otherwise,** the **small openings are also impure, as each and every one** of them **is fit for taking out** the corpse through them, **each limb one** by **one.** Consequently, no proof can be derived from this statement in support of the opinion of Reish Lakish.


###### Niddah 28a:3
[Niddah 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּתְנַן: אֵפֶר שְׂרוּפִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שִׁיעוּרָן בְּרוֹבַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In accordance with whose** opinion **did Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that a deformed corpse imparts impurity to items that are under the same roof? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned** in a mishna (*Oholot* 2:2): With regard to **the ashes of burned** corpses that are not mixed with other types of ashes or dirt, **Rabbi Eliezer says** that **its measure for** imparting impurity to items that are under the same roof is a **quarter** of a *kav*. Clearly, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a deformed corpse imparts impurity to items that are under the same roof.


###### Niddah 28a:4
[Niddah 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:4)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי מֵת שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף וְשִׁלְדּוֹ קַיֶּימֶת? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׂרָפוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַטְבֻלְיָא. רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׂרָפוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי אַפּוּדְרִים. רָבִינָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיחֲרַךְ אִחֲרוֹכֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case of **a corpse that was burned but its form** still **exists?** How is this possible? **Abaye says:** It is possible in a case **where** one **burned** the corpse **on top of** a hard **leather spread [*katavla*],** which does not burn, and therefore the corpse retains its shape even after it is burned. **Rava says:** It is possible in a case **where** one **burned** the corpse **on top of a marble slate [*apoderim*]. Ravina says:** It is possible in a case **where** the corpse **was charred** without being reduced to ashes.


###### Niddah 28a:5
[Niddah 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם בָּאוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of a woman **who discharges a shaped hand,** i.e., its fingers are discernible, **or a shaped foot, its mother is impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth,** as the hand or foot certainly came from a full-fledged fetus. **And we are not concerned** that **perhaps they came from** a fetus with **a sealed,** i.e., deficient, **body,** in which case the miscarriage does not have the status of childbirth with regard to ritual impurity. The reason is that most pregnant women give birth to a fully formed fetus, and therefore it is presumed that the hand or foot came from a whole fetus that was squashed during childbirth.


###### Niddah 28a:6
[Niddah 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:6)

רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי תַרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טוֹהַר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵימָא הִרְחִיקָה לֵידָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say:** Although the woman observes the period of impurity of a woman after childbirth, **we do not give her** the **days of purity** following the period of impurity. **What is the reason?** Although it is presumed that the discharged limbs came from a full-fledged fetus, it is unknown whether or when the woman discharged the rest of the fetus, and the principle is that a woman who discharges observes her periods of impurity and purity when the majority of the limbs of the fetus emerge. Therefore, one can **say** that perhaps **her childbirth was distant,** i.e., the woman discharged the majority of the limbs of the fetus long before she discharged this hand or foot, and consequently her period of purity has already ended.


###### Niddah 28a:7
[Niddah 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:7)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: הַמַּפֶּלֶת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מָה הִפִּילָה תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כֹּל כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא אֵימָא הִרְחִיקָה לֵידָתָהּ, לִתְנֵי וּלְנִדָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raises an objection** from a mishna (29a): In the case of a woman **who discharges and it is not known what** sex fetus **she discharged, she shall observe** the strictures of a woman who gave birth both **to a male and to a female. And if it enters your mind** that in **any case like this** one should **say** that perhaps the woman’s **childbirth was distant, let** the mishna **teach** that the woman shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and a female, **and** also observes the strictures **of a menstruating woman.** Since it is possible that the item she discharged was a limb from a fetus the majority of which she discharged a long time beforehand, then she must forgo the period of purity observed by a woman who gave birth, and treat any blood that emerges during this period like the blood of a menstruating woman.


###### Niddah 28a:8
[Niddah 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:8)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי תְּנָא לְנִדָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנֶאֱכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says** in response: **If** the mishna had **taught** that the woman observes the strictures **of a menstruating woman, I would say** that as her status as a woman after childbirth is uncertain, since she observes the strictures of a menstruating woman with regard to any blood that emerges, **she brings an offering** like any woman after childbirth, **but it is not eaten** by the priests. It might be thought that perhaps the woman did not give birth at all and is not obligated to bring the offering, and therefore her bird sin offering cannot be eaten. By omitting the *halakha* that the woman observes the strictures of a menstruating woman, the mishna **teaches us that** her offering **is eaten.** This indicates that she certainly discharged an offspring; the uncertainty is only about when she discharged it.


###### Niddah 28a:9
[Niddah 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:9)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הוֹצִיא עוּבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וְהֶחְזִירָהּ — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בְלִדְתָּהּ וַיִּתֶּן יָד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna says:** If **a fetus extended its hand out** of the womb **and** then **returned it, its mother is impure** with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. This is considered childbirth, **as it is stated** with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law: **“And it happened when she gave birth that one put out a hand**…and it happened that as he drew back his hand, his brother came out” (Genesis 38:28–29). Evidently, the fetus extending out its hand was considered childbirth, despite the fact that it subsequently drew back the hand.


###### Niddah 28a:10
[Niddah 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:10)

מֵתִיב רַב יְהוּדָה: הוֹצִיא עוּבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ — אֵין אִמּוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְכׇל דָּבָר! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, לָחוֹשׁ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת, יְמֵי טוֹהַר לָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ עַד דְּנָפֵיק רוּבֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If **a fetus extended its hand out** of the womb, **its mother** need **not be concerned** that she is considered a woman after childbirth **with regard to any matter. Rav Naḥman says** in response: The meaning of this statement **was explained to me** personally **by Rav Huna** himself: **With regard to being concerned** that she has the status of a woman after childbirth, the woman must be **concerned,** i.e., she must observe the strictures of a woman after childbirth. But **we do not give her** a period of **days of purity** like any woman after childbirth, **until most of** the fetus **emerges.**


###### Niddah 28a:11
[Niddah 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:11)

וְהָא אֵין ״אִמּוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְכׇל דָּבָר״ קָאָמַר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְכׇל דָּבָר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל מִדְּרַבָּנַן חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת. וְהָא קְרָא קָאָמַר? מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** the *baraita* **say** that **its mother** need **not be concerned** that she is considered a woman after childbirth **with regard to any matter? Abaye says:** The *baraita* means that the woman need **not be concerned with regard to any matter by Torah law; but by rabbinic law** she must be **concerned,** i.e., she is required to observe the strictures of a woman after childbirth. The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** Rav Huna **cite a verse** as proof for his statement that if a fetus extended its hand out it is considered childbirth? The Gemara answers: This *halakha* applies **by rabbinic law, and the verse is** cited as **mere support** for it, i.e., it is not an actual source.


###### Niddah 28a:12
[Niddah 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:12)

**מַתְנִי'** הַמַּפֶּלֶת טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** A woman **who discharges** or gives birth to **a *tumtum*,** whose sexual organs are obscured, **or** to **a hermaphrodite [*ve’androginos*],** who has both male and female sexual organs, **shall observe** the strictures of a woman who gave birth both **to a male and to a female.** She is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like for a woman who gave birth to a male.


###### Niddah 28a:13
[Niddah 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:13)

טוּמְטוּם וְזָכָר, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וְזָכָר — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה; טוּמְטוּם וּנְקֵבָה, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וּנְקֵבָה — תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where she gave birth to twins, if they are **a *tumtum* and a male,** or **a hermaphrodite and a male, she observes** the strictures of a woman who gave birth both **to a male and to a female.** But if the twins are **a *tumtum* and a female,** or **a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe** the periods of purity and impurity established by the Torah **for** a woman who gives birth to **a female alone.** Regardless of the status of the *tumtum* and the hermaphrodite, the woman’s seven days of impurity and her succeeding thirty-three days of purity are subsumed in the fourteen days of impurity and sixty-six days of purity for a female.


###### Niddah 28a:14
[Niddah 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:14)

יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ, אוֹ מְסוֹרָס — מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד. יָצָא כְּדַרְכּוֹ — עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא רוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ. וְאֵיזֶהוּ רוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ? מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא פַּדַּחְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the fetus **emerged in pieces, or** if it emerged **reversed,** i.e., feetfirst rather than headfirst, **when most of its** limbs **emerge,** its status **is like** that of a child **born,** with regard to the impurity of a woman after childbirth. If the fetus **emerged in** the **usual manner,** headfirst, it is not considered born **until most of its head emerges. And what is** considered **most of its head?** It is **from when its forehead emerges.**


###### Niddah 28a:15
[Niddah 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:15)

**גְּמָ'** הַשְׁתָּא טוּמְטוּם לְחוֹדֵיהּ וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס לְחוֹדֵיהּ (אמר) [אָמְרַתְּ] תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה, טוּמְטוּם וְזָכָר, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וְזָכָר מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Now** that with regard to a woman who gives birth to **a *tumtum* alone, or a hermaphrodite alone,** the mishna **states** that **she shall observe** the strictures of a woman who gave birth both **to a male and to a female,** as the sex of the offspring is uncertain, **is it necessary** for the mishna to rule that if a woman gives birth to twins, **a *tumtum* and a male,** or **a hermaphrodite and a male,** she shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and a female?


###### Niddah 28a:16
[Niddah 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:16)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אִשָּׁה מַזְרַעַת תְּחִלָּה — יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר, אִישׁ מַזְרִיעַ תְּחִלָּה — יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה, אֵימָא מִדְּהַאי זָכָר — הַאי נָמֵי זָכָר? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אֵימָא: שְׁנֵיהֶם הִזְרִיעוּ בְּבַת אַחַת, זוֹ זָכָר וְזֶה נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** for the mishna to state this *halakha*, **lest you say** that **since Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that the sex of a fetus is determined at the moment of conception, in that if the **woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male,** and if the **man emits seed first she gives birth to a female,** therefore one might **say** that **since this** offspring that was born with the *tumtum* or hermaphrodite **is male, that** *tumtum* or hermaphrodite **is also male.** Consequently, the mishna **teaches us** that the woman shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth to a female as well, as one can **say** that perhaps **both** the man and the woman **emitted seed at the same time,** which would mean that **this** offspring **is male and that** *tumtum* or hermaphrodite **is female.**


###### Niddah 28a:17
[Niddah 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:17)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס שֶׁרָאוּ לוֹבֶן אוֹ אוֹדֶם — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rav says:** In the case of **a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite who saw a white** gonorrhea-like discharge [*ziva*], for which a man is impure, **or** who emitted **a red** discharge that had the appearance of menstrual blood, for which a woman is impure, if they entered the Temple **they are not liable for entering the Temple** in a state of impurity, as perhaps they are pure, in accordance with their true sex. **And** if they touched *teruma* after such a discharge, **one does not burn the *teruma* due to their** contact, as although impure *teruma* must be burned, the impurity in this case is uncertain.


###### Niddah 28a:18
[Niddah 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28a:18)

רָאוּ לוֹבֶן וְאוֹדֶם כְּאֶחָד — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מִזָּכָר וְעַד נְקֵבָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite **saw white** *ziva* **and red** blood **as one,** i.e., they emitted both *ziva* and blood and are therefore impure regardless of their sex, **they are** still **not liable for entering the Temple, but one does burn *teruma* due to their** contact. The reason they are not liable for entering the Temple, despite the fact that they are definitely impure, is **that it is stated: “Both male and female**