## Niddah Daf 28b

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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אָדָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Niddah 28b:19
[Niddah 28b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/28b:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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**