Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 20, 2019 | 讻状讘 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 28

What is the law regarding a dead body that has no shape or form – does it carry inmpurity or not? One who discharges a hand or foot – what are laws regarding the impure and pure bloods after childbirth? Is it the same as a woman who miscarries and isn’t sure of the sex of the unborn fetus? One who discharges a tumtum or androginus – is it treated as male or female or both? If a tumtum or androginus had a red or white discharge (which would be zav if it was a man and nidda if a woman) or both, what are the laws regarding if it went into the temple by accident before purification or disqualifying truma if it came in contact with it? Rav gives a response and explains from what verse it is derived. The gemara attempts (unsuceessfully) to bring a braita to strengthen Rav’s opinion and also questions the drasha in light of other similar verses that aren’t used in the same manner.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讟讛专讜 诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讚讬讬拽转 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讟讛讜专

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.

讗讚专讘讛 讚讜拽 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讛讜讗 讚讟讛专讜 诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讞讝讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞讚 讞讚 讗讘专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讗驻专 砖专讜驻讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讘专讜讘注

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪转 砖谞砖专祝 讜砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖砖专驻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讟讘诇讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖砖专驻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗驻讜讚专讬诐 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讞专讻讬 讗讞专讜讻讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪驻诇转 讬讚 讞转讜讻讛 讜专讙诇 讞转讜讻讛 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 诪讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讘讗讜

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讬诪讬 讟讜讛专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诪讗 讛专讞讬拽讛 诇讬讚转讛

Rav 岣sda 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诪驻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 诪讛 讛驻讬诇讛 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讛专讞讬拽讛 诇讬讚转讛 诇转谞讬 讜诇谞讚讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 转谞讗 诇谞讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讗讻诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讗转 讬讚讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘诇讚转讛 讜讬转谉 讬讚

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鈥檚 daughter-in-law: 鈥淎nd it happened when she gave birth that one put out a hand鈥nd it happened that as he drew back his hand, his brother came out鈥 (Genesis 38:28鈥29). Evidently, the fetus extending out its hand was considered childbirth, despite the fact that it subsequently drew back the hand.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讗转 讬讚讜 讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讞讜砖砖转 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讜砖 讞讜砖砖转 讬诪讬 讟讜讛专 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 专讜讘讬讛

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 Na岣an 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讞讜砖砖转 诇讻诇 讚讘专 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇讻诇 讚讘专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讞讜砖砖转 讜讛讗 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛

MISHNA: A woman who discharges or gives birth to a tumtum, whose sexual organs are obscured, or to a hermaphrodite [ve鈥檃ndroginos], 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.

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讝讻专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讝讻专 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜谞拽讘讛 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜谞拽讘讛 转砖讘 诇谞拽讘讛 讘诇讘讚

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鈥檚 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.

讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 讬爪讗 讻讚专讻讜 注讚 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讗讬讝讛讜 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 诪砖讬爪讗 驻讚讞转讜

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.

讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗诪专 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讝讻专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讝讻专 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗砖讛 诪讝专注转 转讞诇讛 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讗讬砖 诪讝专讬注 转讞诇讛 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讚讛讗讬 讝讻专 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讻专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪讗 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讝专讬注讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讝讜 讝讻专 讜讝讛 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to state this halakha, lest you say that since Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讗讜 讗讜讚诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讜讗讜讚诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛

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: 鈥淏oth male and female

转砖诇讞讜 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

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鈥 (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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讗讜 讗讜讚诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讜讗讜讚诐 讻讗讞转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛 转砖诇讞讜 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

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: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out,鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖专抓 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 注诇 讛注诇诐 砖专抓 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

As we learned in a mishna (Shevuot 14b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: 鈥淥r if a person touches any impure thing鈥r the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him鈥 (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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注诇 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Akiva says that it is derived from the phrase: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him, so that he is impure鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 砖专抓 讜谞讘诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 注讚 讚讬讚注 讗讬 讘砖专抓 讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬 讘谞讘讬诇讛 讗讬讟诪讬 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉

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 岣zkiyya 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.

诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讘注讬谞谉 讚讬讚注 讗讬 讘砖专抓 讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬 讘谞讘诇讛 讗讬讟诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 讚讬讚注 讗讬 讘诇讜讘谉 讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬 讘讗讜讚诐 讗讬讟诪讬

The Gemara infers: Doesn鈥檛 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.

讗讘诇 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘

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.

讜专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛 转砖诇讞讜 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

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: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out,鈥 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞砖专讜祝 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

If so, we should not burn teruma that he touches either, as it is written in a verse dealing with these types of impurity: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (Leviticus 15:32鈥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.

讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注 诇诪注讬谞讜转讬讜 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注转 诇诪注讬谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for the halakha of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: The term 鈥渨hether a male鈥 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 鈥渙r a female鈥 serves to include a female as a primary source of impurity with regard to the sources of her bodily emissions.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛 驻专讟 诇讻诇讬 讞专住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This verse: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out鈥 (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鈥檚 halakha cannot be derived from that verse.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讚诐

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

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讚诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 诇讗 诪讻诇 讟诪讗 诇谞驻砖 谞驻拽讗 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘

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: 鈥淭hat they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue, and whatever is impure by the dead鈥 (Numbers 5:2). Therefore, why do I need the verse to write: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out,鈥 instead of simply stating: Any person you shall send out? Clearly, the phrase: 鈥淏oth male and female,鈥 is necessary for the halakha of Rav.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诪讗讬 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛 注讚 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, one can say that the entire phrase comes for Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淏oth male and female鈥? 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讗讬讟诪讬 讘砖讗专 讟讜诪讗讜转 诇讗 诇讬砖诇讞讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讝讻专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讛驻讜专砖转 诪谉 讛讝讻专

With regard to Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淭hat they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue, and whatever is impure by the dead鈥 (Numbers 5:2). The Gemara answers: The next verse states: 鈥淏oth male,鈥 which is referring to impurity caused by a substance that is emitted from the male organ, i.e., ziva.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讝讻专 注讚 谞拽讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讛讝讻专

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav鈥檚 derivation: And is it correct that anywhere that the phrase 鈥渂oth male and female鈥 is written in the Torah, this comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite? But isn鈥檛 a similar expression stated with regard to valuations, as it is written: 鈥淔or the male鈥fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary. And if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels鈥 (Leviticus 27:3鈥4).

讜转谞讬讗 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

And it is taught in a baraita that it is derived from the term 鈥渢he male鈥: 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: 鈥淭he male,鈥 and the following verse states: 鈥淎nd if she is a female,鈥 indicating that these halakhot apply only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讗 诪讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诇讗 诪诪注讟 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains the difficulty: The reason a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded is that it is written: 鈥淭he male鈥nd if she is a female,鈥 which indicates that if the verse had written: Male and female, without the superfluous words 鈥渢he鈥 and 鈥渋f,鈥 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: 鈥淢ale and female鈥 (Numbers 5:3). The Gemara answers: In that verse with regard to valuations, the words 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale鈥 are themselves necessary

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 28

讜讟讛专讜 诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讚讬讬拽转 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讟讛讜专

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.

讗讚专讘讛 讚讜拽 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讛讜讗 讚讟讛专讜 诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讞讝讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞讚 讞讚 讗讘专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 讗驻专 砖专讜驻讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讘专讜讘注

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪转 砖谞砖专祝 讜砖诇讚讜 拽讬讬诪转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 砖砖专驻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讟讘诇讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖砖专驻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讗驻讜讚专讬诐 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讞专讻讬 讗讞专讜讻讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪驻诇转 讬讚 讞转讜讻讛 讜专讙诇 讞转讜讻讛 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 诪讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讘讗讜

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讬诪讬 讟讜讛专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诪讗 讛专讞讬拽讛 诇讬讚转讛

Rav 岣sda 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诪驻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 诪讛 讛驻讬诇讛 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讛专讞讬拽讛 诇讬讚转讛 诇转谞讬 讜诇谞讚讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 转谞讗 诇谞讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讗讻诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讗转 讬讚讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘诇讚转讛 讜讬转谉 讬讚

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鈥檚 daughter-in-law: 鈥淎nd it happened when she gave birth that one put out a hand鈥nd it happened that as he drew back his hand, his brother came out鈥 (Genesis 38:28鈥29). Evidently, the fetus extending out its hand was considered childbirth, despite the fact that it subsequently drew back the hand.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讗转 讬讚讜 讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讞讜砖砖转 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讜砖 讞讜砖砖转 讬诪讬 讟讜讛专 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 专讜讘讬讛

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 Na岣an 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讞讜砖砖转 诇讻诇 讚讘专 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇讻诇 讚讘专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讞讜砖砖转 讜讛讗 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛

MISHNA: A woman who discharges or gives birth to a tumtum, whose sexual organs are obscured, or to a hermaphrodite [ve鈥檃ndroginos], 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.

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讝讻专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讝讻专 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜谞拽讘讛 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜谞拽讘讛 转砖讘 诇谞拽讘讛 讘诇讘讚

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鈥檚 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.

讬爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讗讜 诪住讜专住 诪砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬诇讜讚 讬爪讗 讻讚专讻讜 注讚 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 讜讗讬讝讛讜 专讜讘 专讗砖讜 诪砖讬爪讗 驻讚讞转讜

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.

讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗诪专 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讝讻专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讜讝讻专 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗砖讛 诪讝专注转 转讞诇讛 讬讜诇讚转 讝讻专 讗讬砖 诪讝专讬注 转讞诇讛 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讚讛讗讬 讝讻专 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讻专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪讗 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讝专讬注讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讝讜 讝讻专 讜讝讛 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to state this halakha, lest you say that since Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讗讜 讗讜讚诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讜讗讜讚诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛

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: 鈥淏oth male and female

转砖诇讞讜 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

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鈥 (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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讗讜 讗讜讚诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 专讗讜 诇讜讘谉 讜讗讜讚诐 讻讗讞转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛 转砖诇讞讜 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

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: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out,鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖专抓 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 注诇 讛注诇诐 砖专抓 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

As we learned in a mishna (Shevuot 14b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: 鈥淥r if a person touches any impure thing鈥r the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him鈥 (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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞注诇诐 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注诇 讛注诇诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛注诇诐 诪拽讚砖

Rabbi Akiva says that it is derived from the phrase: 鈥淎nd it is hidden from him, so that he is impure鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 砖专抓 讜谞讘诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 注讚 讚讬讚注 讗讬 讘砖专抓 讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬 讘谞讘讬诇讛 讗讬讟诪讬 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉

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 岣zkiyya 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.

诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讘注讬谞谉 讚讬讚注 讗讬 讘砖专抓 讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬 讘谞讘诇讛 讗讬讟诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 讚讬讚注 讗讬 讘诇讜讘谉 讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬 讘讗讜讚诐 讗讬讟诪讬

The Gemara infers: Doesn鈥檛 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.

讗讘诇 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘

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.

讜专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛 转砖诇讞讜 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

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: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out,鈥 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞砖专讜祝 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

If so, we should not burn teruma that he touches either, as it is written in a verse dealing with these types of impurity: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (Leviticus 15:32鈥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.

讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注 诇诪注讬谞讜转讬讜 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪爪讜专注转 诇诪注讬谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for the halakha of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: The term 鈥渨hether a male鈥 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 鈥渙r a female鈥 serves to include a female as a primary source of impurity with regard to the sources of her bodily emissions.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛 驻专讟 诇讻诇讬 讞专住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This verse: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out鈥 (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鈥檚 halakha cannot be derived from that verse.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讚诐

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

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讚诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 诇讗 诪讻诇 讟诪讗 诇谞驻砖 谞驻拽讗 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘

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: 鈥淭hat they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue, and whatever is impure by the dead鈥 (Numbers 5:2). Therefore, why do I need the verse to write: 鈥淏oth male and female you shall send out,鈥 instead of simply stating: Any person you shall send out? Clearly, the phrase: 鈥淏oth male and female,鈥 is necessary for the halakha of Rav.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诪讗讬 诪讝讻专 讜注讚 谞拽讘讛 注讚 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, one can say that the entire phrase comes for Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淏oth male and female鈥? 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讗讬讟诪讬 讘砖讗专 讟讜诪讗讜转 诇讗 诇讬砖诇讞讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讝讻专 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讛驻讜专砖转 诪谉 讛讝讻专

With regard to Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淭hat they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that has an issue, and whatever is impure by the dead鈥 (Numbers 5:2). The Gemara answers: The next verse states: 鈥淏oth male,鈥 which is referring to impurity caused by a substance that is emitted from the male organ, i.e., ziva.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讝讻专 注讚 谞拽讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讛讝讻专

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav鈥檚 derivation: And is it correct that anywhere that the phrase 鈥渂oth male and female鈥 is written in the Torah, this comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite? But isn鈥檛 a similar expression stated with regard to valuations, as it is written: 鈥淔or the male鈥fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary. And if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels鈥 (Leviticus 27:3鈥4).

讜转谞讬讗 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

And it is taught in a baraita that it is derived from the term 鈥渢he male鈥: 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: 鈥淭he male,鈥 and the following verse states: 鈥淎nd if she is a female,鈥 indicating that these halakhot apply only to a definite male or a definite female, but not to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讗 诪讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诇讗 诪诪注讟 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains the difficulty: The reason a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded is that it is written: 鈥淭he male鈥nd if she is a female,鈥 which indicates that if the verse had written: Male and female, without the superfluous words 鈥渢he鈥 and 鈥渋f,鈥 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: 鈥淢ale and female鈥 (Numbers 5:3). The Gemara answers: In that verse with regard to valuations, the words 鈥渕ale鈥 and 鈥渇emale鈥 are themselves necessary

Scroll To Top