Niddah 56

shall ye put out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 3, a reference to the sending out of unclean persons from the Sanctuary (v. Rashi). ');">¹</span> only a confirmed male or a confirmed female [shall ye put out], but not a <i>tumtum</i> or an androginos. May it be suggested that the following provides support for his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's. ');">²</span>

view? [For it was taught:] 'If a <i>tumtum</i> or an androginos observed a white,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra on Rab's statement. ');">³</span> or a red discharge, he incurs no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary nor is <i>terumah</i> to be burnt on his account. If he observed a simultaneous discharge of white and red he incurs indeed no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary but <i>terumah</i> must be burnt on his account'. Now is not the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first ruling (cf. supra n. 14). Lit., 'what is the reason? Not?' ');">⁴</span>

because it is said, Both male and female shall ye put out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 193, n. 15. ');">⁵</span> which implies only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [shall ye put out] but not a <i>tumtum</i> or an androginos?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does this then provide support for Rab's view? ');">⁶</span>

— 'Ulla replied: No; this may represent the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this, whose?' ');">⁷</span> R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is of the opinion that no offering in connection with an uncleanness may be brought unless the person affected is fully aware of the actual cause of his uncleanness? Similarly in the case cited, since the actual cause of uncleanness is unknown to the tumtum or to the androginos, no obligation of an offering is incurred. The Rabbis, however, who differ from R. Eliezer in subjecting one to the obligation of an offering even where the actual cause of the uncleanness is unknown, would equally subject the tumtum and the androginos to the obligation of an offering in the case cited. As the halachah is in agreement with the Rabbis who are in the majority, no authoritative support for Rab's statement is forthcoming from this Baraitha. ');">⁸</span>

For we learnt: R. Eliezer stated, [It is written, If any one touch&nbsp;… the carcass of] unclean swarming things and&nbsp;… it being hidden from him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2. ');">⁹</span> one incurs the obligation of an offering only when the unclean swarming thing is hidden from him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. when entering the Sanctuary the man forgot that he was unclean. ');">¹⁰</span>

but no offering is incurred when the Sanctuary is hidden from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he well remembered when entering the Sanctuary that he was unclean but forgot that it was the Sanctuary that he was entering. ');">¹¹</span> R. Akiba stated, [Scripture says:] It being hidden from him that he is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2. ');">⁹</span>

one incurs the obligation of an offering only when it is 'hidden from him that he is unclean'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. when entering the Sanctuary the man forgot that he was unclean. ');">¹⁰</span> but no offering is incurred when the Sanctuary is hidden from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 14b. Cf. prev. n. ');">¹²</span>

And when it was asked, 'What is the practical difference between them?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and R. Akiba. ');">¹³</span> Hezekiah replied: The practical difference between them is [the case of a man who is uncertain whether he touched] a dead creeping thing or the carcass of a beast, R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who explicitly mentioned 'unclean swarming thing'. ');">¹⁴</span>

holding that it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an offering is to be incurred. ');">¹⁵</span> that a person shall know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time he became unclean. ');">¹⁶</span>

whether he had contracted uncleanness through a creeping thing or through the carcass of a beast, while R. Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who merely speaks of uncleanness in general. ');">¹⁷</span> maintains that this is not necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 18b. ');">¹⁸</span>

Now did not R. Eliezer state there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 18b. ');">¹⁸</span> that 'it is necessary that a person should know whether he contracted uncleanness through a creeping thing or the carcass of a beast'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course he did. ');">¹⁹</span>

Well here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a simultaneous discharge of red and white. ');">²⁰</span> it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an offering is to be incurred. ');">²¹</span>

that the person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tumtum or the androginos. ');">²²</span> should know whether he became unclean on account of the white discharge or an account of the red one; but according to R. Akiba who stated that a person incurs the obligation of an offering on account of uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the actual cause of it is unknown to him. ');">²³</span>

an offering would be incurred here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a simultaneous discharge of red and white. ');">²⁰</span> also on account of the uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the actual cause of it is unknown to him. ');">²³</span>

But, according to Rab, why is it that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tumtum or the androginos. ');">²²</span> incur no offering for entering the Sanctuary? Because [you say] it is written, Both male and female shall ye put out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 3. ');">²⁴</span>

which implies that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [must be put out] but not a <i>tumtum</i> or an androginos. But, if so, <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which they touched. ');">²⁵</span> also should not be burnt, since it is written, And of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">²⁶</span>

which implies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As does the expression 'male and female' in Num. V, 3. ');">²⁷</span> does it not, that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [is subject to the restrictions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the laws spoken of in the text. ');">²⁸</span>

but not a <i>tumtum</i> or an androginos?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this is, of course, absurd. ');">²⁹</span> — That text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">²⁶</span>

is required for an exposition like the one made by R. Isaac; for R. Isaac stated: 'whether it be a man'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">²⁶</span> includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression is not required for the context which spoke previously in general terms in the same verse 'of them that have an issue'. ');">³⁰</span>

a male leper as regards his sources,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mouth, for instance. Sc. not only is his body a primary uncleanness but, as the zab of which the text explicitly speaks, his spittle also is a primary uncleanness and may, therefore, impart uncleanness of the first grade to man and articles. ');">³¹</span> 'or a woman'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">²⁶</span>

includes a female leper as regards her sources.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. No further deduction, therefore, can be made from the same expression. ');">³²</span> But is not that text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 3, from which deduction is made in the Mishnah cited from Shebu. 14b supra. ');">³³</span>

also required [for a deduction that the injunction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To send out from the Temple court. ');">³⁴</span> applies only] to that which may attain cleanness in a ritual bath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As 'a male and female' may. ');">³⁵</span>

thus excluding an earthenware vessel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot attain cleanness by immersion. ');">³⁶</span> so R. Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Er. 104b. How then can Rab deduce his ruling from the very same text? ');">³⁷</span>

— If so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only the deduction just quoted was to be made. ');">³⁸</span> the All Merciful should have written, 'man'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. adam, which would have included both sexes and implied the deduction. ');">³⁹</span>

And should you retort that if the All Merciful had only written 'man' it might have been presumed that a metal vessel need not be sent out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that it is for this reason that Scripture specified 'both male and female' in order to indicate (by the specific mention of the two sexes) that the deduction must have a reference to a law that applied to both sexes viz., the attainment of cleanness in a ritual bath, so that metal vessels also should be included. ');">⁴⁰</span> [it may be pointed out that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law that an unclean metal vessel must also be sent out of the Temple court. ');">⁴¹</span>

could have been] deduced from Whatsoever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'whosoever'. ');">⁴²</span> is unclean by the dead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 2, emphasis on the first three words which include metal vessels also. The use of 'man', therefore, would inevitably have excluded earthen vessels. ');">⁴³</span>

what need then was there for the specification of 'male and female'? Obviously to deduce the same ruling as Rab did. Might it not then be suggested that the entire text served the same purpose as that to which Rab applied it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But, if so, whence is the deduction made that the same law applies to all that attain cleanness in a ritual bath? ');">⁴⁴</span> — If that were the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only Rab's ruling is to be deduced. ');">⁴⁵</span>

it should have been written, 'male and female' why then the expression 'both male and female'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from male until female'. ');">⁴⁶</span> 'Both'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb, 'ad, lit. 'until'. ');">⁴⁷</span>

consequently includes all objects that attain cleanness in a ritual bath. But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, as Rab laid down (supra 28a), a tumtum or an androginos who observed a red and a white discharge is exempt from the law requiring an unclean person to be sent out from the Temple court since he is neither a confirmed male nor a confirmed female. ');">⁴⁸</span> even if he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tumtum or an androginos. ');">⁴⁹</span>

became unclean through any other cause of uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By coming in contact with a corpse, for instance. ');">⁵⁰</span> he should not be sent out, should he?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this surely is contrary to the accepted law. ');">⁵¹</span>

— Scripture said, 'from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., 'both'. ');">⁵²</span> male' [implying that the text deals only with] an uncleanness that is discharged from the male.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding one contracted from a foreign body. ');">⁵³</span>

Does, however, any Scriptural expression of 'both male and female' serve to exclude the <i>tumtum</i> and the androginos? Surely in the case of valuations it is written, 'The male',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 3. ');">⁵⁴</span> and it was taught: 'The male'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 3. ');">⁵⁴</span>

but no <i>tumtum</i> or androginos. As it might have been presumed that he is not subject to the valuation of a man but is subject to that of a woman it was explicitly stated. 'The male<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n., emphasis on 'the'. ');">⁵⁵</span> … And if it be a female'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 4, emphasis on 'if'. ');">⁵⁶</span>

implying:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the additional 'the' and 'if' (cf. prev. nn.). ');">⁵⁷</span> Only a confirmed male and a confirmed female<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are subject to the valuations given. ');">⁵⁸</span>

but no <i>tumtum</i> or androginos.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar 4b. ');">⁵⁹</span> Is not then the reason [for the exclusion]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the tumtum and the androginos from the valuations laid down. ');">⁶⁰</span>

that it was written, 'The male<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n., emphasis on 'the'. ');">⁵⁵</span> … And if it be a female',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 4, emphasis on 'if'. ');">⁵⁶</span> but from the expression of 'male and female' alone neither<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');">⁶¹</span> could have been excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be implied supra that 'any Scriptural expression of " both="" male="" and="" female"="" serves="" to="" exclude="" the="" tumtum="" etc.'?="" ');"="">⁶²</span> — That text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Male' and 'female' in the section of valuations. ');">⁶³</span> is required