Niddah 56

Chapter 56

א תשלחו זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס .

1 shall ye put out,1 only a confirmed male or a confirmed female [shall ye put out], but not a tumtum or an androginos. May it be suggested that the following provides support for his2

ב לימא מסייע ליה טומטום ואנדרוגינוס שראו לובן או אודם אין חייבין על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה ראו לובן ואודם כאחת אין חייבין על ביאת מקדש אבל שורפין עליהם את התרומה

2 view? [For it was taught:] 'If a tumtum or an androginos observed a white,3 or a red discharge, he incurs no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary nor is terumah 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 terumah must be burnt on his account'. Now is not the reason4 because it is said, Both male and female shall ye put out,5 which implies only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [shall ye put out] but not a tumtum or an androginos?6 — 'Ulla replied: No; this may represent the view of7 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

ג מ"ט לאו משום שנאמר (במדבר ה, ג) מזכר ועד נקבה תשלחו זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אמר עולא לא הא מני ר' אליעזר היא

3 For we learnt: R. Eliezer stated, [It is written, If any one touch … the carcass of] unclean swarming things and … it being hidden from him,9 one incurs the obligation of an offering only when the unclean swarming thing is hidden from him10 but no offering is incurred when the Sanctuary is hidden from him.11 R. Akiba stated, [Scripture says:] It being hidden from him that he is unclean,9 one incurs the obligation of an offering only when it is 'hidden from him that he is unclean'10 but no offering is incurred when the Sanctuary is hidden from him.12 And when it was asked, 'What is the practical difference between them?'13 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. Eliezer14

ד דתנן רבי אליעזר אומר השרץ (ויקרא ה, ב) ונעלם ממנו על העלם שרץ הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש

4 holding that it is necessary15 that a person shall know16 whether he had contracted uncleanness through a creeping thing or through the carcass of a beast, while R. Akiba17 maintains that this is not necessary.18

ה רבי עקיבא אומר ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא על העלם טומאה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש

5 Now did not R. Eliezer state there18 that 'it is necessary that a person should know whether he contracted uncleanness through a creeping thing or the carcass of a beast'?19 Well here also20 it is necessary21

ו ואמרינן מאי בינייהו ואמר חזקיה שרץ ונבלה איכא בינייהו דרבי אליעזר סבר בעינן עד דידע אי בשרץ איטמי אי בנבילה איטמי ור' עקיבא סבר לא בעינן

6 that the person22 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 uncleanness23 an offering would be incurred here20 also on account of the uncleanness.23 But, according to Rab, why is it that they22 incur no offering for entering the Sanctuary? Because [you say] it is written, Both male and female shall ye put out,24 which implies that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [must be put out] but not a tumtum or an androginos. But, if so, terumah25 also should not be burnt, since it is written, And of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman,26

ז לאו אמר רבי אליעזר התם בעינן דידע אי בשרץ איטמי אי בנבלה איטמי הכא נמי בעינן דידע אי בלובן איטמי אי באודם איטמי

7 which implies27 does it not, that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [is subject to the restrictions]28

ח אבל לרבי עקיבא דאמר משום טומאה מיחייב הכא נמי משום טומאה מיחייב

8 but not a tumtum or an androginos?29 — That text26

ט ורב מאי שנא ביאת מקדש דלא דכתיב מזכר ועד נקבה תשלחו זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

9 is required for an exposition like the one made by R. Isaac; for R. Isaac stated: 'whether it be a man'26 includes30

י אי הכי תרומה נמי לא נשרוף דכתיב (ויקרא טו, לג) והזב את זובו לזכר ולנקבה זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

10 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 'or a woman'26

יא ההוא מבעי ליה לכדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק לזכר לרבות את המצורע למעינותיו ולנקבה לרבות את המצורעת למעינותיה

11 includes a female leper as regards her sources.32 But is not that text33 also required [for a deduction that the injunction34 applies only] to that which may attain cleanness in a ritual bath,35

יב האי נמי מבעי ליה במי שיש לו טהרה במקוה פרט לכלי חרס דברי רבי יוסי

12 thus excluding an earthenware vessel;36 so R. Jose?37

יג אם כן נכתוב רחמנא אדם

13 — If so38 the All Merciful should have written, 'man'.39

יד וכי תימא אי כתב רחמנא אדם הוה אמינא כלי מתכות לא מכל טמא לנפש נפקא זכר ונקבה למה לי לכדרב

14 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 [it may be pointed out that this41

טו ואימא כוליה לכדרב הוא דאתא אם כן נכתוב זכר ונקבה מאי מזכר ועד נקבה עד כל דבר שיש לו טהרה במקוה

15 could have been] deduced from Whatsoever42 is unclean by the dead,43 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?44 — If that were the case45 it should have been written, 'male and female' why then the expression 'both male and female'?46 'Both'47

טז אי הכי כי איטמי בשאר טומאות לא לישלחו אמר קרא מזכר מטומאה הפורשת מן הזכר

16 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 even if he49 became unclean through any other cause of uncleanness,50 he should not be sent out, should he?51 — Scripture said, 'from52 male' [implying that the text deals only with] an uncleanness that is discharged from the male.53

יז וכל היכא דכתיב מזכר עד נקבה למעוטי טומטום ואנדרוגינוס הוא דאתא והא גבי ערכין דכתיב {ויקרא כז } הזכר

17 Does, however, any Scriptural expression of 'both male and female' serve to exclude the tumtum and the androginos? Surely in the case of valuations it is written, 'The male',54 and it was taught: 'The male'54 but no tumtum 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 male55 … And if it be a female'56

יח ותניא הזכר ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס יכול לא יהא בערך איש אבל יהא בערך אשה תלמוד לומר הזכר ואם נקבה זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

18 implying:57 Only a confirmed male and a confirmed female58

יט טעמא דכתיב הזכר ואם נקבה הא מזכר ונקבה לא ממעט ההוא מבעי ליה

19 but no tumtum or androginos.59 Is not then the reason [for the exclusion]60 that it was written, 'The male55 … And if it be a female',56 but from the expression of 'male and female' alone neither61 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 — That text63 is required

Previous Chapter Next Chapter