but the small doors1 were declared clean'; from which you infer that the reason [why the big doors were declared unclean is] because its shape is still intact but had it not been in such a condition they2 would have been clean; on the contrary [it could be retorted] draw from this the following inference:3 Only when its shape is intact were the small doors declared clean but otherwise the small doors also are unclean, since everyone of them is fit for carrying through it one limb at a time.4 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: [Do you know] in agreement with whose view R. Johanan made his statement?5 In agreement with that of R. Eliezer, For we learnt: The ashes of burnt corpses, R. Eliezer ruled, [convey uncleanness] if they are a quarter of a kab in quantity.6 How is one to imagine a corpse that was burnt but whose shape remained intact? — Abaye replied: In such a case, for instance, as where it was burnt on a leather spread.7 Raba replied: In such a case, for instance, as where it was burnt on a hard cemented substance.8 Rabina replied: Where, for instance, it was only charred.9
Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shaped10 hand or a shaped11 foot she12 is subject to the uncleanness of childbirth and there is no need to consider the possibility that it might have come from a shapeless body.13 Both R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna ruled: She14 is not allowed the days of cleanness.15 What is the reason? — It might be assumed that16 her bearing took place long ago.17 R. Joseph raised an objection: If a woman aborted an embryo and18 it is unknown what [was the sex of the embryo] she aborted she must continue [her periods of uncleanness and cleanness as] for both a male child and a female child.19 Now if it is to be upheld20 that in any such case21 it might be assumed that her bearing took place long ago,22 why23 was it not also stated, 'and as for menstruation'?24 — Abaye replied: If 'as for menstruation' had been mentioned it might have been presumed that25 she brings a sacrifice26 which27 may not be eaten; hence we were informed28 that it may be eaten.29
R. Huna ruled: If an embryo put forth its hand and then drew it back its mother is unclean on account of childbirth; for it is said, And it came to pass, when she bore,30 that one put out a hand.31 Rab Judah raised an objection: If an embryo put forth its hand its mother need not consider the possibility of any restriction!32 — R. Nahman replied: This was explained to me by R. Huna that the woman must indeed consider the possibility [that it is a valid birth],33 but we do not allow her the privilege of the clean days34 unless the greater part of the embryo has issued forth. But was it not stated 'Its mother need not consider the possibility of any restriction'? — Abaye replied: Pentateuchally she need not consider the possibility of any restriction, but it is Rabbinically that she must take into consideration the possibility [that it might have constituted a valid birth]. But did he35 not quote a Scriptural text?36 — The restriction is Rabbinical, and the Scriptural text is a mere prop.37
MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A TUMTUM OR AN ANDROGINOS,38 SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE39 AND A FEMALE,40 IF SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A TUMTUM AND A MALE, OR TO AN ANDROGINOS AND A MALE, SHE MUST ALSO CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE39 AND A FEMALE.40 IF SHE HAVE A TUMTUM AND A FEMALE OR AN ANDROGINOS AND A FEMALE, SHE NEED CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A FEMALE ONLY.41 IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES42 OR IN A REVERSED POSITION43 IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. IF IT CAME FORTH IN THE NORMAL WAY [IT IS NOT DEEMED BORN] UNTIL THE GREATER PART OF ITS HEAD ISSUED FORTH. AND WHAT IS MEANT [BY THE ISSUE OF] THE 'GREATER PART OF ITS HEAD'? THE ISSUE44 OF ITS FOREHEAD.
GEMARA. Now that it has been laid down that for a TUMTUM alone or for an ANDROGINOS alone SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE AND A FEMALE, why should it again be necessary [to state that the same law applies where she gave birth to] A TUMTUM AND A MALE OR TO AN ANDROGINOS AND A MALE? — This was necessary: As it might have been suggested that since R. Isaac had stated, 'If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male and if the man emits his first she bears a female',45 it should be assumed that since the one is a male the other46 also is a male, hence we were informed [that no such assumption is made, since] it might equally be assumed that both47 emitted their semen simultaneously, the one resulting in a male and the other in a female.48
R. Nahman citing Rab ruled: If a tumtum or an androginos observed a white,49 or a red50 discharge he51 does not incur the obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary52 nor is terumah53 to be burnt on his account.54 If he51 observed a simultaneous discharge of white and red,55 he incurs indeed no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary56 but terumah53 must be burnt on his account;57 for58 it is said, Both male and female
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Less than four handbreadths in width, through which, owing to the availability of larger doors, the corpse would not be carried.
- The big doors,
- Lit., 'to that side'.
- From which it would follow that 'a corpse whose shape had been destroyed' is also unclean; contrary to the view of Resh Lakish (supra 27b, ad fin.).
- That a corpse whose shape had been destroyed is also unclean (cf. prev. n.).
- Oh. II, 2.
- Katabela, cf. [G] (Jast.); a skin boiled and hardened which is not consumed when the corpse is burnt (v. Rashi) and moulded in the shape of a human body (Tosaf.) so that the burned remains are kept together.
- Or 'over the dung on a cemented stable-floor' (Jast.); marble (Rashi); providing a mould for the corpse (cf. prev. n.).
- In which case the body is kept together without any external aid.
- Lit., cut', sc. with fingers well defined.
- Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
- Lit., 'his mother'.
- Which has not the status of a child.
- Though subject to the uncleanness of a normal birth.
- Which, in the case of a normal birth, follow the period of uncleanness.
- Since the embryo was aborted in parts and it is unknown when the birth of the greater part of it occurred.
- And by the time the hand or foot in question was aborted the prescribed period of uncleanness may have passed.
- Having been aborted in fractions.
- Infra 29a; sc. the restrictions of both are imposed upon her.
- Lit., 'it goes up to your mind'.
- Abortion in parts.
- Cf. p. 190, n. 14.
- Since in this case also it is not known when the birth of the greater part of the embryo took place.
- I.e., the uncleanness should not only extend over fourteen days (prescribed for the birth of a female child) irrespective of whether blood was or was not observed, but even any subsequent discharge of blood, which in the case of a normal birth is clean, should (since her period of clean days may have already passed) be regarded as that of menstruation. (On the mention of male child v. infra 30a).
- Since the ruling that the woman is subject to the restrictions of menstruation implies that it is not certain whether the embryo is, or is not to be regarded as a normal child.
- Prescribed for a woman after a childbirth.
- As the embryo possibly may not have the status of a normal child (cf. prev. n. but one).
- By the omission of 'as for menstruation' which indicates that there is no doubt whatever that the embryo is in this respect regarded as a normal child, and that it was only its sex that was in doubt.
- As any other valid sacrifice brought by a woman after a childbirth.
- E. V., 'she travailed'.
- Gen. XXXVIII, 28; emphasis on bore and hand which shows that the issue of a hand alone is described as a 'birth'.
- How then could R. Huna maintain that a woman in such circumstances is subject to the uncleanness of childbirth?
- Sc. she must continue in the days of uncleanness as after a normal childbirth.
- That normally follow those of uncleanness.
- R. Huna.
- How then could the restriction be said to be Rabbinical only?
- In respect of the period of cleanness, thirty-three days instead of the sixty-six prescribed for a female birth.
- Fourteen unclean days instead of the seven prescribed for the birth of a male.
- Since even if the tumtum were a male, the unclean period prescribed for the birth of a male is completely absorbed by the longer one prescribed for the birth of a female (cf. prev. n.); and the same applies also to the clean period (cf. prev. n. but one).
- Lit., 'cut'.
- With its feet first.
- Lit., 'as soon as … issued'.
- Supra 25b.
- The tumtum or the androginos.
- Husband and wife.
- That other being the tumtum.
- Which resembles semen; a discharge that causes no uncleanness in a woman.
- Resembling menstrual blood, a discharge that causes no uncleanness in a man.
- The Heb. uses the plural throughout the passage.
- Since his uncleanness is a matter of doubt (cf. prev. two notes) and his sacrifice in connection with it would consequently be an unconsecrated beast which is forbidden to be offered on the altar.
- Which he touched.
- It must only be kept in suspense owing to the doubtful nature of its uncleanness.
- So that he is inevitably unclean whatever his sex.
- For the reason explained presently.
- Cf. prev. n. but one.
- This is a reason for the first ruling, why 'he incurs no guilt for entering the Sanctuary'.
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 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.8 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 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 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 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 which implies27 does it not, that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [is subject to the restrictions]28 but not a tumtum or an androginos?29 — That text26 is required for an exposition like the one made by R. Isaac; for R. Isaac stated: 'whether it be a man'26 includes30 a male leper as regards his sources,31 'or a woman'26 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 thus excluding an earthenware vessel;36 so R. Jose?37 — If so38 the All Merciful should have written, 'man'.39 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 out40 [it may be pointed out that this41 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 consequently includes all objects that attain cleanness in a ritual bath. But if so,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 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 implying:57 Only a confirmed male and a confirmed female58 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?62 — That text63 is required
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Num. V, 3, a reference to the sending out of unclean persons from the Sanctuary (v. Rashi).
- For notes v. supra on Rab's statement.
- For the first ruling (cf. supra n. 14). Lit., 'what is the reason? Not?'
- V. p. 193, n. 15.
- Does this then provide support for Rab's view?
- Lit., 'this, whose?'
- 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.
- Lev. V, 2.
- Sc. when entering the Sanctuary the man forgot that he was unclean.
- Sc. he well remembered when entering the Sanctuary that he was unclean but forgot that it was the Sanctuary that he was entering.
- Shebu. 14b. Cf. prev. n.
- R. Eliezer and R. Akiba.
- Who explicitly mentioned 'unclean swarming thing'.
- If an offering is to be incurred.
- At the time he became unclean.
- Who merely speaks of uncleanness in general.
- Shebu. 18b.
- Of course he did.
- The case of a simultaneous discharge of red and white.
- If an offering is to be incurred.
- The tumtum or the androginos.
- Though the actual cause of it is unknown to him.
- Num. V, 3.
- Which they touched.
- Lev. XV, 33.
- As does the expression 'male and female' in Num. V, 3.
- Of the laws spoken of in the text.
- But this is, of course, absurd.
- 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'.
- 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.
- Cf. prev. n. No further deduction, therefore, can be made from the same expression.
- Num. V, 3, from which deduction is made in the Mishnah cited from Shebu. 14b supra.
- To send out from the Temple court.
- As 'a male and female' may.
- Which cannot attain cleanness by immersion.
- 'Er. 104b. How then can Rab deduce his ruling from the very same text?
- That only the deduction just quoted was to be made.
- Heb. adam, which would have included both sexes and implied the deduction.
- 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.
- The law that an unclean metal vessel must also be sent out of the Temple court.
- E.V. 'whosoever'.
- 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.
- But, if so, whence is the deduction made that the same law applies to all that attain cleanness in a ritual bath?
- That only Rab's ruling is to be deduced.
- Lit., 'from male until female'.
- Heb, 'ad, lit. 'until'.
- 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.
- A tumtum or an androginos.
- By coming in contact with a corpse, for instance.
- But this surely is contrary to the accepted law.
- E.V., 'both'.
- Thus excluding one contracted from a foreign body.
- Lev. XXVII, 3.
- Cf. prev. n., emphasis on 'the'.
- Lev. XXVII, 4, emphasis on 'if'.
- By the additional 'the' and 'if' (cf. prev. nn.).
- Are subject to the valuations given.
- 'Ar 4b.
- Of the tumtum and the androginos from the valuations laid down.
- Cf. prev. n.
- How then could it be implied supra that 'any Scriptural expression of "both male and female" serves to exclude the tumtum etc.'?
- 'Male' and 'female' in the section of valuations.