If an Androginus (one who has male and female genitals) saw a white (emission, he is a Safek Ba'al Keri) and entered the Mikdash, he is exempt. If he saw red (perhaps it is Dam Nidah) and entered the Mikdash, he is exempt. If he saw both white and red and entered the Mikdash, he is liable.

Some teach that he is exempt.

(R. Yochanan): [The latter] is R. Shimon, for it was taught that if there are two paths, one is Tahor and one is Tamei, and he went on one of them and entered the Mikdash, he is exempt. If he went on the first and did not enter, and he went on the second and entered, he is liable;

If he went on the first and entered, and he received Haza'ah [on day three] and again [on day seven] and immersed, and went on the second path and entered [the Mikdash], he is liable;

R. Shimon exempts in this case.

R. Shimon ben Yehudah exempts in all of them, in the name of R. Shimon.

Question: This is fine for an Androginus. Regarding [seeing] white, you consider him to be a [Safek] woman. Regarding [seeing] red, you consider him to be a [Safek] man. (And even when he saw both, he is not a Vadai man or Vadai woman.) However, here (when he walked on both paths, and did not become Tahor in between, can you say that) there is no known Tum'ah?!

Answer #1 (R. Shmuel bar Susarti): The case is, he forgot [that he went on] the first [like R. Yosi explains];

Question (R. Yosi): What is the case? If he forgot it the entire time (until after he went on the second), this is like one path! (Since there was no Yedi'ah in between, it is as if he traversed both together; this is like one path with Vadai Tum'ah!)

Answer: Rather, [he knew that he went on the first, and] later forgot [and then went on the second. This is properly considered] two paths.

Question: There (regarding two paths), it is fine, for he says that Yedi'as Safek is not like Yedi'ah. However, here, since he saw white and red together, it is like one Vadai Yedi'ah! (We explained this like SHIREI KORBAN.)

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): R. Shimon holds like R. Liezer, according to Chizkiyah;

Just like R. Liezer said there [that he is not liable until he knows whether he became Tamei through a Sheretz or a Mes], so R. Shimon said here [that he is not liable] until he knows whether he became Tamei through red or white.

Question (Rav Chisda): If he entered the Mikdash and thought that it is a Beis ha'Keneses, what is the law? (Since he knows that there is Kedushah here, there is some Yedi'ah. Or, since he does not know that one may not enter here b'Tum'ah, this is not Yedi'ah?)

Answer (R. Yosi): We say that if he knew there is Tum'ah in the world, but he did not know whether or not one is liable a Korban for it, he is exempt [according to Reish Lakish, and R. Yochanan was unsure]!

Rather, we hold that he is liable [only if] it was clear to him that he was Tamei, and he forgot the Tum'ah and entered the Mikdash. And here, [he is liable only if before] it was clear to him that this is the Mikdash, and he forgot the Mikdash and entered the Mikdash.

Question (R. Yosi): If one ate a half-k'Zayis knowing the Kodesh and b'Helam Tum'ah, and a half-k'Zayis knowing the Tum'ah and b'Helam Kodesh, do the He'elamos join?

(Mishnah): The same law applies to one who enters the Azarah (Chatzer) of the Mikdash, or an addition to it;

[The addition gets Kedushah,] for to add onto Yerushalayim or the Azarah, we need a king, a Navi, the Urim v'Tumim, the great Sanhedrin of 71, two of the loaves that accompaniy a Korban Todah, and Shirah.

Beis Din must walk (around the addition), with the loaves after them. The inner loaf is eaten, and the outer loaf is burned.

If an addition was made without all this, one who enters there (b'Tum'ah) is not liable.

(Gemara - Rav): Initially, "va'Ya'al David bi'Dvar Gad" - this is the king and Navi. "Va'Yachel Shlomo Livnos Es Beis Hash-m bi'Yerushalayim [... Asher Nir'eh"] - this is Urim v'Tumim; [l']David Avihu - this is the Sanhedrin, like it says "She'al Avicha va'Yagedcha." Shir we learn from "va'Yelech Achareihem Hoshayah va'[Chatzi] Sarei Yehudah; [... bi'Chlei Shir]." Todos we learn from "va'A'amidah Shtei Todos [Gedolos v'Sahaluchos]."

Note: Our Gemara consists of excerpts from Sanhedrin 1:3. We explained it based on the Gemara there, and KORBAN HA'EDAH and PNEI MOSHE there.

(Shmuel bar Rav R. Yudan): Why does it [not] say Mehalchos, rather, "Sahaluchos"? (It is because they needed to be carried, for this refers to two loaves of Todah, and not two animals.)

[There was a pond included within the wall of Yerushalayim, even though it did not get Kedushas Yerushalayim,] because it was the weak spot of Yerushalayim, and [the city] could be conquered from there [if it were outside the wall].