Bekhorot 23a — the Talmud in English

For Rabbi Eliezer, what will become of them?

That is, does Rabbi Elazar hold that just as he maintains that the se'a that was lifted is the se'a that fell, so too he maintains that the remaining produce is certainly pure?

And he says

: They shall be eaten as nibblings or parched grain, or they shall be kneaded with fruit juice, or they shall be divided into doughs, provided that there not be an egg-bulk in one place.

And

concerning this

Ulla said: What is the reason

that one must take care not to eat the produce in a manner that could bring it to impurity? For according to Rabbi Eliezer we say that the se'a that was lifted is teruma and the remainder is non-sacred produce, and we are not concerned with their impurity.

And he explains

: It is a decree lest he bring a kav of impure non-sacred produce from another place,

which became impure, and he wishes to purify it

and

he will also take

a kav of non-sacred produce and more

something

of this type,

that is, from the produce into which the impure teruma fell, and he will mix them together, because

he thinks

this man

: I will nullify them in the majority!

For the kav is nullified in a kav and something additional, since the latter is greater than it.

And

however,

since there is this something additional,

since in the produce into which the teruma fell there is mixed a small portion that is impure teruma, which became mixed with the produce and was nullified within it,

a type found its own type, and it awoke!

For now, when an impure kav of non-sacred produce is mixed here, the impure teruma finds the other impurity of the kav of non-sacred produce and now joins with it, and through this it awakens and is not nullified in the majority.

And from here Rav Dimi brings support, for we say: impurity that was nullified returns and awakens. Therefore, the water in the pot also joins the broth in which impurity is mixed, and the impurity that was nullified in the majority returns and awakens.

Abaye said to

Rav Dimi: Is it so that

if

we find that

impurity awakens impurity,

as we say here, that the impure teruma that had already been nullified returns and awakens and causes impurity, by finding another impurity, shall we also say that

purity awakens impurity!?

For the water in the pot is pure, and why do you maintain that this pure water will awaken the impurity in the water absorbed within the broth?

He raised an objection to

Rabbi Yirmeya, who said that even though the impurity was nullified in the majority, nevertheless a type found its own type and awoke, from what we learned in tractate Parah [5:7]:

If there was

valid

red-heifer

ash

for sprinkling upon those impure through a corpse, which causes impurity through contact and carrying,

that became mixed with ordinary ash

[ordinary ash]

one follows the majority to cause impurity,

for if the majority is valid ash, it causes impurity, and if the majority is ordinary ash, it does not cause impurity—

And

it is explained that

if the majority is ordinary ash, it does not cause impurity, and if you say: impurity

that is nullified in the majority is not nullified completely, but

is considered as though it is present,

so that you say: if it finds its own type, it awakens, then the following difficulty arises:

When the valid ash was nullified in the majority of ordinary ash,

granted that through contact it does not cause impurity

because when he touched it we say: he touched the majority, which does not cause impurity, nevertheless

it should cause impurity through carrying

[for red-heifer ash causes impurity both through contact and through carrying], since he necessarily carried the impure ash within the mixture!? And we answer

: This was stated concerning it

[indeed we learned]:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: He is pure from causing impurity through contact, but he causes impurity through carrying,

for impurity is considered as though it is present.

And we still ask

: But Rav Hisda said:

Meat of

an unslaughtered carcass is nullified in slaughtered meat,

for example, when one piece of an unslaughtered carcass became mixed with two pieces of slaughtered meat, the carcass is nullified, because it is a type mixed with a different type, since

it is impossible for slaughtered meat

to become an unslaughtered carcass.

It is thus explained that an unslaughtered carcass is nullified from causing impurity, yet an unslaughtered carcass causes impurity through carrying; and if you say that impurity is considered as though it is present,

granted that through contact it does not cause impurity,

for if he touched one of the pieces, he is certainly pure, because we say that he touched slaughtered meat, nevertheless

it should cause impurity through carrying

when he carried all the pieces, since he necessarily carried the unslaughtered carcass as well!?

He said to them:

You, you learned it as the statement of Rav Hisda.

That is, you learn the words of Rav Hisda as an independent statement, and therefore the difficulty arose for you: since he is an amora, he must explain his words, whereas Rav Hisda did not distinguish between contact and carrying, implying that even through carrying it does not cause impurity. However:

We learn it as the statement of Rabbi Hiyya,

we learn the words of Rav Hisda in connection with the words of Rabbi Hiyya:

Rabbi Hiyya taught: An unslaughtered carcass and slaughtered meat are nullified, one

in the other,

and concerning this Rav Hisda said that it is the unslaughtered carcass that is nullified in slaughtered meat, but not slaughtered meat in an unslaughtered carcass. And since a tanna said it, he need not explain his words;

and it was stated concerning it

of Rabbi Hiyya

: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: He is pure from causing impurity through contact, but he causes impurity through carrying.

And we still ask from our Mishna:

But we learned: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A large animal that discharged a clot of blood, behold, this must be buried, and it is exempt from the firstborn offering; and Rabbi Hiyya taught: It does not cause impurity, neither through contact nor through carrying,

because of nullification in the majority, and as Rabbi Yohanan said above—

And if you say

that impurity is considered as though it

is present,

then

granted that through contact it does not cause impurity; should it not cause impurity through carrying!?

He was silent!

He said to him:

Perhaps here it is different, for it is putrid impurity.

He said to him: This works well according to Bar Padda, who said: Impurity

of a severe kind

[the impurity through carrying of an unslaughtered carcass]

lasts until the stage fit for a resident alien.

That is, as long as it is fit for consumption by a resident alien,

and impurity of a light kind

[the impurity through contact of an unslaughtered carcass]

lasts until the stage fit for a dog.

That is, even when it has become unfit for human consumption, it causes impurity through contact, but not through carrying, until it becomes unfit even for a dog—

this

clot of blood

is certainly not fit for a resident alien,

and indeed one may say that for the reason of putrid impurity it does not cause impurity through carrying, whereas through contact it does not cause impurity because we say that he touched the birth blood, which is the majority.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: