Zevachim 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

And here one must consider whether

this minority

of that

limb

that was found inside

is judged in accordance with the majority of the limb, and it has thereby gone out,

since the majority of this limb has already gone out. Consequently, the entire limb is considered as though it had gone out, and it follows that the majority of the animal has already gone outside.

Or perhaps, in accordance with

the

animal

to which the limb is attached,

we judge

the limb. And the minority of the limb remains as it is, inside. [

And although it is not applicable here to say that the limb is drawn after the majority of the animal, since half of the animal is inside and half is outside, nevertheless, since the limb is attached to the entire animal, we do not follow the majority of the limb; rather, the minority of the limb remains in its place, inside.]

And since we do not consider the animal as though its majority had gone out, if the bull became impure, it is burned inside, in accordance with the law governing bulls that are burned whose impurity occurred inside. Likewise, those engaged in handling it do not become impure.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

Rabba bar Rav Huna taught this inquiry

with regard to whether we follow the majority

in the case of people,

the people engaged in taking the bulls out. The inquiry is

with regard to those handling it,

the bull as they took it out, who were

five people, and three went out

of their number, outside,

and two remained,

and there remained

inside two

men.

What

is the ruling? Do

we follow the majority of those handling it,

and therefore, if the bull was already outside, even the two who remained inside became impure, since three of those carrying it, who constituted the majority of the carriers, had already gone outside?

Or perhaps we follow the animal

specifically

in this matter

of the majority: only when the majority of the flesh has gone out is the matter considered as though all the flesh had gone out. But with regard to the men, we do not follow the majority, and the two who remained inside did not become impure, since they are not considered as having gone out.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

The explanation of the following passage follows the words of Tosafot

in the passage beginning, “Bulls that are burned.”

Rabbi Elazar inquired: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned that went out and then returned, what is the ruling?

That is, it is obvious that if both the people and the bulls went out and then returned, both the people and the garments are impure, and they did not become pure through the return of the bulls to the Temple courtyard.

The entire inquiry concerns [after the bulls returned] the other people who are now handling the bulls inside, taking them out for a second time [or even those who took them out initially, but who have now put on different garments and are once again engaged in taking the bulls out to the Temple courtyard]. Do they now render garments impure, as is the law governing those who handle the bulls, even before the bulls have left the Temple courtyard for the second time? Or perhaps their status is like that of those handling them the first time: as long as they have not gone out of the Temple courtyard, they do not render garments impure?

The sides of the inquiry are as follows:

Perhaps we say: Since they went out,

since the bulls had already gone outside the Temple courtyard the first time,

they became impure,

and the people handling them become impure even before they go out of the Temple courtyard, because since the bulls had already gone out previously, it is considered as though they are handling bulls that have gone outside the Temple courtyard, even while they are now in the Temple courtyard.

Or perhaps, since they returned,

since the bulls returned inside,

they returned.

From this point onward, they are considered as though they had never gone out originally. Therefore, until they go outside the Temple courtyard, they do not render those handling them impure.

Rav Abba bar Memel said: Come and hear.

From what we learned in the Mishna:

They were carrying them

the bulls that are burned

on poles.

The first ones went outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but the last ones did not go out.

Thus,

the first ones who went outside the wall of the Temple courtyard render garments impure; but the last ones do not render garments impure until they go out.

Rav Abba bar Memel infers:

And if it enters your mind that since they went out

the bulls previously, when they returned them,

, they became impure

the people now engaged in taking them out for the second time, even though the second group of handlers had not yet gone out, because it is the removal of the bulls that determines the matter, rather than the departure of the people handling them, then likewise, during the first removal of the bull, since the bulls went out, from that point onward all those handling them should become impure, even

those who are inside,

those engaged in removing them who are still inside,

should also become impure?! Ravina said: Can you understand it this way?

Do you really think that everything depends on the bull’s departure, so that even those who have not yet gone out can become impure when it goes out?

But I require the verse,

“And he shall wash his garments,”

“and afterward he may enter the camp,” and this is not the case!

For the wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of a case in which the person has already gone outside the Temple courtyard. If the person did not go outside, the phrase “and afterward he may enter the camp” cannot be applied to him; and since that phrase cannot be applied to him, “and he shall wash his garments” cannot be applied to him either. It follows that wherever the people have not gone outside, they did not become impure and do not have to launder their garments in order to purify them.

Therefore, those last ones who did not go out did not become impure; only the first ones who went out became impure. Accordingly, in Rabbi Elazar’s inquiry as well, those people who never went out with the bulls—or if the original people put on different garments—certainly did not become impure.

And we explain:

Rather, in what case did Rabbi Elazar raise his inquiry?

In what circumstance was he uncertain?

For example, when they were holding it with poles,

sticks. For example, the bulls went out and returned inside, and other people came and stood outside the Temple courtyard and began to engage in taking the bulls that were inside out by means of poles.

The inquiry is this: Since the bulls had already gone out, and these people are standing outside, is the matter considered as though they were taking the bulls from the entrance of the Temple courtyard outward, and do they become impure even though the bulls have not yet gone outside? Or perhaps the matter is considered as though the bulls had never gone outside, and they remain pure, since the bulls have not now gone outside.

The Sages taught: One who burns a heifer

a red heifer,

and

one who burns

bulls that are burned, and

one who dispatches the

goat

that is sent away,

and one who takes them

the bulls that are burned outside the Temple courtyard,

renders garments impure.

And they themselves,

the bulls, the red heifer, and the goat that is sent away themselves—one who touches them without handling them,

do not render garments impure.

But they do render impure

the flesh of the bulls that are burned and of the red heifer, and likewise the goat that is sent away [even though it is alive]

food and liquids

that touch them,

these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

as the reason for his view will be explained below.

But the Sages say:

Only

the heifer and the bulls

that were burned

, render food and liquids impure.

But

the goat that is sent away does not render

food and liquids impure,

because it is alive, and nothing that is alive renders impurity

at all.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the goat that is sent away renders impurity even while alive, this is the reason: he holds

in accordance with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

taught: It is stated in the passage concerning the impurity of food that food does not become fit to contract impurity without “preparation by water,” as it is stated: “And if any of their carcass fall

upon any sowable seed

that is to be sown, it is pure.”

And we expound:

Just as

seeds,

whose ultimate impurity is not severe impurity,

meaning that seeds rendered impure by a creeping creature [or even by a corpse] cannot render a person or vessels impure, but only other food or liquids,

require

the seeds

preparation

in order to contract impurity—that is, the application of water and contact with a creeping creature—and without these they do not become impure,

So too, all

other food,

whose ultimate impurity is not severe impurity,

for food and liquids never become a primary source of impurity and cannot render a person or vessels impure,

require preparation

in order to contract impurity.

Excluded

from this general rule, concerning the need for preparation in order to contract impurity, is

the carcass of a kosher bird,

since

its ultimate impurity is severe impurity.

For when the carcass of a kosher bird is in the throat, it renders the person eating it severely impure, with the impurity of a primary source of impurity, to the extent that the person eating it renders impure the garments he is wearing. Therefore,

it

does not

require preparation,

neither preparation by water nor preparation through contact with a creeping creature. Rather, it renders food and liquids that touch it impure even without the carcass of the kosher bird having received preparation by water and without its having touched a creeping creature.

The same law applies to the red heifer, the bulls that are burned, and the goat that is sent away: since their ultimate capacity is to render the person handling them and his garments severely impure, they do not require preparation.

And the goat that is sent away renders impurity even while alive, although an ordinary living creature does not render impurity. For anything whose ultimate capacity is to render severe impurity renders food and liquids impure even while alive, and even when it was not prepared to contract impurity—when no water came upon it, and even when it did not become impure through another source—but its law is that it renders a lesser, intrinsic impurity, rendering food and liquids impure, since its ultimate capacity is to render those handling it severely impure.

But according to the Sages,

who hold that the goat that is sent away does not render impurity, this is difficult, for in either case:

if they have

this principle

of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

that anything whose ultimate capacity is to render severe impurity does not require preparation, then

even the goat that is sent away

should render impurity while alive.

And if they do not hold the view of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, from where do we derive that even the heifer and the bulls

render impurity? For they themselves are pure, and impurity was stated only with regard to those handling them.

And we answer:

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: In the West, they say

that the Sages too agree with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, but they understand his words as follows:

a. Anything whose ultimate capacity is not to render severe impurity

requires preparation for impurity from another source,

that it touch a creeping creature or a carcass, rather than becoming impure on its own.

b. But anything whose ultimate capacity is to render severe impurity does not need to touch impurity; rather, it is impure on its own.

Nevertheless, it must be something capable of contracting impurity. Therefore, only the red heifer after it has been slaughtered, and the bulls that are burned after they have been slaughtered, are fit to contract impurity and have the ultimate capacity to render severe impurity; consequently, they already render the lesser impurity of food on their own. But living creatures, which are not ordinarily fit to contract impurity—for we do not find that living animals render impurity—are not helped by the fact that their ultimate capacity is to render severe impurity, since they are not fit to contract impurity at all. Therefore, the goat that is sent away, which is still alive, does not render the impurity of food while alive.

Rabbi Elazar inquired: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, what is the ruling as to whether they render food and liquids impure

while they are still

inside

the Temple courtyard,

as outside,

just as they render the impurity of food after they have been taken outside the Temple courtyard, by virtue of their ultimate capacity to render severely impure those engaged in taking them outside?

The sides of the inquiry are as follows:

Does

the fact that their departure

outside the Temple courtyard is still lacking count

as an act still lacking?

Since the act of taking them outside has not yet been performed, the bulls have not yet reached the status of “their ultimate capacity to render severe impurity” to those handling them until they go outside; therefore, they do not render even lesser impurity while inside.

Or

does the fact that the bulls are inside

not

count as an act still lacking? Since their ultimate capacity is to render severely impure those engaged in taking them outside, once they go out, they already render lesser impurity now, rendering food and liquids impure despite the fact that they are still inside.

After he raised the inquiry,

after Rabbi Elazar was uncertain,

he returned

and Rabbi Elazar

resolved

his uncertainty.

The fact that their departure is still lacking is considered an act still lacking,

and therefore the bulls that are burned do not render the impurity of food until they go out.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel asked Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: The carcass of a kosher bird,

which imparts major ritual impurity only when it is found in the gullet,

according to Rabbi Meir,

who maintains that anything whose eventual outcome is to impart major ritual impurity imparts lesser ritual impurity on its own, even if it is something that is not presently fit to become susceptible to impurity [such as the scapegoat while it is still alive],

what is the halakha as to whether it imparts impurity

the carcass of a kosher bird

with

the measure of

an olive-bulk [

which is the measure with which the carcass of a kosher bird imparts impurity to a person who eats it when it is in the gullet] to food and liquids that come into contact with it before the person eats it?

The Gemara explains: In a case

where it is lying

that the carcass of a kosher bird is lying on

the ground,

that is, when an olive-bulk of the carcass of a kosher bird is lying on the ground,

you need not raise the question

that it does not impart the impurity of food, since the situation of “its eventual outcome is to impart major ritual impurity” does not yet exist. For it is possible that this olive-bulk will never enter a person’s gullet.

Likewise, in a case

where he is holding it,

where the person is holding the olive-bulk of the carcass of a kosher bird

in his mouth,

inside his mouth,

you need not raise the question,

for in that case the olive-bulk certainly imparts the lesser impurity of food to the other food that is in his mouth. Since the olive-bulk of the carcass is in a person’s mouth, it is in the state of “whose eventual outcome is to impart major ritual impurity,” and it certainly imparts the impurity of food, which is lesser impurity.

The question is

where

he is holding it

this olive-bulk

in his hand.

The uncertainty is: Does

requiring that it be brought close

to his mouth

count as requiring an act?

And if so, the olive-bulk is not presently considered to be “whose eventual outcome is to impart major ritual impurity,” and therefore it does not impart the impurity of food.

Or not:

does it not count as requiring an act, and therefore does it now impart the impurity of food?