Zevachim 105a — the Talmud in English

And here it is necessary to inquire:

this minority

of that

limb

that was found inside [image: exact column location]

do we cast it after the majority of the limb, and it has thereby gone out,

for indeed the majority of this limb has already gone out? And consequently, the entire limb is considered as though it has gone out, and it is found that the majority of the animal has already gone outside.

Or perhaps, after

the

animal

to which the limb is attached

do we cast it

with regard to the limb? And the minority of the limb remains as it is inside. [

And even though it is not applicable here to say that we draw the limb after the majority of the animal, for half of it is inside and half of it 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 as it is in its place, inside.]

And since we do not consider the animal as though its majority had gone out, if the bull became impure, they burn it inside, in accordance with the law of bulls that are burned which became impure inside. And likewise, those occupied with it do not become impure.

And we conclude:

teiku.

Rabba bar Rav Huna taught it

as this inquiry: whether we follow the majority

with regard to people,

the people occupied with taking out the bulls. And the uncertainty is

with regard to those occupied with it,

with taking out the bull, who were

five people, and three went out,

they went outside from among them,

and two remained,

and

two remained inside

people.

What

is the law?

Do we follow the majority of those occupied with it,

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

Or perhaps, after the animal

alone

do we follow

with regard to the majority, so that only if the majority of the flesh went out is the matter considered as though all the flesh went out. But with regard to people, we do not follow the majority, and those two who remained inside did not become impure, since they are not considered as having gone out.

And we conclude:

teiku.

The explanation of the following passage is according to 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 returned, what is the law?

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

And the entire question is [after the bulls returned], with regard to the other people now occupied inside with taking out the bulls a second time [or even with regard to those who took them out initially, except that they have now put on other garments and are occupied once again with taking out the bulls to the courtyard]: Do they now render garments impure according to the law of those occupied with the bulls, even before the bulls have gone out of the courtyard a second time, or perhaps their law is like that of those occupied with them the first time, so that as long as they have not gone out of the courtyard, they do not render garments impure?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Perhaps we say: Since they went out,

since the bulls had already gone out the first time beyond the courtyard,

they became impure,

the people occupied with them become impure even before they go out of the courtyard, because since the bulls had already gone out previously, the matter is considered as though they are occupied with bulls that went outside the courtyard, even when they are now in the courtyard.

Or perhaps, since they returned,

since the bulls returned inside,

they returned.

From now on they are considered as though they never went out originally. Therefore, until they go outside the courtyard, they do not render those occupied with them impure.

Rav Abba bar Memel said: Come and hear.

From what we learned in the Mishna:

They were carrying them

carrying the bulls that are burned

on poles.

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

Behold,

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

And Rav Abba bar Memel infers:

And if it enters your mind that since they went out

the bulls previously, if they returned them,

they became impure,

those occupied now with taking them out a second time, even though the second people occupied with them have not yet gone out, and because the taking out of the bulls is determinative, rather than the going out of the people occupied with them, then also at the time of the first taking out of the bull, since the bulls went out, from now on all those occupied with them should become impure, and even

those who are inside

those occupied with the taking out who are still inside

should also become impure?! Ravina said: But can you understand this?

And do you think it reasonable to say that everything depends on the going out of the bull, and therefore even those who have not yet gone out can become impure through its going out?

But I require “

And he shall wash his garments,”

“and afterward he may come into the camp,” and this is absent!

For it is implied by the language of the verse that it speaks of a situation in which the person has already gone outside the courtyard. For if the person did not go outside, we do not recite with regard to him, “and afterward he may come into the camp”; and since we do not recite with regard to him, “and afterward he may come into the camp,” we likewise do not recite with regard to him, “and he shall wash his garments.” It follows that wherever the people did not go outside, the people did not become impure, and they do not need to wash their garments 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. And if so, also with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s inquiry, those people who never went out with the bulls, or if the earlier people put on other garments, certainly did not become impure.

And we explain:

Rather, how did Rabbi Elazar raise it,

in what manner was he uncertain?

For example, when they hold it with poles,

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

And the uncertainty is: Since the bulls had already gone out, and these people are standing outside, is the matter considered as though they are taking the bulls from the entrance of the 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 are pure, since the bulls have not yet gone outside now?

The Sages taught in a beraita: One who burns a cow

a red one,

and

one who burns

the bulls that are burned, and

one who sends

the goat

that is sent away,

and one who takes them out

the bulls that are burned beyond the courtyard,

renders garments impure.

But they themselves,

the bulls, the red cow, and the goat that is sent away themselves—the one who touches them without occupying himself with them—

do not render garments impure.

But they render impure

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

food and drink

that touch them,

the words of Rabbi Meir,

as the reason for this will be explained below.

And the Sages say:

Only

the cow and the bulls

that were burned

render food and drink impure.

But

the goat that is sent away does not render

food and drink impure

because it is alive, and anything that is alive does not render impure

at all.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the goat that is sent away renders impure even while it is alive, this is the reason, for he holds

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

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the impurity of foods that food does not become fit to receive impurity without “preparation by water,” as it is stated: “And if any of their carcasses [of the creeping things] falls

upon any sowable seed

that is to be sown, it is pure.”

And we expound:

Just as

seeds,

whose end is not to become impure with severe impurity,

that is, seeds that become impure from a creeping thing [or even from a corpse] cannot render a person or vessels impure, but only other food or drink,

require

the seeds

“preparation”

to receive impurity, that is, the giving of water and contact with a creeping thing, and without them they do not become impure.

So too, all

other foods

whose end is not to become impure with severe impurity,

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

require preparation

to receive impurity.

Excluded

from this rule, concerning the need for preparation to receive impurity, is

the carcass of a kosher bird,

since

its end is to become impure with severe impurity,

for the carcass of a kosher bird, when it is in the throat-house, renders the person who eats it impure with the severe impurity of a primary source of impurity, to the extent that the person who eats it renders the garments he is wearing impure; therefore

it

does not

require preparation,

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

And the same law applies to the red cow, the bulls that are burned, and the goat that is sent away: since their end is to render the person and the garments of the one occupied with them severely impure, they do not require preparation.

And the goat that is sent away renders impure even while alive, although an ordinary living creature does not render impure. For anything whose end is to render the one occupied with it severely impure renders food and drink impure even while alive, and even when it was not prepared to receive impurity, when water did not come upon it, and even when it did not become impure from another thing, but its law is that it should render impure with intrinsic lesser impurity, to render food and drink impure, since its end is to render those occupied with it severely impure.

But according to the Rabbis,

who hold that the goat that is sent away does not render impure, this is difficult: after all, in either case:

If they hold

this

of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael,

that anything whose end is to render severely impure does not require preparation,

even the goat that is sent away

should also render impure while alive.

And if they do not hold the teaching of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, from where do we derive that even the cow and the bulls

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

And we answer:

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: In the West they say,

they said in the Land of Israel, that the Rabbis too hold like the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, but they hold that this is the explanation of the words of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael:

A. Everything whose end is not to render severely impure

requires preparation for impurity from another place,

that it touch a creeping thing or a carcass, and not that it become impure by itself.

B. But one whose end is to render severely impure does not need to touch impurity; rather, it is impure by itself.

Yet at the same time, it must be something fit for impurity. Therefore, only the red cow after it has been slaughtered, and the bulls that are burned, which have undergone slaughter, which are fit to receive impurity and whose end is to render severely impure, render food impure already now, by themselves, with the impurity of food, which is lesser impurity. But living creatures, which ordinarily are not fit for impurity—for we have not found living animals that render impurity—are not helped by the fact that their end is to render severely impure, since they are altogether unfit to receive impurity. Therefore, the goat that is sent away, which is still alive, does not render food impure while alive.

Rabbi Elazar inquired: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, what is the law: do they render food and drink impure

while they are still

inside

the courtyard,

as outside,

as they render food impure after they have been taken outside the courtyard, by virtue of their end being to render those occupied with taking them outside severely impure?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is

lacking going out

outside the courtyard considered

like lacking an act?

And since the act of taking them outside has not yet been performed, the bulls have not yet reached the state of “their end is to render severely impure” those occupied with them until they go outside; therefore they also do not render lesser impurity while they are inside.

Or

is the fact that the bulls are inside

not

considered “lacking an act”? And since their end is to render those occupied with taking them outside severely impure once they go out, they already now render food and drink impure with lesser impurity, despite their being inside.

After the inquiry,

after Rabbi Elazar was uncertain,

he returned,

Rabbi Elazar returned and

resolved

his uncertainty.

Lacking going out is considered like lacking an act,

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

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

which does not impart severe impurity except when it is found in the mouth cavity,

according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that anything whose end is to impart severe impurity imparts light impurity by itself, even if it is something that is not fit to receive impurity at present [like the scapegoat while it is still alive],

what is the law: does it impart impurity

the carcass of a kosher bird

with

a measure of

an olive-sized portion [

which is the measure by which the carcass of a kosher bird imparts impurity to the person eating it while it is in the mouth cavity] foods and liquids that touch it before the person has eaten it?

And the Gemara explains: in the place

where it is laid,

where the carcass of a kosher bird is placed on

the ground,

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

you need not ask

that it does not impart food impurity, since here there is not yet the state of “whose end is to impart severe impurity,” for it is possible that that olive-sized portion will never enter the mouth cavity of a person.

And likewise, in the place

where he holds it,

when the person is holding the olive-sized portion of the carcass of a kosher bird

in his mouth,

inside his mouth,

you need not ask,

for then certainly that olive-sized portion imparts impurity to the other foods that are inside his mouth with food impurity, which is light impurity. For since the portion of the carcass is found inside a person’s mouth, it is in the state of “whose end is to impart severe impurity,” and certainly it imparts food impurity, which is light impurity.

When you do ask,

where

he holds it

—this olive-sized portion—

in his hand.

And the doubt is: does

lacking being brought near

to his mouth

count as lacking an act?

And if so, the olive-sized portion is not now considered “whose end is to impart severe impurity,” and therefore it does not impart food impurity.

Or not

does it count as lacking an act, and it now imparts food impurity?