Zevachim 105b (קה:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

The absence of bringing it near is not considered the absence of an act,

and in such a state it does contract the impurity of food.

He raised an objection to him

from the Mishna at the beginning of Tractate Tohorot [chapter 1, mishna 1]:

Thirteen matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird, and this is one of them:

It requires intent

to designate it for eating, and only through such intent does it automatically render food and liquid impure, because only when such intent exists will it ultimately contract severe impurity.

And it does not require preparation.

Neither the placing of water upon it nor contact with a creeping creature is required; rather, it renders food impure by itself, since it will ultimately contract severe impurity.

And it renders food impure with the measure of an egg-bulk.

For if an egg-bulk of it came into contact with pure food, that food becomes impure.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

that the statement in the Mishna, “It renders food impure with the measure of an egg-bulk,” which is an unattributed Mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Meir?

That is, since it teaches that it requires intent but does not require preparation, it must be referring to a case in which he is holding an egg-bulk in his hand. For if it were referring to a case in which an egg-bulk of the carcass of a kosher bird was lying on the ground, why would it not require preparation on account of the fact that it will ultimately contract severe impurity when it is in the mouth of the one eating it? After all, how do we know that it will ultimately contract severe impurity? Perhaps it will never reach the mouth of the one eating it.

And if it is referring to a case in which the egg-bulk of the carcass of a kosher bird is already in his mouth, why would it require intent for food? Since it is in his mouth, can there be any greater indication of intent for food than this?

Rather, it must be referring to a case in which it is lying in his hand, and therefore intent to eat it is required. Nevertheless, the Mishna states the measure of an egg-bulk, implying that an olive-bulk alone, despite the fact that it will ultimately contract severe impurity in the mouth, is not capable at present of imparting the impurity of food, since an olive-bulk does not impart the impurity of food; only an egg-bulk does.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Abba bar Memel, who said above that according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the scapegoat imparts impurity while still alive, despite the fact that a living creature does not impart impurity, the same applies to the carcass of a kosher bird: It imparts impurity with an olive-bulk, despite the fact that the measure for imparting the impurity of food is an egg-bulk. And this Mishna, being an unattributed Mishna, apparently follows Rabbi Meir as well.

And we answer:

No,

this Mishna, despite being an unattributed Mishna, is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir; rather, it is only in accordance with the opinion of

the Sages,

who maintain that the scapegoat does not impart impurity while alive. For an entity that will ultimately contract severe impurity does not impart lesser impurity, even in a case involving something that is not fit to contract the impurity of food. Therefore, an egg-bulk is required, and an olive-bulk is insufficient. But according to Rabbi Meir, an olive-bulk of the carcass of a kosher bird is sufficient for the impurity of food, since an olive-bulk will ultimately contract severe impurity in the mouth, despite the fact that the impurity of food applies only to an egg-bulk.

And we refute this:

But the first clause teaches

of the Mishna:

It requires intent,

but it does not

require

preparation.

And whom do you know who holds this opinion,

that preparation is not required because it will ultimately contract severe impurity?

Rabbi Meir.

And since the first clause

of the Mishna is

Rabbi Meir, the latter clause

of the Mishna is also

Rabbi Meir.

The difficulty therefore returns: It is proven that even according to Rabbi Meir an egg-bulk is required, and an olive-bulk is insufficient!?

And we answer:

Is that necessarily so!?

Must one say that the entire Mishna follows Rabbi Meir? It is possible to say that

this,

the first clause of the Mishna,

is as it stands,

and follows Rabbi Meir.

And this,

the latter clause of the Mishna,

is as it stands,

and follows only the Sages.

And we refute this:

But since the latter clause teaches

of the Mishna:

Its slaughter

of a kosher bird,

and its pinching

of a

consecrated

bird in the Temple,

purify its tereifa from its impurity.

If the bird is discovered to be a tereifa after its slaughter or pinching, it is immediately purified from the impurity of a carcass and does not impart impurity in the mouth.

And

whom do you know

who holds

this opinion,

that its slaughter or pinching purifies it from the impurity of a carcass?

Rabbi Meir!

He held this opinion above, in the chapter dealing with the bird sin-offering [69a].

If so, it follows that

the first clause

of the Mishna, which states that it does not require preparation,

and the latter clause

of the Mishna, which states that its slaughter or pinching purifies it from the impurity of a carcass,

are Rabbi Meir’s

opinion.

But the middle clause,

which requires an egg-bulk, follows only the opinion of

the Sages

!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, one must necessarily say so.

The first and latter clauses are Rabbi Meir’s, and the middle clause is the Sages’. Rav Hamnuna said to Rabbi Zeira: Do not sit on your heels;

do not sit, but stand on your feet,

until you tell me this matter:

The carcass of a kosher bird, according to Rabbi Meir,

who says that it automatically imparts the impurity of food with an olive-bulk: Is

a first and second degree counted with regard to it

as impurity? That is, is this impurity of the food that became impure through the bird’s carcass considered first-degree impurity, so that if it comes into contact with other food, that food becomes second-degree impurity?

Or is a first and second degree not counted with regard to it,

as this food, which became impure through the carcass of a kosher bird, does not render other entities impure?

He said to him: Whenever

any type of impurity

renders a person impure through contact, a first and second degree are counted with regard to it. And whenever

an impurity

does not render a person impure through contact, a first and second degree are not counted with regard to it.

For this is learned from the impurity of a creeping creature, which renders people and vessels impure. With regard to such impurity, which renders people and vessels impure as well, a first and second degree are counted, as the verse states: “Everything that is inside it shall become impure.” That is, the earthenware vessel in which the creeping creature is located becomes first-degree impurity, and the food inside the vessel becomes second-degree impurity.

But the carcass of a kosher bird, which does not render a person impure through contact, does not have a first and second degree counted with regard to it.

Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Avin bar Ḥiyya, and some say

that he asked this

of Rav Avin bar Kahana: The matter that we learned

in Tractate Tohorot [chapter 7]:

Food items joined by means of liquids,

for example, if there was half an olive-bulk of a carcass on one side and half an olive-bulk of a carcass on the other side, with a liquid sufficient to make something wet in between, joining the two,

and such a joining is considered a

joining

only

with regard to lesser impurity,

as the joining through the liquid between the two half-olive-bulks of a carcass is considered as though they were one complete olive-bulk only with regard to the impurity of food, to render impure the food and liquids that touch one of the halves as though they had touched a complete olive-bulk of a carcass.

But

there is no joining

of this kind

with

regard

to severe impurity,

to render people and vessels impure.

The uncertainty is:

Does one

count with regard to it

—with regard to that joining through liquid, which is a joining only concerning lesser impurity—

a first and second degree?

That is, does the food that touched one of the halves become first-degree impurity, and, if it touches other food, render that food second-degree impurity?

Or does one not count a first and second degree with regard to it,

and the joining is effective only to disqualify the food touching one of the halves, but does not render it impure in a manner that enables it to render other entities impure?

He said to him: Whenever it renders a person

impure through contact,

a first and second degree are counted with regard to it. And whenever it does not render a person impure, a first and second degree are not counted with regard to it.

And with regard to food items joined by means of liquid, since it does not render a person impure, a first and second degree are not counted with regard to it.

We learned in the Mishna:

They went out—

both these and those

render garments impure.

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

derived—that when those engaged in taking the bulls outside the Temple courtyard go out, they render garments impure?

As the Sages taught:

With regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, it is stated: “And he shall take the bull of the sin-offering outside the camp, and burn it in fire.” This implies from the wording of the verse that it is burned immediately, on the Temple Mount.

By contrast, concerning the bull of the community and the bull of the anointed priest, it will be learned below that the place of their burning is outside the three camps.

And since these three bulls are all inner bulls, whose blood is sprinkled inside [and not upon the outer altar], and all are derived from one another [above, 83b] through the repeated use of the term “sin-offering,” the place of their burning should be identical in all of them. Therefore, the beraita explains:

Below,

with regard to the bull of the community and the bull of the anointed priest,

you assign them three camps,

that is, their place of burning is outside the three camps.

But

if

here,

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, you assign them

one camp,

so that they are burned outside the Camp of the Divine Presence alone. As it is stated: “Outside the camp. And the one who burns them shall wash his garments.” This implies that it is burned outside the Temple courtyard, immediately on the Temple Mount.

But their law should be identical, since they are all inner bulls. Rather, the statement “outside the camp” comes

to tell you that once they have gone out

those engaged in them

outside the one camp,

that is, outside the Temple courtyard, they immediately

render garments impure.

And we inquire:

But this itself,

that the place of burning of the bulls that are burned is outside the three camps,

from where do we know it?

As the Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the bull of the anointed priest: “

And he shall take the entire bull outside the camp.”

And this is understood to mean that it is taken

outside the three camps.

You say

that it is taken

outside the three camps. Or perhaps

he takes it

only outside the one camp,

that is, outside the Temple courtyard?

When it says concerning the bull of the community: “And he shall take the bull

outside the

camp,” which need not have been written,

it is apparently superfluous,

for it has already been stated

concerning the bull of the community: “And he shall burn it

as he burned the first bull,”

that is, the verse has already stated that the law of burning the bull of the community is the same as the law of burning the bull of the anointed priest, which was mentioned first, in the preceding passage.

The superfluous verse must therefore have come to say:

Give it

for its burning

a second camp.

That is, from the superfluous verse we know that the place of burning the bull of the community is outside the two camps.

When it says in

the passage concerning the

ashes, “And he shall take the ashes

outside the

camp,” which need not have been written,

there is no need to state that the place of the ashes is outside the camp.

For it has already been stated

in the passage concerning the anointed priest, with regard to the burning of the bull: “

It shall be burned on the ash heap.”

From this we would already know that the place of the ashes is outside the camp. As it is stated: “And he shall take the entire bull outside the camp; it shall be burned on the ash heap.”

Rather, this superfluous verse comes to teach:

Give it a third camp

outside of which it is to be taken, for its burning.

And from here we learn that the place of burning the bulls is outside the three camps.

And we inquire:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who said in our Mishna that they do not render garments impure until the fire has been kindled, what does he do with this verse stated concerning the bull of Yom Kippur: “And he shall take the entire bull

outside the camp”

[from which the Sages derived that the bulls render garments impure upon leaving the Temple courtyard],

what does he do with it?

The verse is superfluous according to him!?

The Gemara explains:

He requires

this verse

for that which was taught in a beraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur,

“outside the camp,” and it is stated there,

with regard to the red heifer: “And he shall take it

outside the camp.”

Just as here,

with regard to the bulls that are burned, their burning is

outside the three camps, so too there,

with regard to the red heifer, its burning is

outside the three camps. And just as there,

with regard to the red heifer, the place of the sprinkling of its blood is

to the east of Jerusalem.

As it is stated concerning it: “And he shall sprinkle toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.” It is evident from here that he stood in the east and faced west, toward the entrance of the Sanctuary, which was in the eastern wall.