Zevachim 105b — the Talmud in English

He said to him: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

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

and in such a state it does impart food impurity.

He raised an objection to him

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

Thirteen matters were stated concerning the carcass of a pure bird, and this is one of them:

It requires intention

to designate it for eating, and only through such intention does it automatically impart impurity to foods and liquids, because only with such intention is it ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity.

And it does not require preparation.

Neither the placing of water upon it nor contact with a creeping creature; rather, it imparts impurity automatically, since it is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity.

And it imparts food impurity with an egg-bulk.

For if an egg-sized portion of it touched pure foods, they became impure.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not so

that the statement which teaches, “It imparts food impurity with an egg-bulk,” which is an anonymous Mishna, is according to the method of

Rabbi Meir?

That is, since it teaches that it requires intention but does not require preparation, it necessarily speaks of a case in which he is holding it in his hand in an egg-bulk measure. For if it speaks of an egg-bulk of the carcass of a pure bird lying on the ground, why does it not require preparation, because it is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity when it is in the mouth? For from where do we know that it is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity? Perhaps it will not reach the mouth at all.

And if it speaks of a case in which the egg-bulk of the carcass of a pure bird is already in his mouth, why does it require intention for foods? Since it is in his mouth, is there any greater intention for food than this?

Rather, necessarily, it speaks of a case in which it is lying in his hand, and therefore intention to eat it is required. Nevertheless, the Mishna states the measure of an egg-bulk, and it follows that with an olive-bulk alone, despite the fact that it is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity in the mouth, it does not have the power to impart food impurity now, since an olive-bulk does not impart food impurity, but 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 alive, despite the fact that a living creature does not impart impurity, the same law applies to the carcass of a pure bird: it imparts impurity with an olive-bulk, despite the fact that the measure for imparting impurity to foods is an egg-bulk. And, plainly, this Mishna, like every anonymous Mishna, is also according to Rabbi Meir.

And we answer:

No,

this Mishna, despite being an anonymous Mishna, is not according to Rabbi Meir, but only according to

the Rabbis,

who hold that the scapegoat does not impart impurity while alive, because something that is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity does not impart lesser impurity, even in a matter that is not fit for food impurity. Therefore, a measure of an egg-bulk is required, and a measure of an olive-bulk is insufficient. But according to Rabbi Meir, an olive-bulk of the carcass of a pure bird is sufficient for food impurity, since an olive-bulk is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity in the mouth, despite the fact that food impurity applies only with an egg-bulk.

And we refute this:

But it teaches at the beginning

of the Mishna:

It requires intention,

and it does not

require

preparation.

And whom have you heard express this view,

that preparation is not required since it is ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity?

Rabbi Meir.

And since the beginning

of the Mishna is

Rabbi Meir, the end

of the Mishna is also

Rabbi Meir.

And the difficulty 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!?

Is there indeed a necessity to say that the entire Mishna is according to Rabbi Meir? It is possible to say that

this,

the beginning of the Mishna,

is as it is stated,

according to Rabbi Meir.

And this,

the end of the Mishna,

is as it is stated,

according only to the Rabbis.

And we refute this:

But since it teaches at the end

of the Mishna:

Its slaughter

of a pure bird,

and its pinching

of a bird of

sacred offerings

in the Temple,

purifies its tereifa from its impurity.

For if the bird was found to be a tereifa after the slaughter or pinching, it is immediately purified from the status of a carcass and does not impart impurity in the mouth.

And

whom have you heard

express

this view,

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

Rabbi Meir!

He holds this way above, in the chapter “The bird sin-offering” [page 69a].

And if so, it follows that

the beginning

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

and the end

of the Mishna, which says that its slaughter or pinching purifies it from the status of a carcass,

are Rabbi Meir’s

view.

And the middle,

which requires an egg-bulk, is only according to

the Rabbis

!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, it is necessarily necessary to say so.

The beginning and the end are Rabbi Meir’s, and the middle is the Rabbis’. Rab Hamnuna said to Rabbi Zeira: Do not sit on your feet,

do not sit, but stand on your feet,

until you tell me this matter:

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

who says that it imparts food impurity automatically with an olive-bulk—do

we count first and second degrees in it

of impurity? That is, is this impurity of the food that became impure through the carcass of the bird considered a first degree of impurity, so that if it touched another food, it would make it a second degree of impurity?

Or do we not count first and second degrees in it,

meaning that this food that became impure through the carcass of a pure bird does not impart impurity to others?

He said to him: Wherever

every form of impurity

imparts impurity to a person through contact, we count first and second degrees in it. And wherever

impurity

does not impart impurity to a person through contact, we do not count first and second degrees in it.

For we learn this from the impurity of a creeping creature, which imparts impurity to a person and to vessels. With such impurity, which also imparts impurity to a person and to vessels, it is said that first and second degrees of impurity are counted in it, as the verse says: “Everything that is inside it shall become impure.” That is, the earthenware vessel in which the creeping creature is found becomes a first degree of impurity, and the foods inside the vessel become a second degree of impurity.

But the carcass of a pure bird, which does not impart impurity to a person through contact, does not have first and second degrees counted in it.

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Avin bar Hiyya, and some say

that he asked this

Rabbi Avin bar Kahana: This which we learned

in tractate Tohorot [chapter 7]:

Joins of foods through 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, and moist liquid was found in the middle, joining the two—

And such a joining is considered

a joining

only

for lesser impurity,

for the joining through the liquid between the two half-olive-bulks of a carcass is considered as though there were a complete olive-bulk joined together only with regard to food impurity, to impart impurity to the foods and liquids touching one of the halves as though they had touched a complete olive-bulk of a carcass.

But

there is no joining

of this kind considered

for

the purpose of

severe impurity,

to impart impurity to a person and to vessels.

And the uncertainty is:

Does

one count in it,

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

first and second degrees?

That is, did the foods that touched one of the halves become impure with first-degree impurity, so that if they touched another food they would make it second-degree impurity?

Or do we not count first and second degrees in it,

and the joining is effective only to disqualify the food touching one of the halves, but it does not impart impurity to it in such a manner that it can impart impurity to others?

He said to him: Wherever it imparts impurity to a person

through contact,

we count first and second degrees in it. And wherever it does not impart impurity to a person, we do not count first and second degrees in it.

And with joins of foods through liquid, since it does not impart impurity to a person, we do not count first and second degrees in it.

We learned in the Mishna:

They went out—

both these and those

impart impurity to garments.

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these words

that when those occupied with taking out the bulls outside the Temple courtyard go out, they impart impurity to garments?

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the bull of the Day of Atonement: “And he shall take the bull of the sin-offering outside the camp, and burn it with fire.” The implication of this verse is that it is burned immediately, on the Temple Mount.

But concerning the bull of the assembly 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 of them are derived from one another [above, page 83b] through the repetition of “sin-offering, sin-offering,” the place of their burning must be the same for all of them. Therefore, the beraita explains:

Below,

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

you assign them three camps,

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

And

if

here,

with regard to the bull of the Day of Atonement, you assign them

one camp.

Their burning is to be 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.” The implication is that it is burned outside the courtyard, immediately on the Temple Mount.

But should not their law be the same, since they are all inner bulls? Rather, what is stated, “outside the camp,” comes

to tell you that once they went out

those occupied with them

outside one camp,

that is, outside the courtyard, immediately they

impart impurity to garments.

And we inquire concerning this:

And this itself,

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

from where do we know it?

The Sages taught:

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

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

And its explanation is that they take it

outside the three camps.

You say

that they take it

outside the three camps. Or perhaps he takes it out

only

outside one camp,

that is, outside the courtyard?

When it says concerning the bull of the assembly

“And he shall take out the bull

outside the camp,” which need not be written,

it is apparently superfluous,

for it has already been stated

concerning the bull of the assembly, “And he shall burn it

as he burned the first bull,”

that is, Scripture has already stated that the law of burning the bull of the assembly is like the law of burning the bull of the anointed priest, which was mentioned first, in the preceding passage.

Necessarily, the superfluous verse comes to say:

Give it

for its burning

a second camp.

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

When it says in

the passage of the removal of the

ashes, “And he shall take out the ashes

to

outside the camp,” which need not be written,

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

for it has already been stated

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

“Upon the ash heap shall it be burned.”

And from here we would know that the place of the ashes is outside the camp. As it is stated: “And he shall take out the entire bull outside the camp; upon the ash heap shall it be burned.”

Rather, this superfluous verse comes to teach:

Give it a third camp

outside which to take it, for its burning.

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

And we inquire concerning this:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who said in our Mishna that they do not impart impurity to garments until the fire is kindled, what does he do with this verse stated concerning the bull of the Day of Atonement, “And he shall take out the entire bull

outside the camp”

[from which the Rabbis learned that the bulls impart impurity upon their going out of the courtyard],

what does he do with it?

For according to him the verse is superfluous!?

And the Gemara explains:

He requires

this

verse for that which was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,

in connection with the bull of the Day of Atonement,

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

in connection with the red heifer, “And he shall take it out

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.” And it is proven from here that he stood in the east and faced west, opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, which was in the eastern wall.