Zevachim 105b

מְחוּסָּר קְרִיבָה לָאו כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי.

Even if the carcass of a kosher bird has not yet been brought close to being swallowed, it is still not considered as if a necessary action has not yet been performed, and an olive-bulk is sufficient to transmit impurity to food and drink.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר, וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳוכָלִין בִּכְבֵיצָה. מַאי, לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel, based on a mishna ( Teharot 1:1): Thirteen matters were stated with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird, and this is one of them: In order to be susceptible to impurity as a food, it requires a person’s intention that it be eaten; and it does not need to be rendered susceptible to such impurity by contact with liquid; and it transmits ritual impurity of food in the amount of an egg-bulk. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? What, is it not the opinion of Rabbi Meir? If so, he holds that an egg-bulk of a carcass of a kosher bird is necessary to transmit impurity.

לָא, רַבָּנַן הִיא.

The Gemara responds: No, the mishna is the opinion of the Rabbis.

וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵין צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר; וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי מֵאִיר; וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

The Gemara challenges: But the first clause of that mishna teaches: In order to be susceptible to impurity as a food, it requires a person’s intention that it be eaten and it does not need to be rendered susceptible by contact with liquid. And from whom do you learn this reasoning? From Rabbi Meir, as was taught in the baraita (105a). And since the first clause is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it follows that the latter clause is also the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? Must both clauses be the opinion of the same tanna ? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is.

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: שְׁחִיטָתָהּ וּמְלִיקָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי מֵאִיר; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן?!

The Gemara challenges: But one can still infer this from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches: The slaughter or the pinching of the nape of a bird offering purifies it from its impurity, i.e., prevents it from assuming the impure status of a carcass, even if it is found to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [ tereifa ]. And from whom did you learn this reasoning? From Rabbi Meir (see 67a). Could it be that the first clause and the last clause represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the middle clause represents the opinion of the Rabbis?

אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara responds: Yes, the first clause and the last clause represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the middle clause represents the opinion of the Rabbis.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא תִּיתֵּיב אַכַּרְעָךְ עַד דְּאָמְרַתְּ לִי הָא מִילְּתָא: נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר – לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מוֹנִין לָהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי?

§ Rav Hamnuna said to Rabbi Zeira: Do not sit down until you tell me the resolution of this matter: In general, when a food touches a primary source of ritual impurity after having been rendered susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid, it contracts first-degree impurity. If it then touches another food, it imparts to it second-degree impurity. The carcass of a kosher bird, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, transmits impurity to food without being rendered susceptible. Does one count its first and second degrees of impurity when it touches food or drink, treating it like a primary source of impurity? Or perhaps one does not count first and second degrees of impurity, but rather treats it as a food with first-degree impurity, which imparts second-degree impurity?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּמְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּמַגָּע – מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּמַגָּע – אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Wherever an item can render a person impure through contact, it is considered a primary source of impurity, and one counts its first and second degrees of impurity. And wherever it cannot render a person impure through contact, one does not count its first and second degrees of impurity. Since the carcass of a kosher bird does not render a person impure through contact, but only by being swallowed, it is treated as a food with first-degree impurity.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי בַּר חִיָּיא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מֵרַבִּי אָבִין בַּר כָּהֲנָא, הָא דִּתְנַן: חִיבּוּרֵי אוֹכְלִין עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקִין – חִיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה, וְאֵין חִיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה;

Rabbi Zeira posed a dilemma to Rabbi Ami bar Ḥiyya, and some say to Rabbi Avin bar Kahana concerning that which we learned in a mishna ( Teharot 8:8): Connections between foods by liquid, i.e., liquids in contact with two foods, a situation that causes the impurity of one food to be transmitted to the other and their sizes to be combined toward the minimum measure for transmitting impurity, are considered a connection for the lenient impurity of foods, but are not considered a connection for impurity severe enough to be transmitted to a human being. If two pieces of animal carcass are connected by a liquid, they do not combine to form the minimum measure for transmitting their impurity to a person, but they can transmit impurity to food.

מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי?

Rabbi Zeira asks: If these two pieces of animal carcass come in contact with food, does one count its first and second degrees of impurity and treat the pieces as a primary source of impurity, such that the food will impart second-degree impurity to other food? Or does one not count its first and second degrees of impurity, and treat the animal carcass as food with first-degree impurity?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּמְטַמֵּא אָדָם – מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אֵין מְטַמֵּא אָדָם – אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Wherever an item can render a person impure, one counts its first and second degrees of impurity. And wherever it cannot render a person impure, one does not count its first and second degrees of impurity. Since the pieces of carcass cannot transmit their impurity to a person, they are treated as food with first-degree impurity.

יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, כָּאן – לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת; לוֹמַר לָךְ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.

§ The mishna teaches: When both these priests and those priests emerged, all of their garments were rendered ritually impure. The Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita : The verse states with regard to the bull and goat that are burned on Yom Kippur: “They shall be carried forth outside the camp” (Leviticus 16:27). There, elsewhere, the verse states that such bulls and goats are burned outside three camps, those of the Tabernacle, the Levites, and the Israelites, whereas here, the verse states only that they are taken outside one camp, i.e., the Tabernacle. This serves to tell you: Once the offering emerges beyond one camp, one who carries it renders his garments impure, as the next verse states: “And he who burns them shall wash his garments” (Leviticus 16:28).

וְהִיא גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל הַפָּר אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מַחֲנֶה אַחַת?

The Gemara explains further: And from where do we derive that halakha itself, that the bulls and goats are burned outside the three camps? As the Sages taught in a baraita : It is stated about the bull brought as a sin offering of the High Priest: “Even the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp unto a pure place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it” (Leviticus 4:12), meaning that he should take it outside the three camps. Do you say that he takes it outside the three camps, or is he required to take it outside only one camp?

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר בְּפַר הָעֵדָה: ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן״; לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁנִיָּה.

When the verse states with regard to the bull brought as a communal sin offering: “He shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull” (Leviticus 4:21), it requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state “outside the camp,” since it is already stated at the end of that same verse: “And burn it as he burned the first bull,” which indicates that all the halakhot of the bull brought as a sin offering of a High Priest apply to the bull brought as a communal sin offering. What then does the verse mean when it states “outside the camp”? To give it a second camp, i.e., it indicates that it must be removed not only from the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, but also from the Levite camp, corresponding to the Temple Mount.

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ בַּדֶּשֶׁן – שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״עַל שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן יִשָּׂרֵף״; לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁלִישִׁית.

And when another verse states with regard to the removal of the ash: “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a pure place” (Leviticus 6:4), that verse also requires an explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it is already stated with regard to the bull brought as a sin offering of a High Priest: “Even the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a pure place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned” (Leviticus 4:12). The repetition of “outside the camp” indicates that he is required to give it a third camp, i.e., teaching that it is burned when outside the Israelite camp, corresponding to the land outside the walls of Jerusalem.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הַאי ״מִחוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״; מָה לְהַלָּן – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, אַף כָּאן – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת. וּמָה לְהַלָּן – לְמִזְרָחָהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם,

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon do with this phrase, stated with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur: “Outside the camp” (Leviticus 16:27), given that he holds that the garments do not become impure until the offering is burning? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here: “Outside the camp,” and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: “He shall bring it outside the camp” (Numbers 19:3). Just as here, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned outside three camps, so too there, the red heifer is burned outside three camps. And just as there, the red heifer is burned east of Jerusalem, since it must be burned “toward the front of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 19:4), opposite the entrance of the Temple, which is to its east,