Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 27, 2018 | 讟状讜 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 105

Several questions are asked and halachot are discussed regarding the unique status of impurity that the sin offerings that are burned and the red heifer and according to some the scapegoat on Yom Kippur also.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘转专 专讜讘 讗讘专 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 谞驻拽 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘转专 讘讛诪讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the half of the animal, which did not leave the courtyard. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar shall stand unresolved.

专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讙讘专讬 讘诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 讞诪砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜谞驻拽讜 转诇转讗 讜驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转专讬 诪讗讬 讘转专 专讜讘 诪转注住拽讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讘讛诪讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转讬拽讜

Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches this dilemma with regard to people: In a case where five people are handling an offering and carrying it out to be burned, and three of them emerged and two of them remained in the Temple courtyard, such that the animal is partly inside and partly outside, what is the halakha? Do we follow the majority of the people handling the offering, who have left the courtyard, or do we follow the animal, the majority of which did not yet leave? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻专讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 讜讞讝专讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讬 诇讛讜 讗讬讟诪讜 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讜专 讛讚讜专

Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: If bulls and goats that are burned left the Temple courtyard and returned, what is the halakha with regard to the garments of those who carry them inside the courtyard? Do we say: Once they left, they became impure? Or perhaps once they return, they return and do not render garments impure?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讜 住讜讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪讜讟讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讬 诇讛讜 讗讬讟诪讜 讛谞讱 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讗讬 诇讬讟诪讗

Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: Come and hear the mishna: They would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter ones did not yet emerge, the first ones, who emerged beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard, render their garments impure, but the latter ones do not render their garments impure until they emerge. Rabbi Abba bar Memel explains: And if it enters your mind to say that once they leave, they become impure, these latter ones mentioned in the mishna who are still inside should be rendered impure, since the offering itself has emerged. It follows that if the offering returns, their garments are not rendered impure.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜讗讞专 讬讘讗 讗诇 讛诪讞谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Ravina said: And can you understand this as a proof? The reason that the latter ones鈥 garments are not rendered impure is that I require the fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淎nd he who burns them shall wash his garments, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp鈥 (Leviticus 16:28). And since they have not yet left the camp, they cannot come into it, and therefore they do not contract the impurity described in the verse.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讬 讘注讬 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟讬 诇讛 讘讘拽讜诇住讬

The Gemara asks: But if they can become impure only after they leave, how did Rabbi Elazar raise this dilemma? The Gemara answers: He raised the dilemma with regard to a case where they take the offering with staffs [bevakulsei], i.e., after the offering is returned to the Temple courtyard, other people stand outside the courtyard and bring it out again using staffs. Does the offering render these people impure, even though they are standing outside the courtyard? The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar remains unresolved.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讬诐 讜驻专讛 讜砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讛诪砖诇讞 讛砖讜专驻谉 讜讛诪讜爪讬讗谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛谉 注爪诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻专讛 讜驻专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讛讞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to bulls that are burned, and a red heifer, and the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, the one who sends them, the one who burns them, and the one who takes them out of the Temple courtyard render their garments impure. And the animals themselves, after they emerge from the Temple courtyard, do not render garments that they touch impure, but they render food and drink that they touch impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: A red heifer and bulls that are burned render food and drink impure, but the scapegoat does not transmit impurity at all, as it is still alive when it leaves the Temple, and a living being does not render food and drink impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注

The Gemara comments. Granted, according to Rabbi Meir there is no difficulty, as his opinion is in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states that seeds can contract impurity from the carcass of a creeping animal only if they first come in contact with water: 鈥淎nd if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38).

诪讛 讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讬爪转讛 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 砖住讜驻讛 诇讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专

Just as is the case for seeds, which, like any food, can never contract impurity severe enough to transmit it to human beings, and they need exposure to liquid to be rendered susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too, all items that can never contract impurity severe enough to transmit it to human beings need exposure to liquid to be rendered susceptible to their less severe level of impurity and to transmit it. This serves to exclude the carcass of a kosher bird, which can contract impurity severe enough to be transmitted to a human being who swallows it, and therefore does not need to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity in order to transmit ritual impurity. According to this baraita, bulls that are burned, a red heifer, and a scapegoat, which are all sources of impurity for human beings, are able to transmit impurity to food and drink on their own, even if they have not been exposed to liquid and have not come in contact with any source of impurity. Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion accords with this principle.

讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜驻专讬诐 诪谞诇谉

But for the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir and say that a scapegoat does not transmit impurity to food and drink, this is difficult. If they accept that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, then even the scapegoat should transmit impurity to food and drink. And if they do not accept that statement, then from where do we derive that even a red heifer and bulls that are burned transmit impurity to food and drink?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讟讜诪讗讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

When Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: The Sages in the West, Eretz Yisrael, say: The opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir is that bulls that are burned and a red heifer need to contract impurity from somewhere else to be able to transmit impurity to foods. Since the scapegoat cannot contract impurity, as it is alive, it cannot transmit impurity.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻专讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 诪讞讜住专 讬爪讬讗讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: With regard to bulls and goats that are burned, what is the halakha as to whether they can transmit impurity to food and drink inside the Temple courtyard, before they leave, as they do outside afterward? Is an offering that has not yet left the Temple considered as if it were an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, i.e., because it has not yet become a source of impurity to those who carry it, it also does not transmit impurity to food without being rendered susceptible by coming into contact with a liquid and then coming into contact with a source of impurity? Or perhaps no, because the offering will become a source of impurity to those who carry it once it leaves the Temple courtyard, it already transmits impurity to food without being rendered susceptible.

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 诪讞讜住专 讬爪讬讗讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

After Rabbi Elazar raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: An offering that has not yet left is considered as if it were an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, and it does not transmit impurity to food without being rendered susceptible.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讻讝讬转

Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel posed another dilemma to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Food transmits impurity to other food or drink only if it is the volume of at least one egg-bulk and it is first rendered susceptible to impurity. The carcass of a kosher bird transmits impurity to a person who swallows it even if it is of the volume of at least one olive-bulk, and even if it has not been rendered susceptible to impurity. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that the carcass of a kosher bird transmits impurity to other food without first being rendered susceptible to impurity, what is the halakha as to the requisite measure? Does the carcass of a kosher bird transmit impurity to food even if it is of the volume of an olive-bulk, as it would to a person?

讚诪讞转讗 诇讗专注讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚谞拽讬讟 讘驻讜诪讬讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 诪讞讜住专 拽专讬讘讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies: Do not raise the dilemma in a case where the carcass lies on the ground, as in that case it certainly must be of the volume of an egg-bulk, like any other impure food. And do not raise the dilemma in a case where a person holds the bird鈥檚 flesh in his mouth, as it may be swallowed and transmit impurity to him even if it is of the volume of only an olive-bulk; in this case it certainly transmits impurity to food in the same measure. When you raise the dilemma, raise it in a case where he holds the bird鈥檚 flesh in his hand. When the flesh has not yet been brought close to being swallowed, is it considered to be like an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, in which case it is considered a normal food and must be of the volume of an egg-bulk, or perhaps not?

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛

After Abba bar Shmuel raised the dilemma, he then resolved it:

诪讞讜住专 拽专讬讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 讜诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讻讘讬爪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

Rabbi 岣yya 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鈥檚 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.

诇讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

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

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜诪诇讬拽转讛 诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

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?

讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘诪讙注 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘诪讙注 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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 impu-rity. 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

Rabbi Zeira posed a dilemma to Rabbi Ami bar 岣yya, 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.

诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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.

讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讻讗谉 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淭hey shall be carried forth outside the camp鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he who burns them shall wash his garments鈥 (Leviticus 16:28).

讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛驻专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞谞讛 讗讞转

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: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp unto a pure place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it鈥 (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?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘驻专 讛注讚讛 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讗砖专 砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖谞讬讛

When the verse states with regard to the bull brought as a communal sin offering: 鈥淗e shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), it requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state 鈥渙utside the camp,鈥 since it is already stated at the end of that same verse: 鈥淎nd burn it as he burned the first bull,鈥 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 鈥渙utside the camp鈥? 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘讚砖谉 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 讬砖专祝 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转

And when another verse states with regard to the removal of the ash: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a pure place鈥 (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: 鈥淓ven 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鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). The repetition of 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon do with this phrase, stated with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淥utside the camp鈥 (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: 鈥淥utside the camp,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淗e shall bring it outside the camp鈥 (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 鈥渢oward the front of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 19:4), opposite the entrance of the Temple, which is to its east,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 105

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 105

讘转专 专讜讘 讗讘专 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 谞驻拽 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘转专 讘讛诪讛 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the half of the animal, which did not leave the courtyard. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar shall stand unresolved.

专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讙讘专讬 讘诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 讞诪砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜谞驻拽讜 转诇转讗 讜驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转专讬 诪讗讬 讘转专 专讜讘 诪转注住拽讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讘讛诪讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转讬拽讜

Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches this dilemma with regard to people: In a case where five people are handling an offering and carrying it out to be burned, and three of them emerged and two of them remained in the Temple courtyard, such that the animal is partly inside and partly outside, what is the halakha? Do we follow the majority of the people handling the offering, who have left the courtyard, or do we follow the animal, the majority of which did not yet leave? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻专讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 讜讞讝专讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讬 诇讛讜 讗讬讟诪讜 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讜专 讛讚讜专

Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: If bulls and goats that are burned left the Temple courtyard and returned, what is the halakha with regard to the garments of those who carry them inside the courtyard? Do we say: Once they left, they became impure? Or perhaps once they return, they return and do not render garments impure?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讜 住讜讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘诪讜讟讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讬 诇讛讜 讗讬讟诪讜 讛谞讱 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讗讬 诇讬讟诪讗

Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: Come and hear the mishna: They would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter ones did not yet emerge, the first ones, who emerged beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard, render their garments impure, but the latter ones do not render their garments impure until they emerge. Rabbi Abba bar Memel explains: And if it enters your mind to say that once they leave, they become impure, these latter ones mentioned in the mishna who are still inside should be rendered impure, since the offering itself has emerged. It follows that if the offering returns, their garments are not rendered impure.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜讗讞专 讬讘讗 讗诇 讛诪讞谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Ravina said: And can you understand this as a proof? The reason that the latter ones鈥 garments are not rendered impure is that I require the fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淎nd he who burns them shall wash his garments, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp鈥 (Leviticus 16:28). And since they have not yet left the camp, they cannot come into it, and therefore they do not contract the impurity described in the verse.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讬 讘注讬 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟讬 诇讛 讘讘拽讜诇住讬

The Gemara asks: But if they can become impure only after they leave, how did Rabbi Elazar raise this dilemma? The Gemara answers: He raised the dilemma with regard to a case where they take the offering with staffs [bevakulsei], i.e., after the offering is returned to the Temple courtyard, other people stand outside the courtyard and bring it out again using staffs. Does the offering render these people impure, even though they are standing outside the courtyard? The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar remains unresolved.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讬诐 讜驻专讛 讜砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讛诪砖诇讞 讛砖讜专驻谉 讜讛诪讜爪讬讗谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛谉 注爪诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻专讛 讜驻专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讛讞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to bulls that are burned, and a red heifer, and the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, the one who sends them, the one who burns them, and the one who takes them out of the Temple courtyard render their garments impure. And the animals themselves, after they emerge from the Temple courtyard, do not render garments that they touch impure, but they render food and drink that they touch impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: A red heifer and bulls that are burned render food and drink impure, but the scapegoat does not transmit impurity at all, as it is still alive when it leaves the Temple, and a living being does not render food and drink impure.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注

The Gemara comments. Granted, according to Rabbi Meir there is no difficulty, as his opinion is in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states that seeds can contract impurity from the carcass of a creeping animal only if they first come in contact with water: 鈥淎nd if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38).

诪讛 讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讬爪转讛 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 砖住讜驻讛 诇讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专

Just as is the case for seeds, which, like any food, can never contract impurity severe enough to transmit it to human beings, and they need exposure to liquid to be rendered susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too, all items that can never contract impurity severe enough to transmit it to human beings need exposure to liquid to be rendered susceptible to their less severe level of impurity and to transmit it. This serves to exclude the carcass of a kosher bird, which can contract impurity severe enough to be transmitted to a human being who swallows it, and therefore does not need to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity in order to transmit ritual impurity. According to this baraita, bulls that are burned, a red heifer, and a scapegoat, which are all sources of impurity for human beings, are able to transmit impurity to food and drink on their own, even if they have not been exposed to liquid and have not come in contact with any source of impurity. Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion accords with this principle.

讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜驻专讬诐 诪谞诇谉

But for the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir and say that a scapegoat does not transmit impurity to food and drink, this is difficult. If they accept that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, then even the scapegoat should transmit impurity to food and drink. And if they do not accept that statement, then from where do we derive that even a red heifer and bulls that are burned transmit impurity to food and drink?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讟讜诪讗讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

When Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: The Sages in the West, Eretz Yisrael, say: The opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir is that bulls that are burned and a red heifer need to contract impurity from somewhere else to be able to transmit impurity to foods. Since the scapegoat cannot contract impurity, as it is alive, it cannot transmit impurity.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻专讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 诪讞讜住专 讬爪讬讗讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: With regard to bulls and goats that are burned, what is the halakha as to whether they can transmit impurity to food and drink inside the Temple courtyard, before they leave, as they do outside afterward? Is an offering that has not yet left the Temple considered as if it were an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, i.e., because it has not yet become a source of impurity to those who carry it, it also does not transmit impurity to food without being rendered susceptible by coming into contact with a liquid and then coming into contact with a source of impurity? Or perhaps no, because the offering will become a source of impurity to those who carry it once it leaves the Temple courtyard, it already transmits impurity to food without being rendered susceptible.

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 诪讞讜住专 讬爪讬讗讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

After Rabbi Elazar raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: An offering that has not yet left is considered as if it were an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, and it does not transmit impurity to food without being rendered susceptible.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讻讝讬转

Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel posed another dilemma to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Food transmits impurity to other food or drink only if it is the volume of at least one egg-bulk and it is first rendered susceptible to impurity. The carcass of a kosher bird transmits impurity to a person who swallows it even if it is of the volume of at least one olive-bulk, and even if it has not been rendered susceptible to impurity. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that the carcass of a kosher bird transmits impurity to other food without first being rendered susceptible to impurity, what is the halakha as to the requisite measure? Does the carcass of a kosher bird transmit impurity to food even if it is of the volume of an olive-bulk, as it would to a person?

讚诪讞转讗 诇讗专注讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚谞拽讬讟 讘驻讜诪讬讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 诪讞讜住专 拽专讬讘讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies: Do not raise the dilemma in a case where the carcass lies on the ground, as in that case it certainly must be of the volume of an egg-bulk, like any other impure food. And do not raise the dilemma in a case where a person holds the bird鈥檚 flesh in his mouth, as it may be swallowed and transmit impurity to him even if it is of the volume of only an olive-bulk; in this case it certainly transmits impurity to food in the same measure. When you raise the dilemma, raise it in a case where he holds the bird鈥檚 flesh in his hand. When the flesh has not yet been brought close to being swallowed, is it considered to be like an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, in which case it is considered a normal food and must be of the volume of an egg-bulk, or perhaps not?

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛

After Abba bar Shmuel raised the dilemma, he then resolved it:

诪讞讜住专 拽专讬讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 讜诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讻讘讬爪讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

Rabbi 岣yya 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鈥檚 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.

诇讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

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

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜诪诇讬拽转讛 诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

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?

讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 转讬转讬讘 讗讻专注讱 注讚 讚讗诪专转 诇讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘诪讙注 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘诪讙注 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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 impu-rity. 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖拽讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讘讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

Rabbi Zeira posed a dilemma to Rabbi Ami bar 岣yya, 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.

诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

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.

讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讻讗谉 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淭hey shall be carried forth outside the camp鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he who burns them shall wash his garments鈥 (Leviticus 16:28).

讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛驻专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞谞讛 讗讞转

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: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp unto a pure place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it鈥 (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?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘驻专 讛注讚讛 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讗砖专 砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖谞讬讛

When the verse states with regard to the bull brought as a communal sin offering: 鈥淗e shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), it requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state 鈥渙utside the camp,鈥 since it is already stated at the end of that same verse: 鈥淎nd burn it as he burned the first bull,鈥 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 鈥渙utside the camp鈥? 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘讚砖谉 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 讬砖专祝 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转

And when another verse states with regard to the removal of the ash: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a pure place鈥 (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: 鈥淓ven 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鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). The repetition of 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon do with this phrase, stated with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淥utside the camp鈥 (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: 鈥淥utside the camp,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淗e shall bring it outside the camp鈥 (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 鈥渢oward the front of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 19:4), opposite the entrance of the Temple, which is to its east,

Scroll To Top