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.
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 105
בָּתַר רוֹב אֵבֶר שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְהָא נְפַק לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר בְּהֵמָה שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּגַבְרֵי, בְּמִתְעַסְּקִין בּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם, וּנְפַקוּ תְּלָתָא וּפָשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּרֵי – מַאי? בָּתַר רוֹב מִתְעַסְּקִין אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָתַר בְּהֵמָה אָזְלִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ – אִיטַּמּוֹ לְהוּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדוּר הֲדוּר?
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?
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל, תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ סוֹבְלִין אוֹתָן בְּמוֹטוֹת, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יָצְאוּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ – הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ אִיטַּמּוֹ – הָנָךְ דְּאִיכָּא גַּוַּאי (לִיטָּמֵא) [לִיטַּמּוֹ]!
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.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא?! הָא בָּעֵינָא ״וְאַחַר יָבֹא אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה״, וְלֵיכָּא!
Ravina said: And can you understand this as a proof? The reason that the latter ones’ garments are not rendered impure is that I require the fulfillment of the verse: “And he who burns them shall wash his garments, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp” (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.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֵיכִי בָּעֵי לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דִּנְקִיטִי לַהּ בְּבָקוּלְסֵי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרִים וּפָרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ, הַשּׂוֹרְפָן וְהַמּוֹצִיאָן מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים; וְהֵן עַצְמָן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל מְטַמְּאִין אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פָּרָה וּפָרִים מְטַמְּאִין אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא. שֶׁהוּא חַי, וְהַחַי אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.
§ 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל; דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ״ –
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: “And 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” (Leviticus 11:37–38).
מָה זְרָעִים – שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְיטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר; אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְיטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר. יָצְתָה נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר – שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְיטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְאֵין צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר.
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’s opinion accords with this principle.
אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן – אִי אִית לְהוּ דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֲפִילּוּ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ! אִי לֵית לֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וּפָרִים מְנָלַן?
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?
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר, אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר טוּמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּטַמְּאוּ אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ? מְחוּסַּר יְצִיאָה כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
§ 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.
בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַאּ הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: מְחוּסַּר יְצִיאָה כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַהוּ שֶׁתְּטַמֵּא בִּכְזַיִת?
§ Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel posed another dilemma to Rabbi Ḥiyya 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?
דְּמַחֲתָא לְאַרְעָא – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; דְּנָקֵיט בְּפוּמֵּיהּ – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ: מְחוּסַּר קְרִיבָה כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
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’s 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’s 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?
בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַאּ הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ:
After Abba bar Shmuel raised the dilemma, he then resolved it:
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,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: Aninut – Halakhah’s Immediate Response to Losing a Family Member
12.24.2025 | ד׳ בטבת תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
Zevachim 105
בָּתַר רוֹב אֵבֶר שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, וְהָא נְפַק לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר בְּהֵמָה שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּגַבְרֵי, בְּמִתְעַסְּקִין בּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם, וּנְפַקוּ תְּלָתָא וּפָשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּרֵי – מַאי? בָּתַר רוֹב מִתְעַסְּקִין אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָתַר בְּהֵמָה אָזְלִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ וְחָזְרוּ, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ – אִיטַּמּוֹ לְהוּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדוּר הֲדוּר?
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?
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל, תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ סוֹבְלִין אוֹתָן בְּמוֹטוֹת, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יָצְאוּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ – הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקִי לְהוּ אִיטַּמּוֹ – הָנָךְ דְּאִיכָּא גַּוַּאי (לִיטָּמֵא) [לִיטַּמּוֹ]!
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.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא?! הָא בָּעֵינָא ״וְאַחַר יָבֹא אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה״, וְלֵיכָּא!
Ravina said: And can you understand this as a proof? The reason that the latter ones’ garments are not rendered impure is that I require the fulfillment of the verse: “And he who burns them shall wash his garments, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp” (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.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֵיכִי בָּעֵי לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דִּנְקִיטִי לַהּ בְּבָקוּלְסֵי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרִים וּפָרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ, הַשּׂוֹרְפָן וְהַמּוֹצִיאָן מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים; וְהֵן עַצְמָן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל מְטַמְּאִין אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פָּרָה וּפָרִים מְטַמְּאִין אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא. שֶׁהוּא חַי, וְהַחַי אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.
§ 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל; דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ״ –
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: “And 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” (Leviticus 11:37–38).
מָה זְרָעִים – שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְיטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר; אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְיטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר. יָצְתָה נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר – שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְיטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְאֵין צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר.
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’s opinion accords with this principle.
אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן – אִי אִית לְהוּ דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֲפִילּוּ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ! אִי לֵית לֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ פָּרָה וּפָרִים מְנָלַן?
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?
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר, אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר טוּמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּטַמְּאוּ אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ? מְחוּסַּר יְצִיאָה כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
§ 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.
בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַאּ הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: מְחוּסַּר יְצִיאָה כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַהוּ שֶׁתְּטַמֵּא בִּכְזַיִת?
§ Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel posed another dilemma to Rabbi Ḥiyya 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?
דְּמַחֲתָא לְאַרְעָא – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; דְּנָקֵיט בְּפוּמֵּיהּ – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ: מְחוּסַּר קְרִיבָה כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?
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’s 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’s 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?
בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַאּ הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ:
After Abba bar Shmuel raised the dilemma, he then resolved it:
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,
Follow
