בכורות 23 — Soncino English Talmud

¹according to R. Eliezer, what shall become of it? — It shall be eaten in a mouldy state, parched, kneaded in fruit juice or be divided into [minute] loaves, so that there shall not be in one place more than the size of an egg. And ‘Ulla further explained: What is the reason? It is a precautionary measure in case he brings a kab of unclean hullin from another source and a kab and a little over from this kind. He thinks that he neutralizes it by the larger portion, but since there is this minute quantity [of unclean terumah]. like combines with like and the uncleanness is stirred up! — He said to him: If levitical uncleanness arouses uncleanness, shall therefore levitical cleanness stir up uncleanness. He [Abaye] raised an objection [to R. Jeremiah's views]: If ashes fit for lustration [from the red-heifer] were mixed with wood-ashes, we go by the larger portion to render unclean. But if the greater part is wood-ashes, they do not make unclean. Now, if you say that levitical uncleanness [which was neutralized] is considered as still existing, granted that it does not make uncleanness by contact, still let it make the carrier unclean? It was indeed stated on the subject: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: [The word] ‘clean’ [in the above Mishnah] means that it is so far clean as not to make uncleanness by contact, but it still makes the carrier unclean. But did not R. Hisda say: Nebelah is neutralized by ritually cut meat, for it is impossible for ritually cut meat to become nebelah? Now, granted that it does not make unclean by contact, still let it make the carrier unclean? — He [R. Dimi] replied to him: You report this in connection with what R. Hisda said, we report it in connection with R. Hiyya. [For] R. Hiyya taught: Nebelah and ritually cut meat neutralize one another [when mixed together]. And it was stated on the subject: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: It is so far clean as not to make unclean by contact, but it makes the carrier unclean. But have we not learnt: R. ELIEZER THE SON OF JACOB SAYS: IF A LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL DISCHARGED A CLOT OF BLOOD, IT SHALL BE BURIED, AND IT IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING. And R. Hiyya taught [in a Baraitha]: It does not make unclean, neither by contact nor by carrying? Now [if a forbidden thing remains in existence even after neutralization], granted that it does not make unclean by contact, still let it make the carrier unclean? — He [R. Dimi] became silent. [Nevertheless. there is no difficulty]; perhaps it is different here because it is an uncleanness which is putrid. This would indeed hold good according to Bar Pada who said: A major uncleanness attaches to it as long as it is fit to be eaten by a stranger, whereas a minor uncleanness until as long as it is fit for a dog; and in the case here it is surely not fit for a stranger. But according to R. Johanan who said:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:For according to the Sages, he is permitted to eat both the hullin and the terumah in the conditions stated above.
^ᵇnote:Why do we not regard the rest as genuine hullin according to R. Eliezer, since he holds that the se'ah which he separates is the terumah and therefore the rest should be real hullin?
^ᶜnote:A small measure.
^ᵈnote:Which must inevitably have mixed with the remainder, in spite of the fact that we maintain that the se'ah which is separated is the se'ah which fell into the hullin.
^ᵉnote:And combine together and thus receive uncleanness. This proves that levitical uncleanness though once neutralized can be aroused again.
^ᶠnote:That a minute quantity of uncleanness may stir up other uncleanness, as in the case of the terumah, is feasible; but in the case of the brine, we certainly do not assume that the clean water in the pot will combine with the small quantity of unclean water in the brine in order to neutralize the latter and thus make it unclean.
^ᵍnote:So that if the larger portion of ashes belong to the red heifer, they make unclean by contact. v. Parah IX. 7.
^ʰnote:For since the ashes are mixed, we do not know which are the red heifer's and perhaps he did not touch the ashes belonging to the red heifer at all.
^ⁱnote:For if he carried all the ashes, then he is bound to have carried the ashes of the red heifer, which make unclean.
^ʲnote:Ritually forbidden food, the animal not having been killed according to Jewish law.
^ᵏnote:Where two or more pieces of ritually killed meat are mixed with one piece of nebelah.
^ˡnote:This is the correct version. A different version (cur. edd.) stating that it is impossible for nebelah to become etc. is incorrect, as it is possible for nebelah to be freed from its levitical uncleanness, if it becomes putrid and ceases to be regarded as edible food.
^ᵐnote:If a forbidden thing, even after being neutralized, is still in existence and can be stirred up again.
^ⁿnote:The ruling of R. Jose. [The meaning is not clear, nor is the text certain. The passage may also be explained: ‘You report this ruling in the name of R. Hisda and as such it could not have been commented on by R. Jose; we report it as a Baraitha taught by R. Hiyya, and in connection with which R. Jose's statement was made’; cf. text in R. Gershom.]
^ᵒnote:And we have explained above that the reason is because the larger portion of the blood etc. neutralizes the embryo.
^ᵖnote:This is the answer suggested by the Talmud.
^ᵠnote:Like the uncleanness of carrying.
^ʳnote:After which it does not cause uncleanness.
^ˢnote:Like the uncleanness of coming in contact.

²The one as well as the other, [attaches to it so long as] it is fit for a dog — in the case here is it not fit for a dog? — This is indeed a difficulty. [The above] text [stated]: ‘Bar Pada said: A major uncleanness attaches to it as long as it is fit for a stranger, but a minor uncleanness, as long as it is fit for a dog. But R. Johanan said: In the one case as well as the other, so long as it is fit for a dog [it remains unclean]’. What is the reason of Bar Pada? — Scripture Says: Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger. [We infer from this that] what is still suitable for a stranger [to eat] is called nebelah, whereas that which is no longer suitable for a stranger [to eat] is not called nebelah. And the other? — He explains [the Scriptural text] as excluding the case where it was putrid from the beginning. And [what says] the other [to this]? — Where it was putrid from the beginning there is no need for a Scriptural text to exclude, for it is mere dust. We have learnt: R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS: IF A LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL DISCHARGED A CLOT OF BLOOD, IT SHALL BE BURIED, AND IT IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING. And R. Hiyya taught [in a Baraitha]: It does not make unclean either with contact or by carrying it. And R. Johanan explained that we apply here the principle of the larger portion neutralizing [the other]. [The question therefore arises], what need is there for the neutralization by the larger portion? Why not deduce this from the fact that it was not fit at all [for a stranger]? — In this case, too, it was suitable to be eaten [by a stranger], on account of its mother. We have learnt elsewhere: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: Clear brine into which there fell a little water is levitically unclean. R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This proves that the ‘amme ha-arez are suspected of mixing half water in brine. But why half? Why not even less than a half, for together with the little water here, it makes a half, and a half does not become neutralized? Read: Up to a half. And if you prefer [another solution] I may say: The levitical uncleanness imposed with reference to an ‘am ha-arez is a Rabbinic enactment, and the uncleanness of liquid is also a Rabbinic enactment. Therefore, in the case where the water is the greater portion, the Rabbis decreed uncleanness, but where there is half and half, the Rabbis did not decree uncleanness. MISHNAH. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: IF ONE BUYS AN ANIMAL GIVING SUCK FROM A GENTILE, HE NEED NOT FEAR THAT PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING BELONGS TO ANOTHER [ANIMAL]. IF HE WENT AMONG HIS HERD AND SAW ANIMALS WHICH HAD GIVEN BIRTH FOR THE FIRST TIME GIVING SUCK AND ANIMALS WHICH HAD NOT GIVEN BIRTH FOR THE FIRST TIME GIVING SUCK, WE NEED NOT FEAR THAT PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF THIS ONE CAME TO THE OTHER OR PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF THE OTHER CAME TO THIS ONE. GEMARA. R. Nahman reported in the name of Rab: The law is in accordance [with the Mishnah] in the whole chapter, except in the case where a difference of opinion is recorded. Said R. Shesheth: I say that Rab declared this tradition when he was half asleep. For to what does [Rab] refer? You can hardly say that he refers to the first part [of the chapter], for are there not differing opinions recorded of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba? Again if he refers [to the teaching of] R. Eliezer b. Jacob [in the preceding Mishnah] — is not the Mishnah of R. Eliezer b. Jacob little in quantity, but well sifted? And if he refers to [the teachings of] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel [in our Mishnah] — are there not differing opinions in the Baraitha? If he refers to [the teachings of] R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam [in a subsequent Mishnah], has not Rab, however, informed us of this once, for Rab said: The law is in accordance With R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam? And if he refers to [the subsequent Mishnah] in connection with the hair of a blemished [firstling], — are there not, however, different opinions recorded of Akabya b. Mahalalel and the Rabbis? — Indeed [Rab refers] to [the teachings of] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, and this is what he teaches us, that [the difference of opinion] in the Baraitha is not considered a difference of opinion [to be taken into account]. But since Rab said: The law is according [to the Mishnah] in the whole chapter, except where there is a difference of opinion.^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵗnote:Both in the case of a major uncleanness and a minor uncleanness, it makes unclean, until it is no longer suitable for a dog to eat.
^ᵘnote:And should therefore make the carrier unclean. R. Jeremiah's ruling above is therefore refuted. [Thus R. Johanan is self-contradictory.] Sh. Mek, reads: ‘not fit at all to a stranger’.
^ᵛnote:Deut. XIV, 21.
^ʷnote:Where e.g.. the animal broke its ribs when alive and it commenced to decay. Although it is fit for dogs, it does not make the carrier unclean, for it never had this uncleanness. But where it was at first fit for a stranger and it possessed the power of making the carrier unclean, then it retains this uncleanness until it is unfit for a dog to eat.
^ˣnote:For if the animal did not discharge and it was slaughtered and a clot of blood was discovered, the clot would have been fit for a stranger along with the flesh, and since in this case it is made fit because of its mother, it is fit even now, when it has been discharged. Consequently. were it not for the fact that it is neutralized by the larger portion, it would have received uncleanness.
^ʸnote:Where the larger portion is not water.
^ᶻnote:Having now received a little water, it becomes unclean and requires contact with mikweh water for purification.
^ᵃᵃnote:So that when a little more fell into the brine, the parts which were similar, combined, and the water, being more than the brine, therefore received levitical uncleanness.
^ᵃᵇnote:For only a small quantity of water we say above is neutralized by the larger portion, but not where the amount is a half.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., nearly a half of water the ‘amme ha-arez mix with their brine and this, together with the small quantity of water that fell in, makes up the half. Consequently, the water is not neutralized and it receives uncleanness.
^ᵃᵈnote:So as to consider the offspring which follows a doubtful firstling, as perhaps the animal had never given birth. And as for its giving milk, it is only a minority of animals which give milk without having given birth previously. We therefore consider the offspring as certainly belonging to the animal and the animal is thus exempted from the law of the firstling.
^ᵃᵉnote:But we presume that the offspring clinging to the animal belongs to it, and that there has been no mingling.
^ᵃᶠnote:Whether stated anonymously or as the pronouncement of a certain Tanna, where there is no difference of opinion.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘a kab’, a small measure of capacity.
^ᵃʰnote:Then what need is there for Rab's ruling. since in any case the law is in accordance with his views.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. infra 24a.