Bekhorot

according to R. Eliezer, what shall become of it?1 — 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?2 It is a precautionary measure in case he brings a kab3 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].4 like combines with like and the uncleanness is stirred up!5 — He said to him: If levitical uncleanness arouses uncleanness, shall therefore levitical cleanness stir up uncleanness.6 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.7 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,8 still let it make the carrier unclean?9 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: Nebelah10 is neutralized by ritually cut meat,11 for it is impossible for ritually cut meat12 to become nebelah? Now,13 granted that it does not make unclean by contact, still let it make the carrier unclean? — He [R. Dimi] replied to him: You report this14 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?15 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.16 This would indeed hold good according to Bar Pada who said: A major uncleanness17 attaches to it as long as it is fit to be eaten by a stranger,18 whereas a minor uncleanness19 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: separates is the terumah and therefore the rest should be real hullin? separated is the se'ah which fell into the hullin. can be aroused again. 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. belonging to the red heifer at all. 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. 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.]