Zevachim

after its greater part and that indeed has gone out;1 or perhaps we cast it after the animal? The question stands over. Rabbah b. R. Huna recited [this passage] in reference to men. Thus: five men were engaged on it,2 three had gone out and two were left [within]. What [is the law]? Do we follow the majority of those engaged on it;3 or perhaps we go by the animal? The question stands over. R. Eleazar asked: What if the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt were carried out and then brought back:4 do we say, since they [the carcasses] went out, they are unclean; or perhaps, since they returned, they returned?5 — Said R. Abba b. Memmel, Come and hear: IF THEY WERE CARRYING THEM ON STAVES, AND THOSE IN FRONT HAD PASSED WITHOUT THE WALL OF THE TEMPLE COURT WHILE THOSE IN THE REAR HAD NOT [YET] GONE OUT, THOSE IN FRONT DEFILE THEIR GARMENTS. WHILE THOSE IN THE REAR DO NOT DEFILE THEIR GARMENTS. UNTIL THY GO OUT. Now, if you should think that as soon as they go out, they [the garments] are defiled, then let those who are within also be defiled?6 Said Rabina:7 Now, is that logical?8 Surely we require, and after that he may come into the camp,9 which is absent. Then in which circumstances does R. Eleazar's question arise?10 — Where they seized it with crooks.11 Our Rabbis taught: The bullocks [which are burnt], the [red] heifer, and the goat that is sent away:12 he that leads [the last] away, he who burns them, and he who carries [the first-named] out [of the Temple court], defile their garments. They themselves, however, do not defile garments;13 but they defile foodstuffs and liquids: these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: The [red] heifer and the bullocks defile foodstuffs and liquids, [whereas] the goat which is sent away does not defile, because it is alive, and a live thing does not defile foodstuffs and liquids. As for R. Meir, it is well, [as his view] agrees with the teaching of the School of R. Ishmael. For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown:14 as seeds, which will not ultimately defile with stringent uncleanness, require a qualification [heksher], so all which will not ultimately defile with stringent uncleanness require a qualification. Thus the carcass of a clean bird is excluded: since It will eventually defile with stringent uncleanness, it does not require a qualification.15 But as for the Rabbis, if they accept the teaching of the school of R. Ishmael, even the goat that is sent away too [should defile]; while if they reject it, how do they know [that] the [red] heifer and the bullocks [defile foodstuffs]?16 When R. Dimi came,17 he said: In the West [Palestine] they said: They need a qualification for defilement from a foreign source.18 R. Eleazar asked: Can the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt defile foodstuffs and liquids within [the Temple court] as without?19 When it lacks going out, is it as though it lacks an action,20 or not? After he asked, he answered it: That which lacks going out is as though it lacked an action.21 R. Abba b. Samuel22 asked R. Hiyya b. Abba: According to R. Meir, can as much as an olive of the nebelah of a clean bird defile?23 When it is lying on the ground, there is no question.24 When one has it in his mouth, there is no question.25 The question arises when one is holding it in his hand.26 [Do we say:] Since it was not yet taken [to his mouth], it is as though it lacked an action,27 or not? [After he asked, he solved it]:28 within do not defile their garments only because if the carcass is carried back within, even the garments of the men without remain clean. of one who is without (he cannot come in otherwise), and only then does he defile his garments. (if they are not the same as those who carried it out the first time) unclean, or not? fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is clean. But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall thereon, it is unclean unto you. Thus ‘seed’ is a foodstuff which requires a ‘qualification’ to become unclean, viz., water must first fall upon it, and it must be touched by a sherez (q.v. Glos.). When it is unclean, it can in turn defile only eatables and liquids, but not human beings or utensils or garments; thus its defilement is said to be light, not stringent. The School of R. Ishmael deduces that only such require a ‘qualification’ before they defile; but those which will defile human beings etc. do not require any qualification. The carcass (nebelah, q.v. Glos.) of a clean bird (i.e., one permitted for food) defiles the garments of the person who eats it; therefore it does not require a ‘qualification’. Now, the red heifer, the goat that is sent away, and the bullocks which are burnt, will eventually defile garments; hence they do not need any qualification. and so defile even while they are alive. qualification from a foreign source, i.e., it must first touch a sherez or nebelah, whereas that which will eventually defile in this manner e.g. the red heifer, need not first touch a sherez or nebelah, but defiles foodstuffs and liquids automatically. Nevertheless, it must be such as is capable of defiling in general, and we find no instance of a living creature defiling. that is only defile it must conform to the general laws which govern it, and as much as an olive of this nebelah can defile only when it is in a man's throat. R. Meir, however, holds that whatever can eventually defile with a stringent defilement need not be fit for defilement. Hence on his view the question arises, his mouth.