Zevachim

The fact that it was not yet taken [to his mouth] is not as though it lacked an action. He refuted him: Thirteen laws were stated on the nebelah of a clean bird, and this is one of them: It needs intention1 and it does not need a qualification2 and as much as an egg thereof defiles foodstuffs.3 Surely this is in accordance with R. Meir? — No: it agrees with the Rabbis. But the first clause teaches, ‘it needs intention and it does not need a qualification2 and whom do you know to hold thus? R. Meir. And since the first clause agrees with R. Meir, the second clause agrees with R. Meir? — Why say thus? each is governed by its own conditions.4 But the final clause teaches, Shechitah when they go out: hence the question whether they defile foodstuffs whilst they are still within, just as when they are without. or melikah relieves it, when terefah, from its uncleanness:5 now, whom do you know to hold this view? R. Meir, Then the first and the last clauses agree with R. Meir, while the middle clause agrees with the Rabbis? — Yes: the first and the last clauses agree with R. Meir, while the middle clause agrees with the Rabbis. R. Hamnuna said to R. Zera: Do not sit down on your haunches until you have told me this law:6 on R. Meir's view do we distinguish first and second [degrees of uncleanness]7 in the nebelah of a clean bird, or do we not distinguish first and second [degrees]? — Said he to him: Where a thing defiles a human being by touch, we distinguish first and second [degrees] in it; where it does not defile a human being by touch, we do not distinguish first and second [degrees] in it.8 R. Zera asked R. Ammi9 b. Hiyya — others say, R. Abin b. Kahana: As to what was taught, When foodstuffs are joined by means of a liquid, they are united in respect of a light uncleanness, but are not united in respect of stringent defilement:10 do we distinguish first and second [degrees] in their case, or do we not distinguish first and second [degrees] in their case? — Said he to him: Where a thing defiles a human being, we distinguish first and second [degrees] in it; where it does not defile a human being, we do not distinguish first and second [degrees] in it. WHEN BOTH GO OUT. How do we know it? — Because our Rabbis taught: Elsewhere without three camps is said, whereas here without one camp [is prescribed]?11 It is to teach you: immediately it has gone forth from the first camp, it defiles garments.12 And how do we know it in the case of that itself?13 — Because our Rabbis taught . . . Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp:14 [that means,] without the three camps. You say, without the three camps; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather, without one camp? — When it says in connection with the congregational bullock, without the camp,15 which is superfluous, since it states, as he burned the first bullock,16 that prescribes a second camp. When further ‘without the camp’ is stated in connection with the ashes,17 which is superfluous. since it is already stated, where the ashes are poured out it shall be burnt, 18 it prescribes a third camp.19 Now, how does R. Simeon employ this ‘without the camp’?20 — He requires it for what was taught: R. Eliezer said: ‘Without the camp’ is stated here, and ‘without the camp’ is stated elsewhere:21 as here it means without the three camps, so there it means without the three camps; and as there it means on the east of Jerusalem,22 in one's mouth, it does not need intention. Hence it must mean that he is holding it in his hand, and yet only as much as an egg defiles, but not as much as an olive. unites them to enable them to defile any foodstuff which touches one of them, but does not unite them to deflle a human being in the same way. I do not know the reason for this differentiation.’ — As much as an olive of the nebelah of a clean animal (but not of a bird) defiles a man by contact. congregation sins in ignorance; these were burnt without the camp (v. Lev. IV, 12, 21), and it is deduced anon that Scripture means without the three camps. Whereas ‘here’ in reference to the Day of Atonement it is said: And the bullock of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering . . . shall be carried forth without the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins etc. (Lev. XVI, 27). This implies that they are burnt immediately they leave the first camp. In fact, however, they are all alike, for Lev. XII, 21 is applied to the bullock of the Day of Atonement (v. supra 39a); hence the text is assumed to convey a different teaching, as the Gemara explains. — On the ‘three camps’, v. p. 276. n. 6. follows that the place of the ashes was without. faced east, hence Eleazar would stand still further east and face west. Similarly in the days of the Temple the heifer would be burnt without Jerusalem on the east.