## Zevachim Daf 105b

###### Zevachim 105b:1
[Zevachim 105b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:1)

מְחוּסָּר קְרִיבָה לָאו כִּמְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 105b:2
[Zevachim 105b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:2)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 105b:3
[Zevachim 105b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:3)

לָא, רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** the mishna **is** the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Zevachim 105b:4
[Zevachim 105b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:4)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵין צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר; וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי מֵאִיר; וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 105b:5
[Zevachim 105b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:5)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 105b:6
[Zevachim 105b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:6)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: שְׁחִיטָתָהּ וּמְלִיקָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי מֵאִיר; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Zevachim 105b:7
[Zevachim 105b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:7)

אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 105b:8
[Zevachim 105b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:8)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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?


###### Zevachim 105b:9
[Zevachim 105b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּמְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּמַגָּע – מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּמַגָּע – אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 105b:10
[Zevachim 105b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:10)

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;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 105b:11
[Zevachim 105b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:11)

מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Zevachim 105b:12
[Zevachim 105b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּמְטַמֵּא אָדָם – מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אֵין מְטַמֵּא אָדָם – אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 105b:13
[Zevachim 105b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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).


###### Zevachim 105b:14
[Zevachim 105b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:14)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Zevachim 105b:15
[Zevachim 105b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:15)

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר בְּפַר הָעֵדָה: ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן״; לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 105b:16
[Zevachim 105b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:16)

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ בַּדֶּשֶׁן – שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״עַל שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן יִשָּׂרֵף״; לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁלִישִׁית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 105b:17
[Zevachim 105b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/105b:17)

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,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,