Bekhorot 45

לר' אליעזר מה תהא עליהן יאכלו נקודין או קליות או ילושו במי פירות או תתחלק לעיסות ובלבד שלא יהא כביצה במקום אחד

according to R'Eliezer, what shall become of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to the Sages, he is permitted to eat both the hullin and the terumah in the conditions stated above.');">¹</span>

ואמר עולא

- 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.

מה טעם

And 'Ulla further explained: What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">²</span>

גזירה שמא יביא קב חולין טמאים ממקום אחר וקב ועוד ממין זה סבר

It is a precautionary measure in case he brings a kab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small measure.');">³</span>

איבטלינהו ברובא

of unclean hullin from another source and a kab and a little over from this kind.

וכיון דאיכא האי משהו מצא מין את מינו וניעור

He thinks that he neutralizes it by the larger portion, but since there is this minute quantity [of unclean terumah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span>

א"ל

like combines with like and the uncleanness is stirred up!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And combine together and thus receive uncleanness. This proves that levitical uncleanness though once neutralized can be aroused again.');">⁵</span>

אם טומאה עוררת טומאה טהרה עוררת טומאה:

- He said to him: If levitical uncleanness arouses uncleanness, shall therefore levitical cleanness stir up uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶</span>

איתיביה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if the larger portion of ashes belong to the red heifer, they make unclean by contact. v. Parah IX. 7.');">⁷</span>

אפר כשר שנתערב באפר מקלה הולכין אחר הרוב לטמא

But if the greater part is wood-ashes, they do not make unclean.

ואי רובא אפר מקלה הוא לא מטמא

Now, if you say that levitical uncleanness [which was neutralized] is considered as still existing, granted that it does not make uncleanness by contact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁸</span>

ואי אמרת טומאה כמאן דאיתיה דמי נהי דבמגע לא מטמא לטמא במשא

still let it make the carrier unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he carried all the ashes, then he is bound to have carried the ashes of the red heifer, which make unclean.');">⁹</span>

הא איתמר עלה אמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא

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.

טהור מלטמא במגע אבל מטמא במשא

But did not R'Hisda say: Nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ritually forbidden food, the animal not having been killed according to Jewish law.');">¹⁰</span>

והאמר רב חסדא

is neutralized by ritually cut meat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where two or more pieces of ritually killed meat are mixed with one piece of nebelah.');">¹¹</span>

נבילה בטילה בשחוטה שאי אפשר לנבילה שתיעשה שחוטה

for it is impossible for ritually cut meat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span>

נהי דבמגע לא מטמא לטמא במשא

to become nebelah?

א"ל

Now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a forbidden thing, even after being neutralized, is still in existence and can be stirred up again.');">¹³</span>

אתון בדרב חסדא מתניתו לה אנן בדר' חייא מתנינן לה

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.]');">¹⁴</span>

תני ר' חייא

in connection with what R'Hisda said, we report it in connection with R'Hiyya.

נבילה ושחוטה בטילות זו בזו

[For] R'Hiyya taught: Nebelah and ritually cut meat neutralize one another [when mixed together].

ואיתמר עלה אמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא

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.

טהור מלטמא במגע אבל מטמא במשא

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.

והא דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר

And R'Hiyya taught [in a Baraitha]: It does not make unclean, neither by contact nor by carrying?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we have explained above that the reason is because the larger portion of the blood etc. neutralizes the embryo.');">¹⁵</span>

בהמה גסה ששפעה חררת דם הרי זו תקבר ונפטרה מן הבכורה

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.

ותני רבי חייא

[Nevertheless.

אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא אמאי

there is no difficulty]; perhaps it is different here because it is an uncleanness which is putrid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the answer suggested by the Talmud.');">¹⁶</span>

דנהי במגע לא מטמא תטמא במשא

This would indeed hold good according to Bar Pada who said: A major uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the uncleanness of carrying.');">¹⁷</span>

אישתיק

attaches to it as long as it is fit to be eaten by a stranger,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After which it does not cause uncleanness.');">¹⁸</span>

דלמא ודאי שאני הכא דהויא לה טומאה סרוחה

whereas a minor uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the uncleanness of coming in contact.');">¹⁹</span>

הניחא לבר פדא דאמר

until as long as it is fit for a dog; and in the case here it is surely not fit for a stranger.

טומאה חמורה עד לגר וטומאה קלה עד לכלב הא לא חזיא לגר

But according to Johanan who said:

אלא לר' יוחנן דאמר