Bekhorot 45

Chapter 45

א לר' אליעזר מה תהא עליהן יאכלו נקודין או קליות או ילושו במי פירות או תתחלק לעיסות ובלבד שלא יהא כביצה במקום אחד ואמר עולא מה טעם גזירה שמא יביא קב חולין טמאים ממקום אחר וקב ועוד ממין זה סבר איבטלינהו ברובא וכיון דאיכא האי משהו מצא מין את מינו וניעור

1 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?<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 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].<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

ב א"ל אם טומאה עוררת טומאה טהרה עוררת טומאה:

2 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.<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

ג איתיביה אפר כשר שנתערב באפר מקלה הולכין אחר הרוב לטמא ואי רובא אפר מקלה הוא לא מטמא ואי אמרת טומאה כמאן דאיתיה דמי נהי דבמגע לא מטמא לטמא במשא

3 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

ד הא איתמר עלה אמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא טהור מלטמא במגע אבל מטמא במשא

4 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

ה והאמר רב חסדא נבילה בטילה בשחוטה שאי אפשר לנבילה שתיעשה שחוטה נהי דבמגע לא מטמא לטמא במשא

5 is neutralized by ritually cut meat,11 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 to become nebelah?

ו א"ל אתון בדרב חסדא מתניתו לה אנן בדר' חייא מתנינן לה תני ר' חייא נבילה ושחוטה בטילות זו בזו ואיתמר עלה אמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא טהור מלטמא במגע אבל מטמא במשא

6 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 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 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.

ז והא דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר בהמה גסה ששפעה חררת דם הרי זו תקבר ונפטרה מן הבכורה ותני רבי חייא אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא אמאי דנהי במגע לא מטמא תטמא במשא אישתיק

7 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

ח דלמא ודאי שאני הכא דהויא לה טומאה סרוחה הניחא לבר פדא דאמר טומאה חמורה עד לגר וטומאה קלה עד לכלב הא לא חזיא לגר אלא לר' יוחנן דאמר

8 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 Johanan who said:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter