Zevachim 210:1

מחוסר קריבה לאו כמחוסר מעשה דמי

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 intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it can defile foodstuffs, one must intend to eat it, (though such eating is not permissible) .');">¹</span>

איתיביה שלשה עשר דברים נאמרו בנבלת עוף טהור וזה אחד מהן צריכה מחשבה ואין צריכה הכשר ומטמא טומאת אוכלין בכביצה מאי לאו ר"מ היא

and it does not need a qualification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For defiling; v. supra a.');">²</span> and as much as an egg thereof defiles foodstuffs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, if it is on the ground, it certainly does need qualification, since one may never eat it. On the other hand, if it is 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.');">³</span>

לא רבנן היא

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 qualification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For defiling; v. supra a.');">²</span>

והא קתני רישא צריכה מחשבה ואין צריכה הכשר ומאן שמעת ליה האי סברא ר"מ ומדרישא ר"מ סיפא נמי ר"מ

and whom do you know to hold thus? R'Meir.

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may agree with the Rabbis, and the other with R. Meir.');">⁴</span>

והא מדקתני סיפא שחיטתה ומליקתה מטהרת טריפתה מטומאתה מאן שמעת ליה האי סברא ר"מ רישא וסיפא רבי מאיר ומציעתא רבנן

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.

אין רישא וסיפא רבי מאיר ומציעתא רבנן

or melikah relieves it, when terefah, from its uncleanness:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it is ritually killed with shechitah or melikah, but found to be terefah, it does not defile.');">⁵</span> now, whom do you know to hold this view?

אמר ליה רב המנונא לרבי זירא לא תיתיב אכרעך עד דאמרת לי הא מילתא נבלת עוף טהור לר"מ מונין לה ראשון ושני או אין מונין ראשון ושני

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., do not sit down at all.');">⁶</span>

א"ל כל היכא דמטמא אדם במגע מונין בו ראשון ושני כל היכא דאין מטמא אדם במגע אין מונין בו ראשון ושני

on R'Meir's view do we distinguish first and second [degrees of uncleanness]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. Sonc. ed. p. 62, n. 2.');">⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we do not count it here.');">⁸</span>

בעא מיניה רבי זירא מרבי אמי בר חייא ואמרי לה מר' אבין בר כהנא הא דתנן חיבורי אוכלין ע"י משקין חיבור לטומאה קלה ואין חיבור לטומאה חמורה

R'Zera asked R'Ammi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. reads: Abin.');">⁹</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: 'If two pieces of nebelah, each half an olive in size, are lying apart, but are joined by a liquid, this liquid 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.');">¹⁰</span>

מונין בו ראשון ושני או אין מונין בו ראשון ושני

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.

א"ל כל היכא דמטמא אדם מונין בו ראשון ושני אין מטמא אדם אין מונין בו ראשון ושני:

How do we know it? - Because our Rabbis taught: Elsewhere without three camps is said, whereas here without one camp [is prescribed]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Elsewhere' means in the case of the bullock brought by the anointed priest or that brought when the whole 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.');">¹¹</span> It is to teach you: immediately it has gone forth from the first camp, it defiles garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of those who are to burn it. But it is not burnt until it has left the three camps.');">¹²</span>

יצאו אלו ואלו: מה"מ דת"ר להלן הוא אומר חוץ לג' מחנות כאן למחנה אחת לומר לך כיון שיצא חוץ למחנה אחת מטמא בגדים

And how do we know it in the case of that itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that 'elsewhere' three camps are meant.');">¹³</span> - Because our Rabbis taught.

והיא גופה מנלן דת"ר (ויקרא ד, יב) והוציא את כל הפר אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ לג' מחנות אתה אומר חוץ לג' מחנות או אינו אלא מחנה אחת

Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 12.');">¹⁴</span> [that means,] without the three camps.

כשהוא אומר בפר העדה (ויקרא ד, יב) מחוץ למחנה שאין צריך לומר שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ד, כא) כאשר שרף את הפר הראשון ליתן לו מחנה שניה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21.');">¹⁵</span> which is superfluous, since it states, as he burned the first bullock,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. That itself implies without the camp.');">¹⁶</span>

כשהוא אומר מחוץ למחנה בדשן שאצ"ל שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ד, יב) על שפך הדשן ישרף ליתן לו מחנה שלישית

that prescribes a second camp. When further 'without the camp' is stated in connection with the ashes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 4: and he shall carry forth the ashes without the camp.');">¹⁷</span>

ור"ש האי מחוץ למחנה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר כאן חוץ למחנה ונאמר להלן (במדבר יט, ג) חוץ למחנה מה להלן חוץ לג' מחנות אף כאן חוץ לג' מחנות ומה להלן למזרחה של ירושלים

which is superfluous. since it is already stated, where the ashes are poured out it shall be burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 12. This refers to the anointed priest's bullock, which as we already know was burnt without; hence it follows that the place of the ashes was without.');">¹⁸</span> it prescribes a third camp.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each superfluous 'without the camp' intimates an additional camp whence it must be carried out.');">¹⁹</span> Now, how does R'Simeon employ this 'without the camp'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he maintains that the garments are not defiled until the fire has caught hold of the greater part of the carcass.');">²⁰</span> - He requires it for what was taught: R'Eliezer said: 'Without the camp' is stated here, and 'without the camp' is stated elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the red heifer, Num. XIX, 3.');">²¹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4: And Eleazar . . shall sprinkle of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting. The tent of meeting 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.');">²²</span>