משנה: בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בֵּין בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בְּין בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים הַכֹּל יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִּפְנִים׃ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ. שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מְקוֹם טוּמְאָתוֹ שָׁם שְׂרֵיפָתוֹ׃ MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices47Elevation, purification, and reparation sacrifices, whose flesh never should leave the sacred precinct. which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity48Derivative impurity is rabbinic impurity; according to biblical standards the flesh could be eaten., whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity49Since most holy sacrifices may not leave the sacred precinct, flesh disqualified for the altar must be burned in the courtyard. Only if the flesh was taken outside and became biblically impure can it not be returned and must be disposed of by being burnt outside.. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity50They hold that flesh impure by biblical standards has to be removed as quickly as possible from the sacred precinct; then it can be burned outside in leisurely fashion. Flesh inside which is considered impure only by common usage, not biblical decree, may be burned in the courtyard. No flesh impure in any way may be introduced into the sacred precinct..
Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside51In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent.. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning52This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Leviticus.6.23">Lev. 6:23, as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported..
הלכה: בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. ווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְקַשְׁיָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִין הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ. מַה בֵין [אַב] הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ מַה בֵין ווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא דְבַר תוֹרָה הוּא. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל לֹא מֲקְשִׁייָא. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אָֽמְרִין הַכֹּל יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בִּווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים: מַה בֵין ווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים מַה בֵין אַב הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים׃ זֶה וָזֶה לֹא דְבַר תוֹרָה הוּא. לָא הֲוֵי בָהּ רַבָּנִן אֶלָּא עַל דְּבַר קַפָּרָא. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּבַר קַפָּרָא עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אָֽמְרִין. הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים חוּץ מִנִּיטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַחוּץ. מַה בֵין אַב הַטּוּמְאָה בֵין בַּחוּץ בֵּין בִּפְנִים. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא דְבַר תוֹרָה הוּא. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. מְקוֹם טוּמְאָתוֹ שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרֵיפָתוֹ: וַאֲפִילוּ עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל לֵית הִיא מֲקְשִׁייָא. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אָֽמְרִין. הַכֹּל יִשָּרֵף בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בִפְנִים: מַה בֵין ווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הוּא. בְּגִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. מַאֲכָלוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין חוּץ (בִשְׁלֹשׁ) [לִֹשְלֹשׁ] מַחֲנוֹת. HALAKHAH: 53The same statement is found in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah54In Leviticus.7.19">Lev. 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity.. 55Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original]56Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion57Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition.. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.58The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Leviticus.6.23">Lev. 6:23; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps59This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50. It is inferred from Numbers.5.2-4">Num. 5:2–4 (Sifry Num. 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded..