Parallel
זבחים 69:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. JUDAH SAID: IT DOES DEFILE IN THE GULLET. SAID R. MEIR: IT IS A KAL WA-HOMER: IF THE SHECHITAH OF AN ANIMAL CLEANSES IT, EVEN WHEN TEREFAH, FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, YET WHEN IT IS NEBELAH IT DEFILES THROUGH CONTACT OR CARRIAGE; IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT SHECHITAH CLEANSES A BIRD, WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, SEEING THAT WHEN IT IS NEBELAH IT DOES NOT DEFILE THROUGH CONTACT OR CARRIAGE? NOW, AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT SHECHITAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD OF HULLIN] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS; SO MELIKAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD SACRIFICE] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS. R. JOSE SAID: IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR IT TO BE LIKE THE NEBELAH OF A CLEAN [PERMITTED] ANIMAL, WHICH IS CLEANSED BY SHECHITAH, BUT NOT BY MELIKAH. GEMARA. Now, does not R. Meir accept the principle of dayyo [it is sufficient]; Surely the principle of dayyo is biblical? For it was taught: How is a kal wa-homer applied? And the Lord said unto Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days? How much more should a divine reproof necessitate [shame for] fourteen days; but it is sufficient for that which is inferred by an argument to be like the premise! — Said R. Jose son of R. Abin: R. Meir found a text and interpreted it: This is the low of the beast and of the bird. Now, in which law is a beast similar to a bird and a bird to a beast? A beast defiles through contact and carriage, whereas a bird does not defile through contact or carriage; a bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet, whereas a beast does not defile garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet. But it is to tell you: as in the case of a beast, that which makes it fit for eating makes it clean when terefah from its defilement; so in the case of a bird, that which makes it fit for eating makes it clean when terefah from its defilement. Then what is R. Judah's reason? — Said Rabbah, R. Judah found a text, and interpreted it: [And every soul which eateth] nebelah or terefah [ . . , he shall wash his clothes etc.]. Said R. Judah: Why is ‘terefah’ stated? If ‘terefah’ can live, then surely ‘nebelah’ is already stated; while if ‘terefah’ cannot live, it is included in nebelah? Hence it is to include a terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that it defiles. If so, said R. Shisbi to him, when it is written, And the fat [heleb] of nebelah, and the fat of terefah [may be used for any other service, but ye shall in no wise eat it]: there too let us argue: Why is terefah stated? If terefah can live, then surely nebelah is already stated; and if terefah cannot live, it is included in nebelah? Hence it is to include a terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that its heleb is clean? Hence it follows that it defiles? But surely Rab Judah said in Rab's name, whilst others say that it was taught in a Baraitha: And if there die of a beast: some beasts defile, and some beasts do not. And which is it [that is excluded]? A terefah which was slaughtered! — Rather, [this is R. Shizbi's difficulty]: This terefah is necessary in order to exclude an unclean animal, [for it intimates:] only that in whose species there is terefah: hence this [an unclean animal] is excluded, since there is no terefah in its species. Then here too [say that] [the inclusion of terefah] excludes an unclean [forbidden] bird, since there is no terefah in its species? [The exclusion of] an unclean bird is, in R. Judah's opinion, derived from nebelah. For it was taught. R. Judah said: You might think that the nebelah of an unclean bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet. Therefore it states, Nebelah or terefah he shall not eat [to defile himself therewith]: only that [defiles] whose interdict is on account of ‘do not eat nebelah’; hence this [an unclean bird] is excluded, since its interdict is not on account of ‘do not eat nebelah’, but on account of ‘do not eat unclean’. 21
—