Parallel
זבחים 69
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— Yet even on your view, what does [the clause] IF THEIR UNFITNESS DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY include? Rather, the first clause includes shechitah of [bird] sacrifices within, while the second clause includes melikah of hullin without. It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan: If a zar nipped it; or if an unfit person nipped it; or [if it was] piggul, nothar or [an] unclean [sacrifice]. it does not defile in the gullet. R. Isaac said: I have heard two [laws], one relating to kemizah by a zar and the other to melikah by a zar: one descends and the other does not descend, but I do not know which is which. Said Hezekiah: It is logical that [in the case of] kemizah it goes down, while [in the case of] melikah it does not go down. Why is melikah different? [presumably] because it was done at the high places? [but] kemizah too was done at the high places? And should you say, There were no meal-offerings at the high places; then there were no bird[-offerings] at the high places [either]. For R. Shesheth said: On the view that there were meal-offerings at the high places, there were bird[-offerings] at the high places; on the view that there were no meal-offerings, there were no bird [-offerings]. What is the reason? [And sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord]: offerings [implies,] but not birds; offerings [implies,] but not meal-offerings! — Say rather: There was no sanctification of a meal-offering in service vessels at the high places. IF HE NIPPED [THEM] WITH HIS LEFT [HAND] OR AT NIGHT etc. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that melikah, which is [done] within, defiles garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet; therefore it states, [And every soul that eateth] nebelah [that which dieth of itself] [ . . . he shall wash his clothes etc]. [But] this too is nebelah? — Rather, it states ‘terefah’ [that which is torn of beasts]: as terefah does not permit the forbidden, so everything which does not permit the forbidden [is included]: thus melikah, which is [performed] within, is excluded: since it permits the forbidden. it does not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. Hence it includes melikah (Mnemonic: Kez Hefez) of sacrifices without, and melikah of hullin both within and without: since they do not permit the forbidden, they defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices both within and without defile in the gullet: therefore nebelah is stated. But this too is ‘nebelah’? — Rather, therefore it states ‘terefah’: as terefah is the same within and without, so all which are the same within and without [are included in this law]: thus the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices within and without is excluded: since these are not the same within as without, they do not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. As for hullin, it is well: that is not the same within as without; but sacrifices are unfit in both cases? — Said Raba: If shechitah without is effective in that it involves kareth, shall it not be effective in cleansing it from [the defilement of] nebelah? We have thus found [it of shechitah] without; how do we know [it of shechitah] within? — Because it is not the same within as without. If so, when one performs melikah on sacrifices without, they too [should] not [defile], since within is not the same as without? — Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: You infer that which does not make it fit from that which does not make it fit. but you do not infer that which does not make it fit from that which does make it fit. Do you not? Surely it was taught: How do we know that [if flesh] which went out ascended [the altar] it does not descend? Because [flesh] that goes out is fit at the high places? — The Tanna relies on the extension intimated in, ‘This is the law of the burnt-offering’ MISHNAH. IF ONE PERFORMED MELIKAH, AND IT [THE BIRD] WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH. R. MEIR SAID: IT DOES NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET;
—
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
—