Parallel
זבחים 70:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Let this too be derived from, ‘And the fat of nebelah’, [which intimates:] that whose interdict is on account of ‘do not eat the heleb of nebelah;’ hence this [the heleb of a forbidden animal] is excluded, since its interdict is not on account of ‘do not eat the heleb of nebelah’, but on account of uncleanness? — Rather, this terefah is required in order to include hayyah. I might argue: Only that whose heleb is forbidden whilst its flesh is permitted [is included in this law]; hence a hayyah is excluded, since its heleb and its flesh are permitted. Therefore [the word terefah] informs us [that it is not so]. Wherein does an unclean [forbidden] animal differ? [presumably] because its heleb is not distinct from its flesh? but then the heleb of a hayyah is not distinct from its flesh? Moreover, surely it is written, but ye shall in no wise eat it? — Rather, said Abaye. Terefah is needed for its own purpose. lest you argue: Since an unclean [animal] is forbidden whilst yet alive, and a terefah is forbidden whilst yet alive: as the heleb of an unclean [animal] is unclean [defiles], so is the heleb of a terefah unclean. If so, this too is required, lest you say: Since an unclean bird may not be eaten, and a terefah may not be eaten; as an unclean bird does not defile [garments, when the flesh is in the gullet], so a terefah too does not defile? Moreover, can terefah really be derived from an unclean animal: an unclean animal enjoyed no period of fitness, whereas a terefah enjoyed a period of fitness? And should you answer, what can be said of a terefah from birth; yet of its kind this can be said. — Rather said Raba: The Torah ordained, Let the interdict of nebelah come and fall upon the interdict of heleb; let the interdict of terefah come and fall upon the interdict of heleb. And both are necessary. For if we were informed [this about] nebelah, [I would argue that the reason is] because it defiles; but as for terefah, I would say that it does not [fall upon the interdict of heleb]. And if we were informed [this about] terefah. [I would say that the reason is] because its interdict dates from when it was alive; but as for nebelah, l would say that it is not so. Hence [they are both] necessary. Now how does R. Meir employ this [word] terefah? — He needs it to exclude shechitah which is within. And R. Judah? — Another ‘terefah’ is written. And R. Meir? — One excludes shechitah which is within, and the other excludes an unclean forbidden bird. And R. Judah? — That is derived from nebelah. And R. Meir: how does he employ this ‘nebelah’? — [To show that] the standard of eating [is required], viz., as much as an olive. Yet let this be derived from the first text, since the Divine Law expressed it in terms of eating? — One [text] is employed to shew that the standard of eating [is required for defilement], viz., as much as an olive; while the other intimates that this standard of eating must be within the time of eating half [a loaf]. I might argue, since this is anomalous, let it defile even when it takes more than the time required for eating half [a loaf], Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise]. Our Rabbis taught: And the heleb of nebelah, and the heleb of terefah. [may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it]: Scripture speaks of the heleb of a clean [permitted] animal. You say, Scripture speaks of the heleb of a clean animal; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather of the heleb of an unclean animal? You can answer: [Scripture] declared [an animal] clean on account of its being slaughtered, and declared it clean on account of heleb: as when it declared it clean on account of being slaughtered, it referred to a clean [permitted], but not an unclean [forbidden] animal; so when it declared it clean on account of heleb, it referred to a clean, but not an unclean animal. Or argue in this wise: [Scripture] cleansed from nebelah, and it cleansed from heleb: as when it cleansed from nebelah, it was in the case of unclean, and not in the case of clean; so when it cleansed from heleb, [it did so] in the case of unclean, not in the case of clean? Thus you must say,
—