זבחים 70 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Let 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,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵃnote:Only that heleb does not defile.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the whole animal is forbidden.
^ᶜnote:In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.
^ᵈnote:A non-domestic animal, e.g., a deer, which may be eaten. The heleb of a hayyah is permitted; that of a behemah (a domestic animal, e.g., a sheep) is forbidden. The discussion hitherto has been about the heleb of a behemah.
^ᵉnote:Therefore if a hayyah becomes nebelah, I would think that its heleb defiles, just as its flesh.
^ᶠnote:For it teaches that the heleb of whatever is liable to become terefah, which includes hayyah, does not defile when nebelah.
^ᵍnote:‘Said he to him’ is deleted (Sh. M.).
^ʰnote:That you do not learn from this text that its heleb is clean and does not defile.
^ⁱnote:Both are forbidden, and therefore you do not apply this text to it, since that implies that there is a distinction between them.
^ʲnote:Both being permitted. Hence you should not apply it to hayyah either.
^ᵏnote:Lev. VII, 24. From this we infer anon that the heleb of a hayyah which is nebelah does defile. Hence the text cannot apply to it.
^ˡnote:In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.
^ᵐnote:To shew that the heleb of a terefah which died is clean.
^ⁿnote:In the sense that shechitah cannot permit it.
^ᵒnote:Hence the text teaches otherwise.
^ᵖnote:Terefah in the text quoted by R. Judah.
^ᵠnote:That you need a text to shew that it does not defile.
^ʳnote:Never at any time might it be eaten.
^ˢnote:Before it became terefah.
^ᵗnote:Though that particular terefah was never fit, terefah in general was fit at one time.
^ᵘnote:The text teaches that when one eats heleb of nebelah or terefah, he is liable not only on account of heleb but also on account of nebelah or terefah. For otherwise one might argue: since the interdict of heleb comes first, the other interdicts cannot apply to it at all.
^ᵛnote:Which heleb does not. Hence it is logical that the interdict of nebelah, being greater in that respect, falls upon that of heleb.
^ʷnote:In the verse quoted by R. Judah.
^ˣnote:As stated supra 69a.
^ʸnote:How does he know that?
^ᶻnote:Terefah is written in Lev. XVII, 15 and XXII, 8. Hence one is used for each.
^ᵃᵃnote:How does he utilise this second ‘terefah’?
^ᵃᵇnote:Whence does he derive the latter?
^ᵃᶜnote:As supra 69b bottom.
^ᵃᵈnote:One is not liable for eating nebelah unless he eats at least as much as an olive (this is the general standard for all forbidden food). The text intimates that this too is the smallest quantity which defiles.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. XVII, 15.
^ᵃᶠnote:One is not liable for eating unless he eats as much as an olive within the normal time for eating half a loaf, which is half a meal (Rashi: half a loaf is the size of four average eggs; Maim.: three average eggs). The text teaches that when a man eats the flesh of nebelah (of a bird), he does not defile his garments unless he eats as much as an olive within that time.
^ᵃᵍnote:There is no other case in Scripture where an article does not defile through contact, but only when it enters the gullet.
^ᵃʰnote:Being unique in one respect, it might be unique in another.
^ᵃⁱnote:Teaching that its heleb does not defile as nebelah.
^ᵃʲnote:Scripture decreed that when an animal is slaughtered (with shechitah) it does not defile; and that the heleb of nebelah does not defile.
^ᵃᵏnote:Even if an unclean animal is ritually slaughtered, it defiles.
^ᵃˡnote:There is a case where nebelah does not defile.
^ᵃᵐnote:Heleb does not defile, as stated.
^ᵃⁿnote:An unclean (forbidden) bird does not defile (as nebelah) when it is in the gullet, whereas a clean bird does.

²when you argue in the one way [the text] applies to clean, whilst when you argue in the other way it applies to unclean. Therefore it says, ‘terefah’. [which intimates,] the kind where there is terefah: then I might exclude the unclean, since there is no terefah in its kind, but I will not exclude hayyah, since there is terefah in its kind. Scripture, however, teaches: ‘But ye shall in no wise eat of it’, [intimating that it refers to] that whose heleb is forbidden whereas its flesh is permitted; thus hayyah is excluded, since its heleb and its flesh are permitted. R. Jacob b. Abba said to Raba: If so, is it only the nebelah of a clean animal that defiles, whereas the nebelah of an unclean animal does not defile? — Said he to him: How many elders [scholars] of you have erred therein! the second clause applies to the nebelah of an unclean bird. R. Johanan said: Only unblemished [birds] did R. Meir declare clean, but not blemished ones. While R. Eleazar maintained: [He ruled thus] even in the case of blemished ones. It was stated likewise: R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name: R. Meir declared blemished [birds] clean, even ducks and fowls. R. Jeremiah asked: What if one beheaded a goat? What is the reason in the case of ducks and fowls? [Is it] because they are species of birds; but a goat is not of the same species as a heifer. Or perhaps, it is of the species of cattle? R. Dimi sat and recited this discussion. Said Abaye to him: Hence it follows that the beheaded heifer is clean? — Yes, he replied: the School of R. Jannai said: ‘Forgiveness’ is written in connection therewith, as in the case of sacrifices. R. Nathan the father of R. Huna objected: ‘But ye shall in no wise eat of it’: I know [this law only of] heleb which may not be eaten but may be [otherwise] used. How do we know [it of] the heleb of the ox that is stoned and the beheaded heifer? — Because it says, All heleb [ . . . ye shall not eat]. But if you think that the beheaded heifer is clean, could it be clean while its heleb is unclean? Where one did indeed behead it, no text is required; it is required only where one slaughtered it. Then let shechitah be efficacious in cleansing it from nebelah? — The text is necessary only where it died. Hence it follows that it was forbidden whilst yet alive? — Yes. R. Jannai observed: I have heard a time limit for it, but have forgotten it; while our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley, that renders it forbidden. MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME MIXED UP WITH SIN-OFFERINGS THAT MUST BE LEFT TO DIE, OR WITH AN OX THAT IS TO BE STONED, EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, ALL MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH AN OX WITH WHICH TRANSGRESSION HAD BEEN COMMITTED, E.G. ,^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ

^ᵃᵒnote:There is no particular interdict of terefah since it is forbidden in any case.
^ᵃᵖnote:If you argue, ‘as when it cleansed from nebelah it was in the case of unclean and not in the case of clean’, which implies that the nebelah of a forbidden animal is clean.
^ᵃᵠnote:I am astonished that you (and presumably, your colleagues in the Academy — perhaps R. Jacob spoke on their behalf) — should so err.
^ᵃʳnote:That to which he referred.
^ᵃˢnote:After melikah, if they are terefah. The reason is because melikah is applicable to them.
^ᵃᵗnote:Which are not eligible sacrifices at all. For terefah too is not fit and yet R. Meir declares it clean.
^ᵃᵘnote:V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. Beheading’ instead of shechitah normally renders an animal nebelah, so that it defiles, but since it was prescribed for the heifer, it presumably does not defile. What, however, if he beheaded a goat instead of a heifer, and for the same purpose: is the goat nebelah or not?
^ᵃᵛnote:Hence it will defile. — A heifer is counted amongst the large cattle, while a goat belongs to the small; therefore they are regarded as different species.
^ᵃʷnote:Behemah; v. p. 342, n. 9.
^ᵃˣnote:V. Deut. XXI, I ff.
^ᵃʸnote:Ibid. 8.
^ᵃᶻnote:Hence it is treated as such, and does not defile.
^ᵇᵃnote:As Scripture states, may be used for any other service. Only such heleb does not defile.
^ᵇᵇnote:V. Ex. XXI, 28f. All benefit of the ox was forbidden.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lev. VII, 23. This ref. adopts Sh. M.’s emendation of Rashi, and is the preceding verse. The marginal ref. is Lev. III, 17, which seems out of place. — ‘All’ is an extension and includes the heleb of these.
^ᵇᵈnote:Obviously not, and no verse would be necessary to teach it.
^ᵇᵉnote:After becoming forbidden whilst alive through being set aside for this purpose, it was slaughtered (with shechitah) instead of beheaded. Then a text is required to shew that its heleb does not defile.
^ᵇᶠnote:Though shechitah will not permit it, at least it should free it from defilement, since we find no instance of a slaughtered and clean (permitted) animal defiling.
^ᵇᵍnote:This retracts the preceding answer. It had died of itself before it was beheaded. Here its flesh does defile as nebelah, and the text teaches that its heleb does not defile.
^ᵇʰnote:Since the question is asked in respect of a heifer which died, it follows that even before it was beheaded, whilst yet alive, all benefit thereof was forbidden, and that is why the question is asked concerning the heleb.
^ᵇⁱnote:When it becomes forbidden.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., which for some reason can neither be offered up nor revert to hullin, so that they must not be put to work, but must be kept until they die. They are as follows: (i) The young of a sin-offering which calved before it was slaughtered. (ii) One whose owner died. (iii) The substitute of a sin-offering (v. p. 22, n. 8). (iv) A sin-offering whose owner had already made atonement. E.g., it was lost, whereupon he dedicated another and sacrificed it, and then the original one was found. And (v) an animal consecrated before it was a year old, but which passed its first year before being sacrificed (Rashi, as marginally emended). In cur. edd. Rashi enumerates an animal found to be blemished after consecration as the fifth.
^ᵇᵏnote:V. Ex. XXI, 28.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘or’.