Zevachim

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;’1 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?2 — Rather, this terefah3 is required in order to include hayyah.4 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.5 Therefore [the word terefah] informs us [that it is not so].6 Wherein7 does an unclean [forbidden] animal differ?8 [presumably] because its heleb is not distinct from its flesh?9 but then the heleb of a hayyah is not distinct from its flesh?10 Moreover, surely it is written, but ye shall in no wise eat it?11 — Rather, said Abaye. Terefah12 is needed for its own purpose.13 lest you argue: Since an unclean [animal] is forbidden whilst yet alive, and a terefah is forbidden whilst yet alive:14 as the heleb of an unclean [animal] is unclean [defiles], so is the heleb of a terefah unclean.15 If so, this too16 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:17 an unclean animal enjoyed no period of fitness,18 whereas a terefah enjoyed a period of fitness?19 And should you answer, what can be said of a terefah from birth; yet of its kind this can be said.20 — 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.21 And both are necessary. For if we were informed [this about] nebelah, [I would argue that the reason is] because it defiles;22 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?23 — He needs it to exclude shechitah which is within.24 And R. Judah?25 — Another ‘terefah’ is written.26 And R. Meir?27 — One excludes shechitah which is within, and the other excludes an unclean forbidden bird. And R. Judah?28 — That is derived from nebelah.29 And R. Meir: how does he employ this ‘nebelah’? — [To show that] the standard of eating [is required], viz., as much as an olive.30 Yet let this be derived from the first text,31 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].32 I might argue, since this is anomalous,33 let it defile even when it takes more than the time required for eating half [a loaf],34 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.35 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:36 as when it declared it clean on account of being slaughtered, it referred to a clean [permitted], but not an unclean [forbidden] animal;37 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,38 and it cleansed from heleb:39 as when it cleansed from nebelah, it was in the case of unclean, and not in the case of clean;40 so when it cleansed from heleb, [it did so] in the case of unclean, not in the case of clean? Thus you must say, domestic animal, e.g., a sheep) is forbidden. The discussion hitherto has been about the heleb of a behemah. nebelah. them. apply to it. 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. heleb. forbidden food). The text intimates that this too is the smallest quantity which defiles. 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. gullet. nebelah does not defile.