Zevachim

when 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,1 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,2 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!3 the second clause4 applies to the nebelah of an unclean bird. R. Johanan said: Only unblemished [birds] did R. Meir declare clean,5 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.6 R. Jeremiah asked: What if one beheaded a goat?7 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.8 Or perhaps, it is of the species of cattle?9 R. Dimi sat and recited this discussion. Said Abaye to him: Hence it follows that the beheaded heifer10 is clean? — Yes, he replied: the School of R. Jannai said: ‘Forgiveness’11 is written in connection therewith, as in the case of sacrifices. 12 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.13 How do we know [it of] the heleb of the ox that is stoned14 and the beheaded heifer? — Because it says, All heleb [ . . . ye shall not eat].15 But if you think that the beheaded heifer is clean, could it be clean while its heleb is unclean?16 Where one did indeed behead it, no text is required; it is required only where one slaughtered it.17 Then let shechitah be efficacious in cleansing it from nebelah?18 — The text is necessary only where it died.19 Hence it follows that it was forbidden whilst yet alive? 20 — Yes. R. Jannai observed: I have heard a time limit for it,21 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,22 OR WITH AN OX THAT IS TO BE STONED,23 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.24 , implies that the nebelah of a forbidden animal is clean. behalf) — should so err. 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? are regarded as different species. III, 17, which seems out of place. — ‘All’ is an extension and includes the heleb of these. instead of beheaded. Then a text is required to shew that its heleb does not defile. slaughtered and clean (permitted) animal defiling. and the text teaches that its heleb does not defile. alive, all benefit thereof was forbidden, and that is why the question is asked concerning the heleb. 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.