Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 138:17

דתניא רבי יהודה אומר יכול תהא נבלת עוף טמא מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה ת"ל (ויקרא כב, ח) נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל נבילה יצא זה שאין איסורו משום בל תאכל נבילה אלא משום בל תאכל טמא

Then here too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse quoted by R. Judah (the Tanna) , not Rab Judah, the amora.');">¹⁸</span> [say that] [the inclusion of terefah] excludes an unclean [forbidden] bird, since there is no terefah in its species?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the conclusion of R. Shizbi's objection: Interpret the text thus, and the question returns. What is R. Judah's reason, after R. Meir proves the contrary?');">¹⁹</span> [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]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 8.');">²⁰</span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the former verse is left free for the interpretation stated above.');">²¹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 138:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.