Zevachim 137
וליטעמיך שלא היה פסולו בקודש לאיתויי מאי
- Yet even on your view, what does [the clause] IF THEIR UNFITNESS DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY include?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the ALL of the first clause applies to that too.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
א"ר יצחק שמעתי שתים אחת קמיצת זר ואחת מליקת זר אחת תרד ואחת לא תרד ולא ידענא אמר חזקיה מסתברא קמיצה תרד מליקה לא תרד
It was taught in accordance with R'Johanan: If a zar nipped it; or if an unfit person nipped it; or [if it piggul, nothar or [an] unclean [sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the flesh of a bird sacrifice became defiled after it was properly offered up.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
דאמר רב ששת לדברי האומר יש מנחה בבמה יש עופות בבמה לדברי האומר אין מנחה אין עופות מ"ט זבחים ולא מנחות זבחים ולא עופות
by a zar and the other to melikah by a zar: one descends and the other does not descend, but I do not know which is which.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either a bird-offering nipped by a zar or a meal-offering whose kemizah was performed by a zar does not descend from the altar if it was taken up there.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
הביא המולק (ק"ץ חפ"ץ סימן) קדשים בחוץ ומולק חולין בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ הואיל ואין מתירין את האיסור מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה
And should you say, There were no meal-offerings at the high places; then there were no bird[-offerings] at the high places [either].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no melikah.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
תניא אידך יכול תהא שחיטת חולין לפנים וקדשים בין מבפנים ובין מבחוץ מטמאה אבית הבליעה ת"ל נבלה
For R'Shesheth said: On the view that there were meal-offerings at the high places, there were bird[-offerings] at the high places; on the view that there were no meal-offerings, there were no bird [-offerings].
יצא שחיטת חולין בפנים וקדשים בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ הואיל ולא שוו בפנים כבחוץ אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה
[And sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIV. 5. This was before the erection of the Tabernacle, and so the equivalent of the high places.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
בשלמא חולין לא שוו בפנים כבחוץ אלא קדשים אידי ואידי פסולין נינהו
offerings [implies,] but not birds; offerings [implies,] but not meal-offerings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. is applicable to animals only.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אמר רבא אם הועילה לו שחיטת חוץ לחייבו כרת לא תועיל לו לטהרה מידי נבילה
- Say rather: There was no sanctification of a meal-offering in service vessels at the high places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that there were both bird- and meal-offerings at the high places. But whereas melikah by a zar in the Temple can be learnt from that of the high places (in so far, at least, that it does not descend) , kemizah can not. For at the high places meal-offerings were not sanctified in service vessels, whereas in the Temple they were. That being so, when kemizah is performed by a zar it is unfit to that extent that even if taken up on to the altar, it must be taken down.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אשכחן חוץ פנים מנלן הואיל ולא שוו בפנים כבחוץ
IF HE NIPPED [THEM] WITH HIS LEFT [HAND] OR AT NIGHT etc. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that melikah, which is [done] within, defiles garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after melikah done improperly the flesh defiles.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ולא והתניא מנין ליוצא שאם עלה לא ירד שהרי יוצא כשר בבמה
[But] this too is nebelah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the melikah was not properly done and does not permit the eating of the sacrifice, the bird is like any other not killed by shechitah, hence nebelah.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מלק ונמצאת טריפה ר' מאיר אומר אינו מטמא בבית הבליעה
as terefah does not permit the forbidden, so everything which does not permit the forbidden [is included]: thus melikah, which is [performed] within, is excluded: since it permits the forbidden. it does not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse quoted is applied to the nebelah of a clean bird. Terefah is not interpreted literally, for reasons stated anon, but as a definition of nebelah, thus: only nebelah similar to terefah defiles. Now when a bird becomes terefah, that fact cannot possibly remove any prohibition to which it was subject. Similarly, only a nebelah which cannot remove a prohibition defiles. Now, melikah should render a bird of hullin nebelah, but a consecrated bird is thereby relieved of a prohibition, for whilst alive it could not be offered, whereas after melikah in the sanctuary it can be (i.e., its blood can be sprinkled on the altar, which is the essence of offering) . Hence it does not cause the bird to defile garments even when it is improperly done, e.g., at night or with the left hand.');"><sup>17</sup></span> Hence it includes melikah (Mnemonic: Kez Hefez)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Mnemonic is a phrase consisting of a string of letters or words, as an aid to the memory. Here K = Kodashim (sacrifices) ; Z=behuz');"><sup>18</sup></span> of sacrifices without, and melikah of hullin both within and without: since they do not permit the forbidden, they defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices both within and without defile in the gullet: therefore nebelah is stated. But this too is 'nebelah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since melikah is required for sacrifices, whilst hullin may not be slaughtered within at all, the birds so killed are nebelah!');"><sup>19</sup></span> - Rather, therefore it states 'terefah': as terefah is the same within and without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is forbidden in both places.');"><sup>20</sup></span> so all which are the same within and without [are included in this law]: thus the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices within and without is excluded: since these are not the same within as without, they do not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. As for hullin, it is well: that is not the same within as without;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For hullin slaughtered without does not defile even when the shechitah does not permit it. e.g., if the bird is terefah.');"><sup>21</sup></span> but sacrifices are unfit in both cases? - Said Raba: If shechitah without is effective in that it involves kareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who slaughters a sacrificial bird without the Temple incurs kareth. This proves that his act does count as shechitah.');"><sup>22</sup></span> shall it not be effective in cleansing it from [the defilement of] nebelah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It certainly is. Hence the deduction from the word 'terefah' is necessary only in respect of hullin, but not in respect of sacrifices,');"><sup>23</sup></span> We have thus found [it of shechitah] without; how do we know [it of shechitah] within? - Because it is not the same within as without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M.: Since shechitah without involves kareth, whilst shechitah within does not, although it actually requires melikah.');"><sup>24</sup></span> If so, when one performs melikah on sacrifices without, they too [should] not [defile], since within is not the same as without?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For melikah is proper within, but not without.');"><sup>25</sup></span> - Said R'Shimi B'Ashi: You infer that which does not make it fit from that which does not make it fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GIos.');"><sup>6</sup></span> but you do not infer that which does not make it fit from that which does make it fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., from melikah of sacrifices within, which is the proper way.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Do you not? Surely it was taught: How do we know that [if flesh] which went out ascended [the altar] it does not descend? Because [flesh] that goes out is fit at the high places? - The Tanna relies on the extension intimated in, 'This is the law of the burnt-offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 2. V. supra ');"><sup>28</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE PERFORMED MELIKAH, AND IT [THE BIRD] WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH. R'MEIR SAID: IT DOES NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET;