Zevachim 138

רבי יהודה אומר מטמא

R'JUDAH SAID: IT DOES DEFILE IN THE GULLET. SAID R'MEIR: IT IS A KAL WA-HOMER: IF THE SHECHITAH OF AN ANIMAL CLEANSES IT, EVEN WHEN TEREFAH, FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, YET WHEN IT IS NEBELAH IT DEFILES THROUGH CONTACT OR CARRIAGE; IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT SHECHITAH CLEANSES A BIRD, WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, SEEING THAT WHEN IT IS NEBELAH IT DOES NOT DEFILE THROUGH CONTACT OR CARRIAGE?

א"ר מאיר ק"ו אם נבלת בהמה שמטמאה במגע ובמשא שחיטתה מטהרת טריפתה מטומאתה נבלת העוף שאינו מטמא במגע ובמשא אינו דין שתהא שחיטתו מטהרת טריפתו מטומאתו

NOW, AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT SHECHITAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD OF HULLIN] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS; SO MELIKAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD SACRIFICE] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS. R'JOSE SAID: IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR IT TO BE LIKE THE NEBELAH OF A CLEAN [PERMITTED] ANIMAL, WHICH IS CLEANSED BY SHECHITAH, BUT NOT BY MELIKAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 50b, 51a.');">¹</span>

מה מצינו בשחיטתו שהיא מכשרתה לאכילה ומטהרת טריפתו מטומאתו אף מליקתו שהיא מכשרתו באכילה תטהר טריפתו מידי טומאתו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Now, does not R'Meir accept the principle of dayyo [it is sufficient]; Surely the principle of dayyo is biblical? For it was taught: How is a kal wa-homer applied?

רבי יוסי אומר דיה כנבלת בהמה שחיטתה מטהרתה ולא מליקתה:

And the Lord said unto Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XII, 14.');">²</span> How much more should a divine reproof necessitate [shame for] fourteen days; but it is sufficient for that which is inferred by an argument to be like the premise!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you argue from her father's reproof, even a Divine reproof does not necessitate a longer period of shame. As Scripture proceeds. 'Let her be shut up without the camp seven days', it is evident that this principle is Scriptural.');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ור"מ לא דריש דיו והא דיו דאורייתא הוא

- Said R'Jose son of R'Abin: R'Meir found a text and interpreted it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He accepts the principle of dayyo, but his ruling is based on a text, which makes him disregard the principle in this instance.');">⁴</span> This is the low of the beast and of the bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 46.');">⁵</span>

דתניא מדין קל וחומר כיצד (במדבר יב, יד) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה וגו' ק"ו לשכינה ארבעה עשר יום אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון

Now, in which law is a beast similar to a bird and a bird to a beast? A beast defiles through contact and carriage, whereas a bird does not defile through contact or carriage; a bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet, whereas a beast does not defile garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet.

א"ר יוסי ברבי אבין ר"מ קרא אשכח וקדרש

But it is to tell you: as in the case of a beast, that which makes it fit for eating makes it cle when terefah from its defilement; so in the case of a bird, that which makes it fit for eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. melikah, in the case of a bird sacrifice.');">⁶</span> makes it clean when terefah from its defilement.

(ויקרא יא, מו) זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף וכי באיזו תורה שוותה בהמה לעוף ועוף לבהמה בהמה מטמאה במגע ובמשא עוף אינו מטמא במגע ובמשא עוף מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה בהמה אינה מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה

Then what is R'Judah's reason? - Said Rabbah, R'Judah found a text, and interpreted it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh. M.) .');">⁷</span> [And every soul which eateth] nebelah or terefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. that which dieth of itself or that which is torn of beasts. According to the Talmudic interpretation an animal which dies by any method other than the correct ritual one (shechitah) is called nebelah, even if it is ritually slaughtered, but there is a defect in the shechitah. Terefah denotes an animal which was properly slaughtered with shechitah, but was then found to have been suffering from certain diseases or organic disturbances. These are listed in Hul. 42a, where there is a controversy whether a terefah could have lived (for more than twelve months) or not. On the view that it could, it is regarded as having been alive until the shechitah; on the view that it could not, it is regarded as already dead');">⁸</span>

אלא לומר לך מה בהמה דבר שמכשירה לאכילה מטהר טריפתה מטומאתה אף עוף דבר שמכשיר באכילה מטהר טריפתו מטומאתו

[. , he shall wash his clothes etc.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 15.');">⁹</span> Said R'Judah: Why is 'terefah' stated?

ור' יהודה מ"ט קרא אשכח וקדרש נבלה טריפה אמר רבי יהודה טריפה למה נאמרה אם טריפה חיה הרי נבילה אמורה אם טריפה אינה חיה הרי היא בכלל נבילה אלא להביא טריפה ששחטה שמטמאה

If 'terefah' can live, then surely 'nebelah' is already stated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if the terefah dies of its disease before it is slaughtered, it is obviously included in nebelah.');">¹⁰</span> while if 'terefah' cannot live, it is included in nebelah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even whilst alive. So Rashi. Tosaf. and Sh. M. explain differently.');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה רב שיזבי אלא מעתה דכתיב (ויקרא ז, כד) וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה

Hence it is to include a terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that it defiles. If so, said R'Shisbi to him, when it is written, And the fat [heleb] of nebelah, and the fat of terefah [ma used for any other service, but ye shall in no wise eat it]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 24. The Talmud (Pes. 23a) interprets this to mean that the heleb of a nebelah is clean and does not defile.');">¹²</span>

התם נמי נימא אם טריפה חיה הרי נבילה אמורה אם טריפה אינה חיה הרי היא בכלל נבילה אלא להביא טריפה ששחטה שחלבה טהור מכלל דהיא מטמאה

there too let us argue: Why is terefah stated? If terefah can live, then surely nebelah is already stated; and if terefah cannot live, it is included in nebelah?

והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא (ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה מקצת בהמה מטמאה מקצת בהמה אינה מטמאה ואיזו זו זו טריפה ששחטה

Hence it is to include a terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that its heleb is clean? Hence it follows that it defiles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud interposes: since R. Shizbi objects thus, it follows that in truth such heleb is unclean and defiles.');">¹³</span>

אלא טריפה מיבעי ליה למעוטי טמאה מי שיש במינה טריפה יצתה זו שאין במינה טריפה

But surely Rab Judah said in Rab's name, whilst others say that it was taught in a Baraitha: And if there die of a beast:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 39. Lit. translation. 'Of' is partitive, and is understood as a limitation. The verse continues: he that touches the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the evening.');">¹⁴</span> some beasts defile, and some beasts do not.

הכא נמי למעוטי עוף טמא שאין במינו טריפה

And which is it [that is excluded]? A terefah which was slaughtered! - Rather, [this is R'Shizbi's difficulty]: This terefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse which he quotes.');">¹⁵</span>

עוף טמא לר' יהודה מנבילה נפקא ליה

is necessary in order to exclude an unclean animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heleb of an unclean (i.e., forbidden) animal does not defile.');">¹⁶</span> [for it intimates:] only that in whose species there is terefah: hence this [a unclean animal] is excluded, since there is no terefah in its species.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only the heleb of an animal which can become terefah defiles. But an unclean animal, which cannot be eaten in any case, can never become terefah in a technical sense, and therefore its heleb does not defile.');">¹⁷</span>

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>