Zevachim 139

האי נמי תיפוק לי (ויקרא ז, כד) מוחלב נבלה

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;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only that heleb does not defile.');">¹</span> hence this [the heleb of a forbidden animal] is excluded, since its interdic is not on account of 'do not eat the heleb of nebelah', but on account of uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the whole animal is forbidden.');">²</span>

מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל חלב נבלה יצאתה זו שאין איסורה משום בל תאכל [חלב נבלה] אלא משום טמא

- Rather, this terefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.');">³</span> is required in order to include hayyah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A non-domestic animal, e.g., a deer, which may be eaten. The heleb of a hayyah is permitted; that of a behemah (a domestic animal, e.g., a sheep) is forbidden. The discussion hitherto has been about the heleb of a behemah.');">⁴</span>

אלא האי טריפה מיבעי לאיתויי חיה סלקא דעתך אמינא מי שחלבה אסור ובשרה מותר יצאת זו שחלבה ובשרה מותר קמ"ל

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore if a hayyah becomes nebelah, I would think that its heleb defiles, just as its flesh.');">⁵</span> Therefore [the word terefah] informs us [that it is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it teaches that the heleb of whatever is liable to become terefah, which includes hayyah, does not defile when nebelah.');">⁶</span>

א"ל מאי שנא טמאה דאין חלבה חלוק מבשרה חיה נמי אין חלבה חלוק מבשרה ועוד הכתיב (ויקרא ז, כד) ואכל לא תאכלוהו

Wherein<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Said he to him' is deleted (Sh. M.) .');">⁷</span> does an unclean [forbidden] animal differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That you do not learn from this text that its heleb is clean and does not defile.');">⁸</span>

אלא אמר אביי טריפה לגופיה איצטריך שלא תאמר הואיל וטמאה אסורה מחיים וטריפה אסורה מחיים מה טמאה חלבה טמא אף טריפה חלבה טמא

[presumably] because its heleb is not distinct from its flesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are forbidden, and therefore you do not apply this text to it, since that implies that there is a distinction between them.');">⁹</span> but then the heleb of a hayyah is not distinct from its flesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both being permitted. Hence you should not apply it to hayyah either.');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי האי נמי מיבעי שלא תאמר הואיל ועוף טמא אסור באכילה וטריפה אסורה באכילה מה עוף טמא אינו מטמא אף טריפה אינה מטמאה

Moreover, surely it is written, but ye shall in no wise eat it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 24. From this we infer anon that the heleb of a hayyah which is nebelah does defile. Hence the text cannot apply to it.');">¹¹</span> - Rather, said Abaye.

ועוד מי איכא למילף טרפה מטמאה טמאה לא היתה לה שעת הכושר טריפה היתה לה שעת הכושר וכי תימא טריפה מבטן מאי איכא למימר במינה מיהא איכא

Terefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.');">¹²</span> is needed for its own purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To shew that the heleb of a terefah which died is clean.');">¹³</span>

אלא אמר רבא התורה אמרה יבא איסור נבילה ויחול על איסור חלב יבא איסור טריפה ויחול על איסור חלב

lest you argue: Since an unclean [animal] is forbidden whilst yet alive, and a terefah is forbidden whilst yet alive:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that shechitah cannot permit it.');">¹⁴</span> as the heleb of an unclean [animal] is unclean [defiles], so is the heleb of a terefah unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the text teaches otherwise.');">¹⁵</span>

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן נבילה משום דמטמיא אבל טריפה אימא לא ואי אשמעינן טריפה משום דאיסורה מחיים אבל נבילה אימא לא צריכא

If so, this too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terefah in the text quoted by R. Judah.');">¹⁶</span> 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?

ור"מ האי טריפה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה למעוטי שחיטה שהיא לפנים

Moreover, can terefah really be derived from an unclean animal:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That you need a text to shew that it does not defile.');">¹⁷</span> an unclean animal enjoyed no period of fitness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Never at any time might it be eaten.');">¹⁸</span>

ורבי יהודה טריפה אחרינא כתיב

whereas a terefah enjoyed a period of fitness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it became terefah.');">¹⁹</span> And should you answer, what can be said of a terefah from birth; yet of its kind this can be said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though that particular terefah was never fit, terefah in general was fit at one time.');">²⁰</span>

ורבי מאיר חד למעוטי שחיטה שהיא לפנים וחד למעוטי עוף טמא

- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text teaches that when one eats heleb of nebelah or terefah, he is liable not only on account of heleb but also on 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.');">²¹</span> And both are necessary.

ורבי יהודה מנבלה נפקא ליה

For if we were informed [this about] nebelah, [I would argue that the reason is] because it defiles;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which heleb does not. Hence it is logical that the interdict of nebelah, being greater in that respect, falls upon that of heleb.');">²²</span> but as for terefah, I would say that it does not [fall upon the interdict of heleb].

ורבי מאיר האי נבלה מאי עביד לה לשיעור אכילה בכזית

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.

ותיפוק לי מקרא קמא מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון אכילה

Hence [they are both] necessary. Now how does R'Meir employ this [word] terefah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse quoted by R. Judah.');">²³</span>

חד לשיעור אכילה בכזית וחד לשיעור אכילה בכדי אכילת פרס

- He needs it to exclude shechitah which is within.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 69a.');">²⁴</span> And R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he know that?');">²⁵</span>

ס"ד אמינא הואיל וחידוש הוא יותר מכדי אכילת פרס נמי ליטמא קמ"ל

- Another 'terefah' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terefah is written in Lev. XVII, 15 and XXII, 8. Hence one is used for each.');">²⁶</span> And R'Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he utilise this second 'terefah'?');">²⁷</span>

תנו רבנן (ויקרא ז, כד) "וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה" -- בחלב בהמה טהורה הכתוב מדבר

- One excludes shechitah which is within, and the other excludes an unclean forbidden bird. And R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he derive the latter?');">²⁸</span>

אתה אומר בחלב בהמה טהורה הכתוב מדבר או אינו אלא בחלב בהמה טמאה

- That is derived from nebelah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra ');">²⁹</span> And R'Meir: how does he employ this 'nebelah'? - [To show that] the standard of eating [is required], viz. , as much as an olive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is not liable for eating nebelah unless he eats at least as much as an olive (this is the general standard for all forbidden food) . The text intimates that this too is the smallest quantity which defiles.');">³⁰</span>

אמרת טיהר מכלל שחוטה וטיהר מכלל חלב. מה כשטיהר מכלל שחוטה בטהורה ולא בטמאה אף כשטיהר מכלל חלב בטהורה ולא בטמאה

Yet let this be derived from the first text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 15.');">³¹</span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is not liable for eating unless he eats as much as an olive within the normal time for eating half a loaf, which is 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.');">³²</span>

או כלך לדרך זו טיהר מכלל נבילה וטיהר מכלל חלב. מה כשטיהר מכלל נבילה בטמאה ולא בטהורה, אף כשטיהר מכלל חלב בטמאה ולא בטהורה

I might argue, since this is anomalous,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no other case in Scripture where an article does not defile through contact, but only when it enters the gullet.');">³³</span> let it defile even when it takes more than the time required for eating half [a loaf],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being unique in one respect, it might be unique in another.');">³⁴</span>

אמרת

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that its heleb does not defile as nebelah.');">³⁵</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture decreed that when an animal is slaughtered (with shechitah) it does not defile; and that the heleb of nebelah does not defile.');">³⁶</span> as when it declared it clean on account of being slaughtered, it referred to a clean [permitted], but not an unclean [forbidden] animal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if an unclean animal is ritually slaughtered, it defiles.');">³⁷</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a case where nebelah does not defile.');">³⁸</span> and it cleansed from heleb:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heleb does not defile, as stated.');">³⁹</span> as when it cleansed from nebelah, it was in the case of unclean, and not in the case of clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unclean (forbidden) bird does not defile (as nebelah) when it is in the gullet, whereas a clean bird does.');">⁴⁰</span> so when it cleansed from heleb, [it did so] in the case of unclean, not in the case of clean? Thus you must say,