Zevachim 140

כשבא בדרך זו היא בטהורה כשבא בדרך זו היא בטמאה ת"ל טריפה מי שיש במינה טריפה

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'.

אוציא את הטמאה שאין במינה טריפה ולא אוציא את החיה שיש במינה טריפה ת"ל (ויקרא ז, כד) ואכל לא תאכלוהו מי שחלבה אסור ובשרה מותר יצא חיה שחלבה ובשרה מותר

[which intimates,] the kind where there is terefah: then I might exclude the unclean, since there is no terefah in its kind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no particular interdict of terefah since it is forbidden in any case.');">¹</span> but I will not exclude hayyah, since there is terefah in its kind.

א"ל רב יעקב בר אבא לרבא אלא מעתה נבלת בהמה טהורה הוא דמטמאה נבלת בהמה טמאה לא מטמאה אמר ליה כמה סבי שבישתו בה סיפא אתאן לנבלת עוף טמא

Scripture, however, teaches: 'But ye shall in no wise eat of it', [intimating that it refers to] th 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If you argue, 'as when it cleansed from nebelah it was in the case of unclean and not in the case of clean', which implies that the nebelah of a forbidden animal is clean.');">²</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן לא טיהר רבי מאיר אלא בתמימין אבל בבעלי מומין לא ורבי אלעזר אמר אפילו בבעלי מומין איתמר נמי אמר רב ביבי אמר רבי אלעזר מטהר היה רבי מאיר בבעלי מומין ואפילו באווזין ותרנגולין

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I am astonished that you (and presumably, your colleagues in the Academy - perhaps R. Jacob spoke on their behalf) - should so err.');">³</span> the second clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That to which he referred.');">⁴</span>

בעי רבי ירמיה ערף עז מהו

applies to the nebelah of an unclean bird. R'Johanan said: Only unblemished [birds] did R'Meir declare clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After melikah, if they are terefah. The reason is because melikah is applicable to them.');">⁵</span>

אווזין ותרנגולין טעמא מאי דמינא דעופות נינהו אבל עז לאו מינא דעגלה נינהו או דילמא מינא דבהמה הוא

but not blemished ones. While R'Eleazar maintained: [He ruled thus] even in the case of blemished ones.

יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי מכלל דעגלה ערופה טהורה היא א"ל אין אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים

It was stated likewise: R'Bibi said in R'Eleazar's name: R'Meir declared blemished [birds] clean, even ducks and fowls.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not eligible sacrifices at all. For terefah too is not fit and yet R. Meir declares it clean.');">⁶</span> R'Jeremiah asked: What if one beheaded a goat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. Beheading' instead of shechitah normally renders an animal nebelah, so that it defiles, but since it 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?');">⁷</span>

מתיב רב נתן אבוה דרב הונא (בר נתן) ואכל לא תאכלוהו אין לי אלא חלב שאסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה חלב של שור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה מנין

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it will defile. - A heifer is counted amongst the large cattle, while a goat belongs to the small; therefore they are regarded as different species.');">⁸</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא ג, טז) כל חלב

Or perhaps, it is of the species of cattle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Behemah; v. p. 342, n. 9.');">⁹</span> R'Dimi sat and recited this discussion.

ואי ס"ד עגלה ערופה טהורה היא היא טהורה וחלבה טמא

Said Abaye to him: Hence it follows that the beheaded heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, I ff.');">¹⁰</span> is clean? - Yes, he replied: the School of R'Jannai said: 'Forgiveness'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8.');">¹¹</span>

היכא דערף מיערף לא איצטריכא ליה כי איצטריכא היכא דשחטה מישחט

is written in connection therewith, as in the case of sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is treated as such, and does not defile.');">¹²</span> R'Nathan the father of R'Huna objected: 'But ye shall in no wise eat of it': I know [this law only of] hel which may not be eaten but may be [otherwise] used.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Scripture states, may be used for any other service. Only such heleb does not defile.');">¹³</span>

ותיהני ליה שחיטה לטהרה מידי נבלה לא צריכא שמתה

How do we know [it of] the heleb of the ox that is stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 28f. All benefit of the ox was forbidden.');">¹⁴</span> and the beheaded heifer? - Because it says, All heleb [.

מכלל דמחיים אסורה אין אמר רבי ינאי גבול שמעתי ושכחתי ונסבין חברייא למימר ירידתה לנחל איתן היא אוסרתה:

ye shall not eat].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 23. This ref. adopts Sh. M.'s emendation of Rashi, and is the preceding verse. The marginal ref. is Lev. III, 17, which seems out of place. - 'All' is an extension and includes the heleb of these.');">¹⁵</span> But if you think that the beheaded heifer is clean, could it be clean while its heleb is unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not, and no verse would be necessary to teach it.');">¹⁶</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך חטאת העוף</strong></big><br><br>

Where one did indeed behead it, no text is required; it is required only where one slaughtered it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After becoming forbidden whilst alive through being set aside for this purpose, it was slaughtered (with shechitah) instead of beheaded. Then a text is required to shew that its heleb does not defile.');">¹⁷</span> Then let shechitah be efficacious in cleansing it from nebelah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though shechitah will not permit it, at least it should free it from defilement, since we find no instance of a slaughtered and clean (permitted) animal defiling.');">¹⁸</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>כל</strong></big> הזבחים שנתערבו בחטאות המתות או בשור הנסקל אפילו אחת בריבוא ימותו כולן נתערבו בשור שנעבדה בו עבירה או

- The text is necessary only where it died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This retracts the preceding answer. It had died of itself before it was beheaded. Here its flesh does defile as nebelah, and the text teaches that its heleb does not defile.');">¹⁹</span> Hence it follows that it was forbidden whilst yet alive?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the question is asked in respect of a heifer which died, it follows that even before it was beheaded, whilst yet alive, all benefit thereof was forbidden, and that is why the question is asked concerning the heleb.');">²⁰</span> - Yes. R'Jannai observed: I have heard a time limit for it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it becomes forbidden.');">²¹</span> but have forgotten it; while our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley, that renders it forbidden. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME MIXED UP WITH SIN-OFFERINGS THAT MUST BE LEFT TO DIE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which for some reason can neither be offered up nor revert to hullin, so that they must not be put to work, but 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.');">²²</span> OR WITH AN OX THAT IS TO BE STONED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 28.');">²³</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'or'.');">²⁴</span> ,