Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara continues its discussion on whether melika performed by a non-kohen renders the bird a neveila, thereby imparting ritual impurity. Chizkiyah presents a ruling: if a non-kohen performs melika and the bird is subsequently placed on the altar, it is not removed. However, in a parallel case involving kmitza performed by a non-kohen, the offering would be removed. This raises the question – why is there a distinction between the two cases?
A braita is cited to provide the Torah source for the Mishna’s rulings regarding melika performed with the left hand, at night, and in other disqualifying circumstances.
Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether melika performed on a treifa bird (one with a fatal defect) prevents it from being considered a neveila. The Gemara examines the sources for their respective opinions. Rav Shizbi brings a verse concerning the prohibition of consuming the forbidden fats (cheilev) of a neveila or treifa, challenging Rabbi Yehuda’s proof text.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Zevachim 69
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, ״שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ״ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, one could infer the opposite from the following clause: The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred Temple courtyard transmits ritual impurity to one who swallows it. Here, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what disqualification is added if not pinching by a non-priest?
אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים, סֵיפָא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מְלִיקַת חוּלִּין בַּחוּץ.
Rather, both clauses add other disqualifications not mentioned in the mishna. The former clause, concerning an offering that was disqualified in the Temple courtyard, is written to add that the slaughter of sacrificial birds inside the Temple courtyard does not render them carcasses. The latter clause, with regard to an offering disqualified outside the Temple courtyard, is written to add that the pinching of non-sacred birds outside the Temple courtyard does render them carcasses.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְלָקָהּ זָר, מְלָקָהּ פָּסוּל, הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In a case where a non-priest pinched a bird offering, or a priest disqualified from the Temple service pinched it, or it became piggul, i.e., it was sacrificed with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, or it became notar, i.e., its meat remained uneaten beyond its designated time, or it became ritually impure, in all these cases, even though the meat of these birds may not be consumed, they still do not render one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שָׁמַעְתִּי שְׁתַּיִם – אַחַת קְמִיצַת זָר, וְאַחַת מְלִיקַת זָר; אַחַת תֵּרֵד, וְאַחַת לֹא תֵּרֵד; וְלָא יָדַעְנָא. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, מִסְתַּבְּרָא: קְמִיצָה תֵּרֵד, מְלִיקָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: I heard [shamati] two halakhot, one concerning the removal of a handful from a meal offering by a non-priest for burning on the altar, and one concerning the pinching of a bird offering by a non-priest. Although both offerings are disqualified, I heard that one shall descend from the altar if it ascended, and one shall not descend; but I do not know which halakha applies to which case. Ḥizkiyya said: It stands to reason that in the case of the removal of the handful the offering shall descend and in the case of pinching the offering shall not descend.
מַאי שְׁנָא מְלִיקָה – דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ בְּבָמָה, קְמִיצָה נָמֵי – יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּבָמָה!
The Gemara asks: What is different about pinching by a non-priest that would allow the bird to be sacrificed if it ascended onto the altar? If the difference is that for a non-priest to do so would be valid on a private altar, where all sacrificial rites were performed by non-priests, this does not constitute a difference, as the removal of the handful by a non-priest would also be valid on a private altar.
וְכִי תֵימָא אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה, אֵין עוֹפוֹת נָמֵי בְּבָמָה!
And if you would say that no handfuls were removed on private altars because no meal offering was sacrificed on a private altar, as meal offerings were brought before the construction of the Temple only on the altar in the Tabernacle, you must also say that there was no pinching either, as according to this opinion no birds were sacrificed on a private altar either.
דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – יֵשׁ עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין מִנְחָה – אֵין עוֹפוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״זְבָחִים״ וְלֹא מְנָחוֹת, ״זְבָחִים״ וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת.
As Rav Sheshet says: According to the statement of the one who says that a meal offering was sacrificed on a private altar, birds were sacrificed on a private altar. According to the statement of the one who says that no meal offering was sacrificed on a private altar, no birds were sacrificed there either. What is the reason for this? This is because the Torah, in describing the offerings brought at Mount Sinai, before the Tabernacle was built, mentions slaughtered offerings (see Exodus 24:5) but not meal offerings; it mentions slaughtered offerings, i.e., animal offerings, but not birds.
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵין קִידּוּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בְּמִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
Rather, say that even though both pinching the nape of a bird offering and removing the handful of a meal offering by a non-priest are valid on a private altar, the halakhot of meal offerings sacrificed on a private altar cannot be compared to those of meal offerings sacrificed in the Temple. This is because in the case of a meal offering sacrificed on a private altar, there is no consecration in a service vessel of the handful removed from it. By contrast, in the Temple, the handful must always be consecrated in a service vessel.
מָלַק בִּשְׂמֹאל אוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא מְלִיקָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנִים, מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה״.
§ The mishna rules that if a priest pinched with his left hand, or if he pinched at night, the offering does not render one ritually impure when in his throat. With regard to this issue the Sages taught: One might have thought that invalid pinching that occurs inside the Temple courtyard, such as pinching with the left hand or pinching at night, would cause the offering to render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Therefore the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass…shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). Bird offerings whose napes were pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not considered carcasses.
הָא נָמֵי נְבֵלָה הִיא! אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״טְרֵיפָה״; מָה טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁאֵין מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אַף כֹּל – שֶׁאֵין מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t a bird offering whose nape was pinched inside the Temple courtyard also a carcass? Rather, the halakha of the mishna is derived from that which the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa…shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). A tereifa is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months. It is derived from this verse that just as having the status of a tereifa does not render permitted any forbidden bird, so too, any type of death that does not render permitted any forbidden bird renders the animal a carcass with regard to ritual impurity.
(יצא) [יָצָאת] מְלִיקָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנִים – הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.
Consequently, invalid pinching that is performed inside the Temple courtyard is excluded, since it renders permitted a forbidden bird, as it is permitted to sacrifice such a disqualified offering if it ascended onto the altar, whereas it was prohibited to sacrifice such a disqualified offering if it was not pinched. The meat of such an offering therefore does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.
הֵבִיא הַמּוֹלֵק (קֵ״ץ חָפֵ״ץ – סִימָן) קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, וּמוֹלֵק חוּלִּין בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ – הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מַתִּירִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
This principle includes two other cases of invalid pinching, for which the Gemara gives a two-word mnemonic: Ketz, ḥefetz. These words are acronyms for the cases of one who pinches the napes of sacrificial birds outside the Temple courtyard, and one who pinches the napes of non-sacred birds whether inside the Temple courtyard or outside of it. Since these offerings do not render permitted any forbidden bird, as these offerings may not be sacrificed even if brought onto the altar, they render the garments of one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִּין לִפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים וּבֵין מִבַּחוּץ, מְטַמְּאָה אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה״.
It is taught in another baraita: One might have thought that the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside the Temple courtyard, or the slaughter of sacrificial birds whether inside or outside of it, would cause their meat to render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Therefore the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass…shall be impure until the evening.” Birds that have been slaughtered in this manner are not considered carcasses, and so they do not impart ritual impurity.
הָא נָמֵי נְבֵלָה הִיא! אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״טְרֵיפָה״; מָה טְרֵיפָה – שָׁוָוה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אַף כֹּל – שָׁווֹת בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t a bird slaughtered in one of these manners also a carcass? Rather, it is derived from that which the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa…shall be impure until the evening,” as follows: Just as the status of a tereifa is the same, if the bird is slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as it is if the bird is slaughtered outside of it, i.e., forbidden, so too all forbidden birds whose status is the same if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as it is if they were slaughtered outside of it constitute carcasses.
יָצָא שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ – הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
Consequently, the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside the Temple courtyard, or of sacrificial birds whether inside or outside of it, is excluded, since the status of such birds is not the same if they are slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as if they are slaughtered outside of it. The meat of such an offering therefore does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.
בִּשְׁלָמָא חוּלִּין – לֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ; אֶלָּא קָדָשִׁים – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פְּסוּלִין נִינְהוּ!
The Gemara challenges: Granted, the status of non-sacred birds is not the same if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as if they are slaughtered outside of it, as if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard they are forbidden, while if slaughtered outside of it they are permitted. But with regard to sacrificial birds, in both this case and that case, whether slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard or outside of it, they are disqualified.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִם הוֹעִילָה לוֹ שְׁחִיטַת חוּץ לְחַיְּיבוֹ כָּרֵת, לֹא תּוֹעִיל לוֹ לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵילָה?!
Rava says: The halakha with regard to slaughtered sacrificial birds outside the Temple should not be derived from the verse at all, but rather by logic. If the slaughter of a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard has sufficient effect on it as proper slaughter to render the one who slaughtered it liable to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], which is the punishment for slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard (see 107a), could it be that it does not have sufficient effect on the bird as proper slaughter to render it ritually pure by preventing it from assuming the status of a carcass?
אַשְׁכְּחַן חוּץ, פָּנִים מְנָלַן? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.
The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha with regard to the slaughter of sacrificial birds outside the Temple courtyard; from where do we derive this halakha with regard to their slaughter inside the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the principle articulated above: Since their status is not the same if they are slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as if they are slaughtered outside of it, as one who slaughters a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, the status of a carcass does not apply.
אִי הָכִי, מָלַק קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ נָמֵי לָא – דְּלָא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ!
The Gemara challenges: If so, it follows that if the priest pinched sacrificial birds outside the Temple courtyard, they are also not considered carcasses, as their status is not the same if they are pinched inside the Temple courtyard as if they are pinched outside of it; if they are pinched inside, they are fit offerings, and if they are pinched outside, they are disqualified. This conclusion would contradict the mishna, which rules that sacrificial birds pinched outside the Temple courtyard are considered carcasses, and they render one who eats their meat impure.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ; וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: One can derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, i.e., sacrificial birds slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, from the halakha with regard to another item that is prepared not in its valid manner, i.e., sacrificial birds slaughtered inside it. But one cannot derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, i.e., sacrificial birds pinched outside the Temple courtyard, from the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared in its valid manner, i.e., those pinched inside it. The cases of a bird pinched outside and a bird pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not subject to comparison, so one cannot derive conclusions from the differences between them.
וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְיוֹצֵא – שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד? שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.
The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakha with regard to disqualified offerings from the halakha with regard to fit offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item that emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar, i.e., that disqualification was not applicable to an offering sacrificed on a private altar, as there was no Temple. Here, the baraita derives the halakha with regard to a disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit one.
תַּנָּא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the phrase: “This is the law of the burnt offering [ha’ola]” (Leviticus 6:2), a seemingly superfluous general phrase which is interpreted homiletically to include the halakha that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. The verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.
מַתְנִי׳ מָלַק וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ מְטַמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה,
MISHNA: If the priest pinched the nape of the bird’s neck properly and then it was found to be a tereifa, and it was therefore disqualified from being sacrificed and forbidden for consumption by a priest, Rabbi Meir says: An olive-bulk of its meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as the pinching prevents it from assuming the status of a carcass.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and its meat renders one who swallows it ritually impure.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; אִם נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; נִבְלַת הָעוֹף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ?!
Rabbi Meir said: My opinion can be inferred a fortiori. If an animal carcass transmits impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, and nevertheless the slaughter of an animal purifies it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, i.e., its slaughter prevents it from assuming the impurity status of a carcass, then with regard to a bird carcass, which possesses a lesser degree of impurity, as it does not transmit impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, but only through swallowing it, is it not logical that its slaughter should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity?
מָה מָצִינוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ – שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ לַאֲכִילָה, וּמְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ; אַף מְלִיקָתוֹ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתּוֹ בַּאֲכִילָה – תְּטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ!
And once it is established that slaughter renders a bird that is a tereifa pure, it can be inferred that just as we found with regard to its slaughter that it renders a bird fit for consumption and purifies a bird, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, so too its pinching, which renders a bird offering fit with regard to consumption, should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, וְלֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ.
Rabbi Yosei says: Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter renders even a bird that is a tereifa pure, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every a fortiori inference, namely, that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: It is sufficient for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a tereifa to be like that of the carcass of an animal that is a tereifa; its slaughter renders it pure, but its pinching does not.
גְּמָ׳ וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״?! וְהָא ״דַּיּוֹ״ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא!
GEMARA: In the mishna, Rabbi Yosei answers Rabbi Meir by invoking the principle that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir not require that a fortiori inferences conform to the principle that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source? But isn’t the principle: It is sufficient, etc., mandated by Torah law?
דְּתַנְיָא: מִדִּין קַל וְחוֹמֶר כֵּיצַד? ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה: וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״ – קַל וְחוֹמֶר לַשְּׁכִינָה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם; אֶלָּא דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.
As it is taught in a baraita: How is it derived from the Torah that derivation by means of an a fortiori inference is a valid method of biblical exegesis? The Torah states with regard to Miriam, who was reprimanded by God: “And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days” (Numbers 12:14). If one who was reprimanded by her father would hide in shame for seven days, one could infer through an a fortiori inference that one reprimanded by the Divine Presence should be shut up outside the camp for fourteen days. Rather, one must say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי אָבִין: רַבִּי מֵאִיר קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וְקָדָרֵשׁ –
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Avin, said: Rabbi Meir does require that a fortiori inferences conform to this principle. But he does not actually infer his opinion a fortiori; rather, he found a verse and interpreted it.
״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״ – וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, עוֹף אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא! עוֹף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה!
The Torah states, with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered animal carcasses: “This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is a beast equal to a fowl and a fowl equal to a beast? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal transmits impurity by touching and by carrying, whereas a bird does not transmit impurity by touching or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.
אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה בְּהֵמָה – דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ לַאֲכִילָה, מְטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; אַף עוֹף – דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירוֹ בַּאֲכִילָה, מְטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ.
Rather, this verse serves to tell you that just as with regard to an animal, that which renders it fit for consumption, i.e., slaughter, purifies it, even when it is a tereifa, from its impurity, so too with regard to a bird, that which renders it fit for consumption, i.e., both the slaughter of a non-sacred bird and pinching the nape of a bird offering, purifies a bird, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי טַעְמָא? קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וְקָדָרֵשׁ: ״נְבֵלָה טְרֵפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: טְרֵפָה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה – הֲרֵי נְבֵילָה אֲמוּרָה! אִם טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה! אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה.
§ The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a bird that is a tereifa imparts impurity even when slaughtered? He too found a verse and interpreted it. The Torah states with regard to the ritual impurity of kosher bird carcasses: “And every soul that eats a carcass, or a tereifa…he shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). Rabbi Yehuda said: Why was the case of a tereifa stated? If the verse is referring to a live tereifa, it should not be impure, as the term “a carcass” is stated, indicating that to impart impurity the bird must be dead. If it is referring to a tereifa that is not alive, but rather has died of its wounds, it falls within the category of a carcass. Rather, the word tereifa is written to include a tereifa that one slaughtered before it had the opportunity to die by itself, to teach that it imparts ritual impurity as would a carcass.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה״ –
Rav Sheizevi said to the Sage who suggested this source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: If that is so, one should interpret another verse likewise, as it is written: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service” (Leviticus 7:24), meaning that although the meat of a carcass imparts ritual impurity, those fats that would be forbidden even if the animal had been slaughtered do not impart impurity.
הָתָם נָמֵי נֵימָא: אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה – הֲרֵי נְבֵילָה אֲמוּרָה, אִם טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה! אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שֶׁחֶלְבָּהּ טָהוֹר. מִכְּלָל דְּהִיא מְטַמְּאָה?
There too let us say, interpreting the verse according to Rabbi Yehuda’s logic: Why is the case of a tereifa stated? If it is referring to a live tereifa, the case is superfluous, as “a carcass” is stated. Since the forbidden fat of a carcass is pure, obviously that of a live animal is pure. If it is referring to a tereifa that is not alive, but has rather died of its wounds, it is included within the category of “a carcass,” and likewise it need not be mentioned. Rather, the word “tereifa” is written to include a tereifa that one slaughtered, to teach that its forbidden fat is pure. By inference, one should then conclude that its meat does impart impurity.
וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה, מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? זוֹ טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ!
But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the impurity of carcasses states: “And if some animal, of which you may eat, dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:39)? The word “some” teaches that some animals impart impurity and some animals do not impart impurity. And what is it that does not impart impurity? That is a tereifa that one slaughtered. And if even its meat does not impart impurity, the word tereifa is not needed to teach that its forbidden fat is pure.
אֶלָּא טְרֵיפָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לְמַעוֹטֵי טְמֵאָה; מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָהּ טְרֵיפָה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינָהּ טְרֵיפָה.
Rather, the word tereifa in the verse concerning forbidden fat (Leviticus 7:24) is necessary to exclude non-kosher animals from the halakha in the verse and to teach that their forbidden fat is impure. The word indicates that only the forbidden fat of those carcasses to whose species the halakha of tereifa applies, i.e., those of kosher animals, impart impurity. Forbidden fat of a carcass of a non-kosher animal is excluded, as the halakha of tereifa does not apply to its species. The status of tereifa is immaterial for a non-kosher animal as its consumption is prohibited in any event.
הָכָא נָמֵי – לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא, שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ טְרֵיפָה!
Here too, the word tereifa in the verse concerning the impurity of kosher bird carcasses (Leviticus 17:15) should be interpreted as excluding a carcass of a non-kosher bird from ritual impurity, as the halakha of tereifa does not apply to its species. Therefore, this verse cannot serve as a source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to the impurity of a slaughtered bird that is a tereifa.
עוֹף טָמֵא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מִנְּבֵילָה נָפְקָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha that the carcass of a non-kosher bird does not impart impurity is derived from the phrase “a carcass” as it appears elsewhere.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא נִבְלַת עוֹף טָמֵא מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל״ – מִי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל נְבֵילָה; יָצָא זֶה, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל נְבֵילָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל טָמֵא.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that the carcass of a non-kosher bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. But the verse states, concerning the impurity of carcasses of birds: “A carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat” (Leviticus 22:8). This type of impurity applies only to those birds that are forbidden specifically due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, i.e., kosher birds that died without ritual slaughter. This carcass of a non-kosher animal is excluded, and is not impure, as it is forbidden not due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, but rather due to the prohibition: You shall not eat a non-kosher bird, to render yourself impure with it. Consequently, the word tereifa in the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 17:15) teaches that a slaughtered tereifa imparts ritual impurity, as originally posited.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Zevachim 69
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, ״שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ״ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, one could infer the opposite from the following clause: The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred Temple courtyard transmits ritual impurity to one who swallows it. Here, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what disqualification is added if not pinching by a non-priest?
אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים, סֵיפָא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מְלִיקַת חוּלִּין בַּחוּץ.
Rather, both clauses add other disqualifications not mentioned in the mishna. The former clause, concerning an offering that was disqualified in the Temple courtyard, is written to add that the slaughter of sacrificial birds inside the Temple courtyard does not render them carcasses. The latter clause, with regard to an offering disqualified outside the Temple courtyard, is written to add that the pinching of non-sacred birds outside the Temple courtyard does render them carcasses.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְלָקָהּ זָר, מְלָקָהּ פָּסוּל, הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In a case where a non-priest pinched a bird offering, or a priest disqualified from the Temple service pinched it, or it became piggul, i.e., it was sacrificed with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, or it became notar, i.e., its meat remained uneaten beyond its designated time, or it became ritually impure, in all these cases, even though the meat of these birds may not be consumed, they still do not render one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שָׁמַעְתִּי שְׁתַּיִם – אַחַת קְמִיצַת זָר, וְאַחַת מְלִיקַת זָר; אַחַת תֵּרֵד, וְאַחַת לֹא תֵּרֵד; וְלָא יָדַעְנָא. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, מִסְתַּבְּרָא: קְמִיצָה תֵּרֵד, מְלִיקָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: I heard [shamati] two halakhot, one concerning the removal of a handful from a meal offering by a non-priest for burning on the altar, and one concerning the pinching of a bird offering by a non-priest. Although both offerings are disqualified, I heard that one shall descend from the altar if it ascended, and one shall not descend; but I do not know which halakha applies to which case. Ḥizkiyya said: It stands to reason that in the case of the removal of the handful the offering shall descend and in the case of pinching the offering shall not descend.
מַאי שְׁנָא מְלִיקָה – דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ בְּבָמָה, קְמִיצָה נָמֵי – יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּבָמָה!
The Gemara asks: What is different about pinching by a non-priest that would allow the bird to be sacrificed if it ascended onto the altar? If the difference is that for a non-priest to do so would be valid on a private altar, where all sacrificial rites were performed by non-priests, this does not constitute a difference, as the removal of the handful by a non-priest would also be valid on a private altar.
וְכִי תֵימָא אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה, אֵין עוֹפוֹת נָמֵי בְּבָמָה!
And if you would say that no handfuls were removed on private altars because no meal offering was sacrificed on a private altar, as meal offerings were brought before the construction of the Temple only on the altar in the Tabernacle, you must also say that there was no pinching either, as according to this opinion no birds were sacrificed on a private altar either.
דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – יֵשׁ עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין מִנְחָה – אֵין עוֹפוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״זְבָחִים״ וְלֹא מְנָחוֹת, ״זְבָחִים״ וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת.
As Rav Sheshet says: According to the statement of the one who says that a meal offering was sacrificed on a private altar, birds were sacrificed on a private altar. According to the statement of the one who says that no meal offering was sacrificed on a private altar, no birds were sacrificed there either. What is the reason for this? This is because the Torah, in describing the offerings brought at Mount Sinai, before the Tabernacle was built, mentions slaughtered offerings (see Exodus 24:5) but not meal offerings; it mentions slaughtered offerings, i.e., animal offerings, but not birds.
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵין קִידּוּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בְּמִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
Rather, say that even though both pinching the nape of a bird offering and removing the handful of a meal offering by a non-priest are valid on a private altar, the halakhot of meal offerings sacrificed on a private altar cannot be compared to those of meal offerings sacrificed in the Temple. This is because in the case of a meal offering sacrificed on a private altar, there is no consecration in a service vessel of the handful removed from it. By contrast, in the Temple, the handful must always be consecrated in a service vessel.
מָלַק בִּשְׂמֹאל אוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא מְלִיקָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנִים, מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה״.
§ The mishna rules that if a priest pinched with his left hand, or if he pinched at night, the offering does not render one ritually impure when in his throat. With regard to this issue the Sages taught: One might have thought that invalid pinching that occurs inside the Temple courtyard, such as pinching with the left hand or pinching at night, would cause the offering to render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Therefore the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass…shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). Bird offerings whose napes were pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not considered carcasses.
הָא נָמֵי נְבֵלָה הִיא! אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״טְרֵיפָה״; מָה טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁאֵין מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אַף כֹּל – שֶׁאֵין מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t a bird offering whose nape was pinched inside the Temple courtyard also a carcass? Rather, the halakha of the mishna is derived from that which the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa…shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). A tereifa is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months. It is derived from this verse that just as having the status of a tereifa does not render permitted any forbidden bird, so too, any type of death that does not render permitted any forbidden bird renders the animal a carcass with regard to ritual impurity.
(יצא) [יָצָאת] מְלִיקָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנִים – הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.
Consequently, invalid pinching that is performed inside the Temple courtyard is excluded, since it renders permitted a forbidden bird, as it is permitted to sacrifice such a disqualified offering if it ascended onto the altar, whereas it was prohibited to sacrifice such a disqualified offering if it was not pinched. The meat of such an offering therefore does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.
הֵבִיא הַמּוֹלֵק (קֵ״ץ חָפֵ״ץ – סִימָן) קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, וּמוֹלֵק חוּלִּין בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ – הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מַתִּירִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
This principle includes two other cases of invalid pinching, for which the Gemara gives a two-word mnemonic: Ketz, ḥefetz. These words are acronyms for the cases of one who pinches the napes of sacrificial birds outside the Temple courtyard, and one who pinches the napes of non-sacred birds whether inside the Temple courtyard or outside of it. Since these offerings do not render permitted any forbidden bird, as these offerings may not be sacrificed even if brought onto the altar, they render the garments of one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִּין לִפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים וּבֵין מִבַּחוּץ, מְטַמְּאָה אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה״.
It is taught in another baraita: One might have thought that the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside the Temple courtyard, or the slaughter of sacrificial birds whether inside or outside of it, would cause their meat to render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Therefore the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass…shall be impure until the evening.” Birds that have been slaughtered in this manner are not considered carcasses, and so they do not impart ritual impurity.
הָא נָמֵי נְבֵלָה הִיא! אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״טְרֵיפָה״; מָה טְרֵיפָה – שָׁוָוה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אַף כֹּל – שָׁווֹת בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t a bird slaughtered in one of these manners also a carcass? Rather, it is derived from that which the verse states: “Every soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa…shall be impure until the evening,” as follows: Just as the status of a tereifa is the same, if the bird is slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as it is if the bird is slaughtered outside of it, i.e., forbidden, so too all forbidden birds whose status is the same if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as it is if they were slaughtered outside of it constitute carcasses.
יָצָא שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ – הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
Consequently, the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside the Temple courtyard, or of sacrificial birds whether inside or outside of it, is excluded, since the status of such birds is not the same if they are slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as if they are slaughtered outside of it. The meat of such an offering therefore does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.
בִּשְׁלָמָא חוּלִּין – לֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ; אֶלָּא קָדָשִׁים – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פְּסוּלִין נִינְהוּ!
The Gemara challenges: Granted, the status of non-sacred birds is not the same if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as if they are slaughtered outside of it, as if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard they are forbidden, while if slaughtered outside of it they are permitted. But with regard to sacrificial birds, in both this case and that case, whether slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard or outside of it, they are disqualified.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִם הוֹעִילָה לוֹ שְׁחִיטַת חוּץ לְחַיְּיבוֹ כָּרֵת, לֹא תּוֹעִיל לוֹ לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵילָה?!
Rava says: The halakha with regard to slaughtered sacrificial birds outside the Temple should not be derived from the verse at all, but rather by logic. If the slaughter of a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard has sufficient effect on it as proper slaughter to render the one who slaughtered it liable to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], which is the punishment for slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard (see 107a), could it be that it does not have sufficient effect on the bird as proper slaughter to render it ritually pure by preventing it from assuming the status of a carcass?
אַשְׁכְּחַן חוּץ, פָּנִים מְנָלַן? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.
The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha with regard to the slaughter of sacrificial birds outside the Temple courtyard; from where do we derive this halakha with regard to their slaughter inside the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the principle articulated above: Since their status is not the same if they are slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard as if they are slaughtered outside of it, as one who slaughters a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, the status of a carcass does not apply.
אִי הָכִי, מָלַק קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ נָמֵי לָא – דְּלָא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ!
The Gemara challenges: If so, it follows that if the priest pinched sacrificial birds outside the Temple courtyard, they are also not considered carcasses, as their status is not the same if they are pinched inside the Temple courtyard as if they are pinched outside of it; if they are pinched inside, they are fit offerings, and if they are pinched outside, they are disqualified. This conclusion would contradict the mishna, which rules that sacrificial birds pinched outside the Temple courtyard are considered carcasses, and they render one who eats their meat impure.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ; וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: One can derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, i.e., sacrificial birds slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, from the halakha with regard to another item that is prepared not in its valid manner, i.e., sacrificial birds slaughtered inside it. But one cannot derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, i.e., sacrificial birds pinched outside the Temple courtyard, from the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared in its valid manner, i.e., those pinched inside it. The cases of a bird pinched outside and a bird pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not subject to comparison, so one cannot derive conclusions from the differences between them.
וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְיוֹצֵא – שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד? שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.
The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakha with regard to disqualified offerings from the halakha with regard to fit offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item that emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar, i.e., that disqualification was not applicable to an offering sacrificed on a private altar, as there was no Temple. Here, the baraita derives the halakha with regard to a disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit one.
תַּנָּא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the phrase: “This is the law of the burnt offering [ha’ola]” (Leviticus 6:2), a seemingly superfluous general phrase which is interpreted homiletically to include the halakha that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. The verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.
מַתְנִי׳ מָלַק וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ מְטַמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה,
MISHNA: If the priest pinched the nape of the bird’s neck properly and then it was found to be a tereifa, and it was therefore disqualified from being sacrificed and forbidden for consumption by a priest, Rabbi Meir says: An olive-bulk of its meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as the pinching prevents it from assuming the status of a carcass.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and its meat renders one who swallows it ritually impure.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; אִם נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; נִבְלַת הָעוֹף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ?!
Rabbi Meir said: My opinion can be inferred a fortiori. If an animal carcass transmits impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, and nevertheless the slaughter of an animal purifies it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, i.e., its slaughter prevents it from assuming the impurity status of a carcass, then with regard to a bird carcass, which possesses a lesser degree of impurity, as it does not transmit impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, but only through swallowing it, is it not logical that its slaughter should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity?
מָה מָצִינוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ – שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ לַאֲכִילָה, וּמְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ; אַף מְלִיקָתוֹ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתּוֹ בַּאֲכִילָה – תְּטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ!
And once it is established that slaughter renders a bird that is a tereifa pure, it can be inferred that just as we found with regard to its slaughter that it renders a bird fit for consumption and purifies a bird, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, so too its pinching, which renders a bird offering fit with regard to consumption, should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, וְלֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ.
Rabbi Yosei says: Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter renders even a bird that is a tereifa pure, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every a fortiori inference, namely, that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: It is sufficient for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a tereifa to be like that of the carcass of an animal that is a tereifa; its slaughter renders it pure, but its pinching does not.
גְּמָ׳ וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״?! וְהָא ״דַּיּוֹ״ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא!
GEMARA: In the mishna, Rabbi Yosei answers Rabbi Meir by invoking the principle that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir not require that a fortiori inferences conform to the principle that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source? But isn’t the principle: It is sufficient, etc., mandated by Torah law?
דְּתַנְיָא: מִדִּין קַל וְחוֹמֶר כֵּיצַד? ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה: וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״ – קַל וְחוֹמֶר לַשְּׁכִינָה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם; אֶלָּא דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.
As it is taught in a baraita: How is it derived from the Torah that derivation by means of an a fortiori inference is a valid method of biblical exegesis? The Torah states with regard to Miriam, who was reprimanded by God: “And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days” (Numbers 12:14). If one who was reprimanded by her father would hide in shame for seven days, one could infer through an a fortiori inference that one reprimanded by the Divine Presence should be shut up outside the camp for fourteen days. Rather, one must say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי אָבִין: רַבִּי מֵאִיר קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וְקָדָרֵשׁ –
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Avin, said: Rabbi Meir does require that a fortiori inferences conform to this principle. But he does not actually infer his opinion a fortiori; rather, he found a verse and interpreted it.
״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״ – וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, עוֹף אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא! עוֹף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה!
The Torah states, with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered animal carcasses: “This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is a beast equal to a fowl and a fowl equal to a beast? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal transmits impurity by touching and by carrying, whereas a bird does not transmit impurity by touching or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.
אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה בְּהֵמָה – דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ לַאֲכִילָה, מְטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; אַף עוֹף – דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירוֹ בַּאֲכִילָה, מְטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ.
Rather, this verse serves to tell you that just as with regard to an animal, that which renders it fit for consumption, i.e., slaughter, purifies it, even when it is a tereifa, from its impurity, so too with regard to a bird, that which renders it fit for consumption, i.e., both the slaughter of a non-sacred bird and pinching the nape of a bird offering, purifies a bird, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי טַעְמָא? קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וְקָדָרֵשׁ: ״נְבֵלָה טְרֵפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: טְרֵפָה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה – הֲרֵי נְבֵילָה אֲמוּרָה! אִם טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה! אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה.
§ The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a bird that is a tereifa imparts impurity even when slaughtered? He too found a verse and interpreted it. The Torah states with regard to the ritual impurity of kosher bird carcasses: “And every soul that eats a carcass, or a tereifa…he shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). Rabbi Yehuda said: Why was the case of a tereifa stated? If the verse is referring to a live tereifa, it should not be impure, as the term “a carcass” is stated, indicating that to impart impurity the bird must be dead. If it is referring to a tereifa that is not alive, but rather has died of its wounds, it falls within the category of a carcass. Rather, the word tereifa is written to include a tereifa that one slaughtered before it had the opportunity to die by itself, to teach that it imparts ritual impurity as would a carcass.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה״ –
Rav Sheizevi said to the Sage who suggested this source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: If that is so, one should interpret another verse likewise, as it is written: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service” (Leviticus 7:24), meaning that although the meat of a carcass imparts ritual impurity, those fats that would be forbidden even if the animal had been slaughtered do not impart impurity.
הָתָם נָמֵי נֵימָא: אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה – הֲרֵי נְבֵילָה אֲמוּרָה, אִם טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה! אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שֶׁחֶלְבָּהּ טָהוֹר. מִכְּלָל דְּהִיא מְטַמְּאָה?
There too let us say, interpreting the verse according to Rabbi Yehuda’s logic: Why is the case of a tereifa stated? If it is referring to a live tereifa, the case is superfluous, as “a carcass” is stated. Since the forbidden fat of a carcass is pure, obviously that of a live animal is pure. If it is referring to a tereifa that is not alive, but has rather died of its wounds, it is included within the category of “a carcass,” and likewise it need not be mentioned. Rather, the word “tereifa” is written to include a tereifa that one slaughtered, to teach that its forbidden fat is pure. By inference, one should then conclude that its meat does impart impurity.
וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה, מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? זוֹ טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ!
But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the impurity of carcasses states: “And if some animal, of which you may eat, dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:39)? The word “some” teaches that some animals impart impurity and some animals do not impart impurity. And what is it that does not impart impurity? That is a tereifa that one slaughtered. And if even its meat does not impart impurity, the word tereifa is not needed to teach that its forbidden fat is pure.
אֶלָּא טְרֵיפָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לְמַעוֹטֵי טְמֵאָה; מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָהּ טְרֵיפָה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינָהּ טְרֵיפָה.
Rather, the word tereifa in the verse concerning forbidden fat (Leviticus 7:24) is necessary to exclude non-kosher animals from the halakha in the verse and to teach that their forbidden fat is impure. The word indicates that only the forbidden fat of those carcasses to whose species the halakha of tereifa applies, i.e., those of kosher animals, impart impurity. Forbidden fat of a carcass of a non-kosher animal is excluded, as the halakha of tereifa does not apply to its species. The status of tereifa is immaterial for a non-kosher animal as its consumption is prohibited in any event.
הָכָא נָמֵי – לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא, שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ טְרֵיפָה!
Here too, the word tereifa in the verse concerning the impurity of kosher bird carcasses (Leviticus 17:15) should be interpreted as excluding a carcass of a non-kosher bird from ritual impurity, as the halakha of tereifa does not apply to its species. Therefore, this verse cannot serve as a source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to the impurity of a slaughtered bird that is a tereifa.
עוֹף טָמֵא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מִנְּבֵילָה נָפְקָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha that the carcass of a non-kosher bird does not impart impurity is derived from the phrase “a carcass” as it appears elsewhere.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא נִבְלַת עוֹף טָמֵא מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל״ – מִי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל נְבֵילָה; יָצָא זֶה, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל נְבֵילָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל טָמֵא.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that the carcass of a non-kosher bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. But the verse states, concerning the impurity of carcasses of birds: “A carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat” (Leviticus 22:8). This type of impurity applies only to those birds that are forbidden specifically due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, i.e., kosher birds that died without ritual slaughter. This carcass of a non-kosher animal is excluded, and is not impure, as it is forbidden not due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, but rather due to the prohibition: You shall not eat a non-kosher bird, to render yourself impure with it. Consequently, the word tereifa in the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 17:15) teaches that a slaughtered tereifa imparts ritual impurity, as originally posited.
