Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 21, 2018 | 讞壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 69

If a non kohen does melika, does it cause the bird to be impure? Derivations are brought for the cases in the mishna that differentiate between those that do become impure and those that don’t. Does melika聽of a treifa聽remove the status of the impurity of a neveila?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

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 Yo岣nan, what disqualification is added if not pinching by a non-priest?

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 住讬驻讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪诇讬拽转 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诇拽讛 讝专 诪诇拽讛 驻住讜诇 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖诪注转讬 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 拽诪讬爪转 讝专 讜讗讞转 诪诇讬拽转 讝专 讗讞转 转专讚 讜讗讞转 诇讗 转专讚 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 拽诪讬爪讛 转专讚 诪诇讬拽讛 诇讗 转专讚

Rabbi Yitz岣k 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. 岣zkiyya 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讚讬砖谞讛 讘讘诪讛 拽诪讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讬砖谞讛 讘讘诪讛

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛 讗讬谉 注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 讘讘诪讛

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.

讚讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛 讬砖 注讜驻讜转 讘讘诪讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谉 注讜驻讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讜转 讝讘讞讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜驻讜转

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛

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.

诪诇拽 讘砖诪讗诇 讗讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 诪诇讬拽讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛

搂 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: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass鈥hall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 17:15). Bird offerings whose napes were pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not considered carcasses.

讛讗 谞诪讬 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讟专讬驻讛 诪讛 讟专讬驻讛 砖讗讬谉 诪转专转 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪转专转 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa鈥hall be impure until the evening鈥 (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.

讬爪讗 诪诇讬拽讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讬讗 诪转专转 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

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.

讛讘讬讗 讛诪讜诇拽 (拽抓 讞驻抓 住讬诪谉) 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜诪讜诇拽 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

This principle includes two other cases of invalid pinching, for which the Gemara gives a two-word mnemonic: Ketz, 岣fetz. 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.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 砖讞讬讟转 讞讜诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛

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: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass鈥hall be impure until the evening.鈥 Birds that have been slaughtered in this manner are not considered carcasses, and so they do not impart ritual impurity.

讛讗 谞诪讬 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讟专讬驻讛 诪讛 讟专讬驻讛 砖讜讜讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗祝 讻诇 砖讜讜转 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 a bird slaughtered in one of these manners also a carcass? Rather, it is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa鈥hall be impure until the evening,鈥 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.

讬爪讗 砖讞讬讟转 讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讛讜注讬诇讛 诇讜 砖讞讬讟转 讞讜抓 诇讞讬讬讘讜 讻专转 诇讗 转讜注讬诇 诇讜 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘讬诇讛

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?

讗砖讻讞谉 讞讜抓 驻谞讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇拽 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讬讻砖专讜 诪讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讬讻砖专讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讬讻砖专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讬讻砖专讜

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.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 砖讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖讛专讬 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

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鈥檛 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 an disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit one.

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 专讬讘讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the phrase: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering [ha鈥檕la]鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪诇拽 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

MISHNA: If the priest pinched the nape of the bird鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 谞讘诇转 讛注讜祝 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

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?

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖讞讬讟转讜 砖讛讬讗 诪讻砖专转讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 讗祝 诪诇讬拽转讜 砖讛讬讗 诪讻砖专转讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 转讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讻谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬拽转讛

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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚讬讜 讜讛讗 讚讬讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗

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鈥檛 the principle: It is sufficient, etc., mandated by Torah law?

讚转谞讬讗 诪讚讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讬爪讚 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讜讗讘讬讛 讬专拽 讬专拽 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讙讜壮 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇砖讻讬谞讛 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗诇讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞 讜拽讚专砖

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.

讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛注讜祝 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讜 转讜专讛 砖讜讜转讛 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜祝 讜注讜祝 诇讘讛诪讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 注讜祝 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

The Torah states, with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered animal carcasses: 鈥淭his is the law of the beast, and of the fowl鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讚讘专 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 讗祝 注讜祝 讚讘专 砖诪讻砖讬专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞 讜拽讚专砖 谞讘诇讛 讟专驻讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诪讜专讛 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讟专讬驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛

搂 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: 鈥淎nd every soul that eats a carcass, or a tereifa鈥e shall be impure until the evening鈥 (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 鈥渁 carcass鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛

Rav Sheizevi said to the Sage who suggested this source for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion: If that is so, one should interpret another verse likewise, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service鈥 (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.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诪讜专讛 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讟专讬驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛 砖讞诇讘讛 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛

There too let us say, interpreting the verse according to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 logic: Why is the case of a tereifa stated? If it is referring to a live tereifa, the case is superfluous, as 鈥渁 carcass鈥 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 鈥渁 carcass,鈥 and likewise it need not be mentioned. Rather, the word 鈥tereifa鈥 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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诪拽爪转 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪拽爪转 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讝讜 讟专讬驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛

But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the impurity of carcasses states: 鈥淎nd if some animal, of which you may eat, dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:39)? The word 鈥渟ome鈥 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.

讗诇讗 讟专驻讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟诪讗讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讟专讬驻讛

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鈥檚 opinion with regard to the impurity of a slaughtered bird that is a tereifa.

注讜祝 讟诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪谞讘诇讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha that carcass of a non-kosher bird does not impart impurity is derived from the phrase 鈥渁 carcass鈥 as it appears elsewhere.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟诪讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淎 carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat鈥 (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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 69

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

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 Yo岣nan, what disqualification is added if not pinching by a non-priest?

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 住讬驻讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪诇讬拽转 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讞讜抓

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诇拽讛 讝专 诪诇拽讛 驻住讜诇 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖诪注转讬 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 拽诪讬爪转 讝专 讜讗讞转 诪诇讬拽转 讝专 讗讞转 转专讚 讜讗讞转 诇讗 转专讚 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 拽诪讬爪讛 转专讚 诪诇讬拽讛 诇讗 转专讚

Rabbi Yitz岣k 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. 岣zkiyya 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讚讬砖谞讛 讘讘诪讛 拽诪讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讬砖谞讛 讘讘诪讛

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛 讗讬谉 注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 讘讘诪讛

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.

讚讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛 讬砖 注讜驻讜转 讘讘诪讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谉 注讜驻讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讜转 讝讘讞讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜驻讜转

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘诪谞讞讛 讘讘诪讛

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.

诪诇拽 讘砖诪讗诇 讗讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 诪诇讬拽讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛

搂 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: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass鈥hall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 17:15). Bird offerings whose napes were pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not considered carcasses.

讛讗 谞诪讬 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讟专讬驻讛 诪讛 讟专讬驻讛 砖讗讬谉 诪转专转 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪转专转 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa鈥hall be impure until the evening鈥 (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.

讬爪讗 诪诇讬拽讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讬讗 诪转专转 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

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.

讛讘讬讗 讛诪讜诇拽 (拽抓 讞驻抓 住讬诪谉) 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜诪讜诇拽 讞讜诇讬谉 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

This principle includes two other cases of invalid pinching, for which the Gemara gives a two-word mnemonic: Ketz, 岣fetz. 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.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 砖讞讬讟转 讞讜诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛

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: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass鈥hall be impure until the evening.鈥 Birds that have been slaughtered in this manner are not considered carcasses, and so they do not impart ritual impurity.

讛讗 谞诪讬 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讟专讬驻讛 诪讛 讟专讬驻讛 砖讜讜讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗祝 讻诇 砖讜讜转 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 a bird slaughtered in one of these manners also a carcass? Rather, it is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淓very soul that eats a carcass or a tereifa鈥hall be impure until the evening,鈥 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.

讬爪讗 砖讞讬讟转 讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讛讜注讬诇讛 诇讜 砖讞讬讟转 讞讜抓 诇讞讬讬讘讜 讻专转 诇讗 转讜注讬诇 诇讜 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘讬诇讛

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?

讗砖讻讞谉 讞讜抓 驻谞讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇拽 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讬讻砖专讜 诪讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讬讻砖专讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讬讻砖专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讬讻砖专讜

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.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 砖讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖讛专讬 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

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鈥檛 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 an disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit one.

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 专讬讘讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the phrase: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering [ha鈥檕la]鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪诇拽 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

MISHNA: If the priest pinched the nape of the bird鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 谞讘诇转 讛注讜祝 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

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?

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖讞讬讟转讜 砖讛讬讗 诪讻砖专转讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 讗祝 诪诇讬拽转讜 砖讛讬讗 诪讻砖专转讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 转讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讻谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬拽转讛

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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚讬讜 讜讛讗 讚讬讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗

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鈥檛 the principle: It is sufficient, etc., mandated by Torah law?

讚转谞讬讗 诪讚讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讬爪讚 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讜讗讘讬讛 讬专拽 讬专拽 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讙讜壮 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇砖讻讬谞讛 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗诇讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞 讜拽讚专砖

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.

讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛注讜祝 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讜 转讜专讛 砖讜讜转讛 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜祝 讜注讜祝 诇讘讛诪讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 注讜祝 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

The Torah states, with regard to the impurity of unslaughtered animal carcasses: 鈥淭his is the law of the beast, and of the fowl鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讚讘专 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诪讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 讗祝 注讜祝 讚讘专 砖诪讻砖讬专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讜 诪讟讜诪讗转讜

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞 讜拽讚专砖 谞讘诇讛 讟专驻讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诪讜专讛 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讟专讬驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛

搂 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: 鈥淎nd every soul that eats a carcass, or a tereifa鈥e shall be impure until the evening鈥 (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 鈥渁 carcass鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛

Rav Sheizevi said to the Sage who suggested this source for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion: If that is so, one should interpret another verse likewise, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service鈥 (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.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诪讜专讛 讗诐 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讟专讬驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛 砖讞诇讘讛 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛

There too let us say, interpreting the verse according to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 logic: Why is the case of a tereifa stated? If it is referring to a live tereifa, the case is superfluous, as 鈥渁 carcass鈥 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 鈥渁 carcass,鈥 and likewise it need not be mentioned. Rather, the word 鈥tereifa鈥 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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诪拽爪转 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪拽爪转 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讝讜 讟专讬驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛

But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the impurity of carcasses states: 鈥淎nd if some animal, of which you may eat, dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:39)? The word 鈥渟ome鈥 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.

讗诇讗 讟专驻讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟诪讗讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讟专讬驻讛

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鈥檚 opinion with regard to the impurity of a slaughtered bird that is a tereifa.

注讜祝 讟诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪谞讘诇讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha that carcass of a non-kosher bird does not impart impurity is derived from the phrase 鈥渁 carcass鈥 as it appears elsewhere.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟诪讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淎 carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat鈥 (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.

Scroll To Top