Zevachim 69

וליטעמיך שלא היה פסולו בקודש לאיתויי מאי

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?

אלא רישא לאיתויי שחיטת קדשים בפנים סיפא לאיתויי מליקת חולין בחוץ

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.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן מלקה זר מלקה פסול הפיגול והנותר והטמא אין מטמאין אבית הבליעה

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.

אמר רבי יצחק שמעתי שתים אחת קמיצת זר ואחת מליקת זר אחת תרד ואחת לא תרד ולא ידענא אמר חזקיה מסתברא קמיצה תרד מליקה לא תרד

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.

מאי שנא מליקה דישנה בבמה קמיצה נמי ישנה בבמה

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.

וכי תימא אין מנחה בבמה אין עופות נמי בבמה

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.

דאמר רב ששת לדברי האומר יש מנחה בבמה יש עופות בבמה לדברי האומר אין מנחה אין עופות מאי טעמא זבחים ולא מנחות זבחים ולא עופות

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.

אלא אימא אין קידוש בכלי שרת במנחה בבמה

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.

מלק בשמאל או בלילה כו׳ תנו רבנן יכול תהא מליקה שהיא לפנים מטמאה בגדים בבית הבליעה תלמוד לומר נבלה

§ 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.

הא נמי נבלה היא אלא תלמוד לומר טריפה מה טריפה שאין מתרת את האיסור אף כל שאין מתרת את האיסור

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 מליקה שהיא לפנים הואיל והיא מתרת את האיסור אין מטמא בגדים בבית הבליעה

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.

הביא המולק (קץ חפץ סימן) קדשים בחוץ ומולק חולין בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ הואיל ואין מתירין את האיסור מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה

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.

תניא אידך יכול תהא שחיטת חולין לפנים וקדשים בין מבפנים ובין מבחוץ מטמאה אבית הבליעה תלמוד לומר נבלה

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.

הא נמי נבלה היא אלא תלמוד לומר טריפה מה טריפה שווה בפנים כבחוץ אף כל שוות בפנים כבחוץ

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.

יצא שחיטת חולין בפנים וקדשים בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ הואיל ולא שוו בפנים כבחוץ אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה

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.

בשלמא חולין לא שוו בפנים כבחוץ אלא קדשים אידי ואידי פסולין נינהו

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.

אמר רבא אם הועילה לו שחיטת חוץ לחייבו כרת לא תועיל לו לטהרה מידי נבילה

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?

אשכחן חוץ פנים מנלן הואיל ולא שוו בפנים כבחוץ

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.

אי הכי מלק קדשים בחוץ נמי לא דלא שוו בפנים כבחוץ

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.

אמר רב שימי בר אשי דנין דבר שלא בהיכשרו מדבר שלא בהיכשרו ואין דנין דבר שלא בהיכשרו מדבר שבהיכשרו

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.

ולא והתניא מנין ליוצא שאם עלה לא ירד שהרי יוצא כשר בבמה

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

תנא אזאת תורת העולה ריבה סמיך ליה

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.

מתני׳ מלק ונמצאת טריפה רבי מאיר אומר אינו מטמא בבית הבליעה

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.

רבי יהודה אומר מטמא

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.

אמר רבי מאיר קל וחומר אם נבלת בהמה שמטמאה במגע ובמשא שחיטתה מטהרת טריפתה מטומאתה נבלת העוף שאינו מטמא במגע ובמשא אינו דין שתהא שחיטתו מטהרת טריפתו מטומאתו

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?

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

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.

רבי יוסי אומר דיה כנבלת בהמה שחיטתה מטהרתה ולא מליקתה

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.

גמ׳ ורבי מאיר לא דריש דיו והא דיו דאורייתא הוא

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?

דתניא מדין קל וחומר כיצד ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה וגו׳ קל וחומר לשכינה ארבעה עשר יום אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון

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.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי אבין רבי מאיר קרא אשכח וקדרש

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.

זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף וכי באיזו תורה שוותה בהמה לעוף ועוף לבהמה בהמה מטמאה במגע ובמשא עוף אינו מטמא במגע ובמשא עוף מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה בהמה אינה מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה

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.

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

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.

ורבי יהודה מאי טעמא קרא אשכח וקדרש נבלה טרפה אמר רבי יהודה טרפה למה נאמרה אם טריפה חיה הרי נבילה אמורה אם טריפה אינה חיה הרי היא בכלל נבילה אלא להביא טריפה ששחטה שמטמאה

§ 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.

אמר ליה רב שיזבי אלא מעתה דכתיב וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה

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.

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

There too let us 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.

והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא וכי ימות מן הבהמה מקצת בהמה מטמאה מקצת בהמה אינה מטמאה ואיזו זו זו טריפה ששחטה

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.

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

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.

הכא נמי למעוטי עוף טמא שאין במינו טריפה

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.

עוף טמא לרבי יהודה מנבלה נפקא ליה

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 “a carcass” as it appears elsewhere.

דתניא רבי יהודה אומר יכול תהא נבלת עוף טמא מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה תלמוד לומר נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל נבילה יצא זה שאין איסורו משום בל תאכל נבילה אלא משום בל תאכל טמא

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.