Zevachim 70

האי נמי תיפוק לי מוחלב נבלה

The Gemara challenges: According to this logic, one can also derive the halakha that the forbidden fat of the carcass of a non-kosher animal is impure from the verse: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service” (Leviticus 7:24), which teaches that such forbidden fat is ritually pure.

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

The continuation of the verse: “But you shall in no way eat of it,” indicates that the verse renders pure only fat that is forbidden specifically due to the prohibition: You shall not eat the forbidden fat of a carcass, i.e., the forbidden fat of kosher animals. This serves to exclude this forbidden fat of a non-kosher animal, which is not forbidden due to the prohibition: You shall not eat the forbidden fat of a carcass, but rather due to the prohibition against eating a non-kosher animal. Since the verse that states that fats are ritually pure is referring only to kosher animals, the forbidden fat of a carcass of a non-kosher animal must be impure. Rav Sheizevi’s derivation of this halakha from the word tereifa is therefore superfluous.

אלא האי טרפה מיבעי לאיתויי חיה סלקא דעתך אמינא מי שחלבה אסור ובשרה מותר יצאת זו שחלבה ובשרה מותר קא משמע לן

Rather, this word “tereifa” is necessary to include the forbidden fat of a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal, to teach that it is ritually pure; as it might enter your mind to say that only the forbidden fat of carcasses of those animals whose fat is forbidden and whose meat is permitted if slaughtered, i.e., kosher domesticated animals, is ritually pure, and this serves to exclude this forbidden fat of carcasses of those animals whose fat and meat are both permitted if slaughtered, i.e., kosher undomesticated animals, whose fat is impure. To counter this possibility, the word “tereifa” teaches us that the fat of a carcass of any animal that can become a tereifa is ritually pure, including the fat of kosher undomesticated animals.

אמר ליה מאי שנא טמאה דאין חלבה חלוק מבשרה חיה נמי אין חלבה חלוק מבשרה ועוד הכתיב ואכל לא תאכלוהו

He said to him: If it is derived from the verse that the forbidden fat of a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal is pure, what is different about a non-kosher animal that would cause its forbidden fat to be impure? If the difference is that its fat is not distinct from its meat, as both are forbidden for consumption, the fat of a kosher undomesticated animal is also not distinct from its meat, as both are permitted. And furthermore, isn’t it written later in the verse: “But you shall in no way eat of it” (Leviticus 7:24)? This phrase is interpreted (70b) as excluding the fat of undomesticated animals, teaching that it is impure.

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

Rather, Abaye said: The word “tereifa” in this verse was necessary for its own sake, to teach that the forbidden fat of a carcass of a tereifa of a kosher domesticated animal is pure. The inclusion of the word teaches that you should not say that since a non-kosher animal is forbidden while still alive, and a tereifa is forbidden while still alive, therefore just as the forbidden fat of a non-kosher animal is impure, so too the forbidden fat of a tereifa is impure. The word “tereifa” therefore teaches that it is pure.

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

The Gemara asks: But if so, i.e., if one could have learned the halakha of the forbidden fat of a tereifa from the halakha of the forbidden fat of a non-kosher animal, then this word “tereifa” in the verse concerning the impurity of a kosher bird carcass (Leviticus 17:15) is also necessary for its own sake, to teach that the carcass of a kosher bird that is a tereifa is impure. It is necessary for this to be written with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird so that you should not say as follows: Since a non-kosher bird is forbidden for consumption, and a tereifa is forbidden for consumption, therefore just as a non-kosher bird does not impart impurity, so too a tereifa does not impart impurity. According the Rabbi Yehuda, the word is necessary to include the slaughtered kosher bird that is a tereifa, not a carcass.

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

And furthermore, is it possible to derive the halakha concerning a tereifa from that concerning a non-kosher animal, as suggested? The two cases are incomparable, as a non-kosher animal never had a kosher period before being forbidden, whereas a tereifa had a kosher period before becoming a tereifa. And if you would say: What can be said with regard to an animal that is a tereifa from the womb, which never had a kosher period? In any event, there are kosher animals among its species, i.e., the tereifa is a member of a kosher species, which cannot be said of a non-kosher animal.

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

Rather, Rava said: The word tereifa in the verse concerning forbidden fat (Leviticus 7:24) teaches a different halakha. By stating: “But you shall in no way eat of it,” referring to the forbidden fat of a carcass, the Torah states: Let the prohibition of eating a carcass come and take effect where the prohibition of eating forbidden fat already exists. One who eats the forbidden fat of a carcass is liable both for eating forbidden fat and for eating from a carcass. Likewise, the word “tereifa” in the verse teaches: Let the prohibition of eating a tereifa come and take effect where the prohibition of eating forbidden fat already exists, so that one who eats the forbidden fat of a tereifa is liable for transgressing two prohibitions.

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

And both the word “carcass” and the word “tereifa” are necessary, even though they teach similar halakhot. As, had the verse taught us about additional liability only with regard to the forbidden fat of a carcass, one might have thought that it applies to only a carcass, as it imparts ritual impurity, but with regard to a tereifa, which does not, one might say that the additional liability does not apply. And had the verse taught us this halakha only with regard to a tereifa, one might have thought that it applies only to a tereifa, as its prohibition takes effect while it is still alive, but with regard to a carcass, which becomes forbidden only when it dies, one might say that it does not apply. Both words are therefore necessary.

ורבי מאיר האי טרפה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה למעוטי שחיטה שהיא לפנים

§ The Gemara has established that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the word “tereifa” in the verse concerning the impurity of a kosher bird carcass (Leviticus 17:15) teaches that a slaughtered bird that is a tereifa imparts ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Meir, who holds that a slaughtered bird that is a tereifa does not impart ritual impurity, do with this word “tereifa”? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to exclude the slaughter of non-sacred birds that occurs inside the Temple courtyard, teaching that it does not cause them to impart ritual impurity as would a carcass, even though they are forbidden for consumption.

ורבי יהודה טרפה אחרינא כתיב

And how does Rabbi Yehuda derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Another instance of the word tereifa is written concerning the ritual impurity of birds: “A carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat to become impure with it” (Leviticus 22:8). Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha from this verse.

ורבי מאיר חד למעוטי שחיטה שהיא לפנים וחד למעוטי עוף טמא

And how does Rabbi Meir interpret the appearance of the word tereifa in both verses? The Gemara answers: One is necessary to ex-clude the slaughter that occurs inside the Temple courtyard as mentioned above, and one is necessary to exclude a non-kosher bird, to teach that the carcass of a non-kosher bird does not impart ritual impurity.

ורבי יהודה מנבלה נפקא ליה

And how does Rabbi Yehuda derive that the carcass of a non-kosher bird does not impart ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the word “carcass” in the verse: “A carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat to become impure with it” (Leviticus 22:8), which indicates that only carcasses of birds that are forbidden for consumption due to their status as a carcass are impure. Non-kosher birds are forbidden due to their non-kosher status, not due to their status as a carcass.

ורבי מאיר האי נבלה מאי עביד לה לשיעור אכילה בכזית

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Meir do with this word “carcass”? The Gemara answers: Since the verse mentions eating, Rabbi Meir holds that the word “carcass” is written to teach that the minimum measure of consumption of the meat of a bird carcass that renders one impure is an olive-bulk, which is the standard legal measure of consumption for Torah laws in general.

ותיפוק לי מקרא קמא מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון אכילה

The Gemara challenges: But let him derive this measure from the first verse: “And every soul that eats a carcass…shall be impure” (Leviticus 17:15), from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha using the language of consumption.

חד לשיעור אכילה בכזית וחד לשיעור אכילה בכדי אכילת פרס

The Gemara responds: Both verses are necessary, one to indicate that the measure of consumption that renders one impure is an olive-bulk, and one to indicate that the maximum measure of time for consumption of the olive-bulk is the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. One who takes longer than this standard measure of time will not contract impurity.

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וחידוש הוא יותר מכדי אכילת פרס נמי ליטמא קא משמע לן

It is necessary for the Torah to indicate this latter halakha as well, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say: Since the impurity of carcasses of birds is a novelty, as one contracts it by eating rather than by touching or carrying, perhaps its halakhot are unusually stringent and even one who eats an olive-bulk in more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread should also contract impurity. Therefore, the verse teaches us otherwise.

תנו רבנן וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה בחלב בהמה טהורה הכתוב מדבר

§ The Gemara cites a baraita concerning the impurity of the forbidden fat of a carcass. The Sages taught: When the verse: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service” (Leviticus 7:24) teaches that such fat is pure, the verse speaks of the forbidden fat of a kosher animal.

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

The baraita challenges: Do you say that the verse speaks of the forbidden fat of a kosher animal, or perhaps does it only speak of the forbidden fat of a non-kosher animal?

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

You may say in response: The Torah renders a slaughtered animal pure of the impurity of a carcass due to the fact that it was ritually slaughtered. And likewise the Torah renders the forbidden fat of a carcass pure, due to the fact that it is forbidden fat. Therefore, the two cases are comparable: Just as when the Torah renders a slaughtered animal pure due to the fact that it was slaughtered, it is referring only to a kosher animal and not to a non-kosher animal, which is impure even when ritually slaughtered, so too, when the Torah renders forbidden fat pure due to the fact that it is forbidden fat, it is referring only to a kosher animal and not to a non-kosher animal.

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

The baraita challenges: Or perhaps go this way and maintain that since the Torah renders the carcass of a non-kosher animal ritually pure, removing it from the category of a carcass, and likewise the Torah renders the forbidden fat of a carcass pure, due to the fact that it is forbidden fat; therefore, the two cases are comparable: Just as when the Torah renders the carcass of a non-kosher animal pure, removing it from the category of a carcass, it is referring only to a non-kosher animal and not to a kosher animal, the carcass of which imparts impurity, so too, when the Torah renders forbidden fat pure due to the fact that it is forbidden fat, it is referring only to a non-kosher animal and not to a kosher animal.

אמרת

You may say in response:

כשבא בדרך זו היא בטהורה כשבא בדרך זו היא בטמאה תלמוד לומר טרפה מי שיש במינה טריפה

When one approaches the matter this first way, the halakha that forbidden fat is pure applies specifically to kosher animals, but when one approaches the matter that second way, the halakha applies specifically to non-kosher animals. To decide the matter, the verse states: “The fat of a tereifa may be used for any other service” (Leviticus 7:24), indicating that only the forbidden fat of those animals to whose species the halakha of tereifa applies, i.e., kosher animals, is ritually pure. The status of tereifa is immaterial to a non-kosher animal as its consumption is prohibited in any event.

אוציא את הטמאה שאין במינה טריפה ולא אוציא את החיה שיש במינה טריפה תלמוד לומר ואכל לא תאכלוהו מי שחלבה אסור ובשרה מותר יצא חיה שחלבה ובשרה מותר

The baraita concludes: One might still assume that I will exclude from this halakha only the forbidden fat of a carcass of a non-kosher animal, as the halakha of tereifa does not apply to its species, but I will not exclude the fat of a carcass of an undomesticated kosher animal, as the halakha of tereifa applies to its species. Therefore, the verse states in conclusion: “But you shall in no way eat of it,” indicating that the reference is only to animals whose fat is forbidden for consumption if slaughtered but whose meat is permitted, i.e., kosher domesticated animals. Excluded are kosher undomesticated animals, whose fat and meat are both permitted for consumption.

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

Rav Ya’akov bar Abba said to Rava: If that is so, it appears from the baraita that the carcass of a kosher animal imparts impurity, but the carcass of a non-kosher animal does not impart impurity. Rava said to him: How many elders have you caused to err in the interpretation of this baraita? In the latter clause we come to discuss only the carcass of a non-kosher bird, which does not impart impurity. By contrast, carcasses of non-kosher animals are impure.

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

§ In the mishna, Rabbi Meir states that a bird offering whose nape was pinched and was found to be a tereifa does not impart impurity as would a carcass. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir deemed pure only unblemished birds whose napes were pinched, as they are fit to be sacrificed, but he did not deem pure blemished birds, which are not fit to be sacrificed. And Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Meir deemed even blemished birds pure and did not distinguish between the two. It was also stated that Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Meir would deem pure blemished birds, and this was his opinion even concerning geese and chickens, species that may not be brought as offerings and as such are never supposed to be pinched.

בעי רבי ירמיה ערף עז מהו

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Elazar’s understanding of Rabbi Meir’s opinion, what is the halakha with regard to one who broke the neck of a goat? Does the impurity of animal carcasses apply? The breaking of the neck is considered the proper procedure in certain cases, as the Torah commands that a heifer’s neck be broken if a murdered body is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:4).

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

One could claim: What is the reason that geese and chickens are pure if their napes are pinched? It is because they are species of birds and the napes of some birds are pinched; but a goat is not of the same species as a heifer, as goats are considered small livestock whereas cattle are large livestock. Or perhaps one could claim: Since a goat is still a species of domesticated animal, it is similar enough to a heifer that the breaking of its neck prevents it from imparting impurity as a carcass.

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

Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this halakha, i.e., this dilemma. Abaye said to him: By inference from this dilemma, it seems that you assume that a heifer whose neck is broken is itself pure and does not impart impurity as would a carcass. Rav Dimi said to him: Indeed, as the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: Since the language of atonement is written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, in the verse: “Forgive, Lord, Your people Israel” (Deuteronomy 21:8), just as atonement is written with regard to sacrificial animals, the breaking of the heifer’s neck is equivalent to the pinching of the nape of a bird offering, and breaking its neck prevents the heifer from imparting ritual impurity.

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

Rav Natan, father of Rav Huna bar Natan, raises an objection based on a baraita concerning the purity of the forbidden fat of a kosher animal, mentioned in the verse: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa, may be used for any other service; but you shall in no way eat of it” (Leviticus 7:24). I have derived from the verse only that forbidden fat that is forbidden for consumption but from which deriving benefit is permitted is pure. From where is it derived that this halakha also applies to the forbidden fat of an ox that is stoned by the court or the forbidden fat of a heifer whose neck is broken, from both of which one is prohibited from deriving benefit?

תלמוד לומר כל חלב

The verse states: “You shall eat no fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17). The generalization “no fat” indicates that the same halakhot apply to the forbidden fats of all domesticated kosher animals, including those from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit.

ואי סלקא דעתך עגלה ערופה טהורה היא היא טהורה וחלבה טמא

Rav Natan concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that the meat of a heifer whose neck is broken is pure, why must the verse teach that its forbidden fat is pure? Could one entertain the possibility that its meat is pure but its forbidden fat is impure?

היכא דערף מיערף לא איצטריכא ליה כי איצטריכא היכא דשחטה מישחט

The Gemara responds: The derivation in the baraita was not necessary for a case where one broke the neck of the heifer. It was necessary for the verse to teach that the forbidden fat is pure even in a case where one slaughtered a heifer whose neck was designated to be broken.

ותיהני ליה שחיטה לטהרה מידי נבלה לא צריכא שמתה

The Gemara asks: But the slaughter itself should be effective in purifying the forbidden fat, as slaughter prevents an animal from assuming the impure status of a carcass, and the derivation is still superfluous. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach that the forbidden fat of a heifer that died before its neck could be broken is pure even though the heifer itself assumes that status of a carcass.

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

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring only to a heifer that died before its neck could be broken, and it describes benefitting from it as being prohibited, by inference, is it prohibited to derive benefit from the heifer while it is still alive? The Gemara responds: Indeed, as Rabbi Yannai says: I heard the boundary, i.e., stage, beyond which it is forbidden, but I have forgotten what it is, and yet the members of the group of scholars were inclined to say that its descent to a hard valley (see Deuteronomy 21:4), where its neck was broken, is the action that renders it forbidden.

הדרן עלך חטאת העוף

מתני׳ כל הזבחים שנתערבו בחטאות המתות או בשור הנסקל אפילו אחת בריבוא ימותו כולן נתערבו בשור שנעבדה בו עבירה או

MISHNA: All the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden, e.g., sin offerings left to die, or with an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they all must die. If the offerings were intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is forbidden but deriving benefit from them is not, the halakha is different. Examples of this are an ox with which a transgression was performed, which disqualifies it from being sacrificed as an offering, or