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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 22, 2018 | 讟壮 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 70

What are the sources for Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir’s opinions?聽A verse regarding the forbidden fat of neveila and treifa are brought in to question Rabbi Yehuda’s proof text. After that is resolved, counter questions are brought on Rabbi Meir – how does he deal with the extra words in the various verses that Rabbi Yehuda聽derived his opinion from.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛

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: 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), which teaches that such forbidden fat is ritually pure.

诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讬爪讗转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 [讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛] 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟诪讗

The continuation of the verse: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it,鈥 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鈥檚 derivation of this halakha from the word tereifa is therefore superfluous.

讗诇讗 讛讗讬 讟专驻讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬 砖讞诇讘讛 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专 讬爪讗转 讝讜 砖讞诇讘讛 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, this word tereifa鈥 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 鈥tereifateaches 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟诪讗讛 讚讗讬谉 讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讞讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讜注讜讚 讛讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜

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鈥檛 it written later in the verse: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:24)? This phrase is interpreted (70b) as excluding the fat of undomesticated animals, teaching that it is impure.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讟专驻讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟诪讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讜讟专讬驻讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讞诇讘讛 讟诪讗 讗祝 讟专讬驻讛 讞诇讘讛 讟诪讗

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 鈥tereifa鈥 therefore teaches that it is pure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讜祝 讟诪讗 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讟专讬驻讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛 注讜祝 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗祝 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛

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 鈥tereifa鈥 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.

讜注讜讚 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诇祝 讟专驻讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讟专讬驻讛 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟专讬驻讛 诪讘讟谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘诪讬谞讛 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专讬驻讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘

Rather, Rava said: The word tereifa in the verse concerning forbidden fat (Leviticus 7:24) teaches a different halakha. By stating: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it,鈥 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 鈥tereifa鈥 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.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 谞讘讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讟诪讬讗 讗讘诇 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讟专讬驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And both the word 鈥渃arcass鈥 and the word 鈥tereifaare 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.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 讟专驻讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐

搂 The Gemara has established that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the word 鈥tereifa鈥 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鈥? 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟专驻讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎 carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat to become impure with it鈥 (Leviticus 22:8). Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha from this verse.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪谞讘诇讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛

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 鈥渃arcass鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎 carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat to become impure with it鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 谞讘诇讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛 诇砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Meir do with this word 鈥渃arcass鈥? The Gemara answers: Since the verse mentions eating, Rabbi Meir holds that the word 鈥渃arcass鈥 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.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But let him derive this measure from the first verse: 鈥淎nd every soul that eats a carcass鈥hall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 17:15), from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha using the language of consumption.

讞讚 诇砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转 讜讞讚 诇砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

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.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 The Gemara cites a baraita concerning the impurity of the forbidden fat of a carcass. The Sages taught: When the verse: 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) teaches that such fat is pure, the verse speaks of the forbidden fat of a kosher animal.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

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?

讗诪专转 讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 砖讞讜讟讛 讜讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 诪讛 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 砖讞讜讟讛 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讘讟诪讗讛 讗祝 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讘讟诪讗讛

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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 诪讛 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讛讜专讛 讗祝 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 讘讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讛讜专讛

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.

讗诪专转

You may say in response:

讻砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讟讛讜专讛 讻砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讟诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讟专驻讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛

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: 鈥淭he fat of a tereifa may be used for any other service鈥 (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.

讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讞讬讛 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜 诪讬 砖讞诇讘讛 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专 讬爪讗 讞讬讛 砖讞诇讘讛 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专

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: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讟诪讗讛 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 住讘讬 砖讘讬砖转讜 讘讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟诪讗

Rav Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讟讬讛专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘转诪讬诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讟讛专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 注专祝 注讝 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 understanding of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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鈥檚 neck be broken if a murdered body is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:4).

讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚诪讬谞讗 讚注讜驻讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 注讝 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讗 讚注讙诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬谞讗 讚讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讻诇诇 讚注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讻拽讚砖讬诐

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: 鈥淔orgive, Lord, Your people Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:8), just as atonement is written with regard to sacrificial animals, the breaking of the heifer鈥檚 neck is equivalent to the pinching of the nape of a bird offering, and breaking its neck prevents the heifer from imparting ritual impurity.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞转谉 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 (讘专 谞转谉) 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞诇讘 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讞诇讘 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪谞讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞诇讘

The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no fat nor blood鈥 (Leviticus 3:17). The generalization 鈥渘o fat鈥 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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞诇讘讛 讟诪讗

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?

讛讬讻讗 讚注专祝 诪讬注专祝 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 讛讬讻讗 讚砖讞讟讛 诪讬砖讞讟

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.

讜转讬讛谞讬 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖诪转讛

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.

诪讻诇诇 讚诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讛讬讗 讗讜住专转讛

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讞讟讗讜转 讛诪转讜转 讗讜 讘砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讘专讬讘讜讗 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇谉 谞转注专讘讜 讘砖讜专 砖谞注讘讚讛 讘讜 注讘讬专讛 讗讜

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

  • 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 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 70

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛

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: 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), which teaches that such forbidden fat is ritually pure.

诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讬爪讗转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 [讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛] 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讟诪讗

The continuation of the verse: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it,鈥 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鈥檚 derivation of this halakha from the word tereifa is therefore superfluous.

讗诇讗 讛讗讬 讟专驻讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬 砖讞诇讘讛 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专 讬爪讗转 讝讜 砖讞诇讘讛 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, this word tereifa鈥 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 鈥tereifateaches 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讟诪讗讛 讚讗讬谉 讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讞讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讜注讜讚 讛讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜

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鈥檛 it written later in the verse: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:24)? This phrase is interpreted (70b) as excluding the fat of undomesticated animals, teaching that it is impure.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讟专驻讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟诪讗讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讜讟专讬驻讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讞诇讘讛 讟诪讗 讗祝 讟专讬驻讛 讞诇讘讛 讟诪讗

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 鈥tereifa鈥 therefore teaches that it is pure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讜祝 讟诪讗 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讟专讬驻讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛 注讜祝 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗祝 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛

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 鈥tereifa鈥 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.

讜注讜讚 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诇祝 讟专驻讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讟专讬驻讛 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟专讬驻讛 诪讘讟谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘诪讬谞讛 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专讬驻讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘

Rather, Rava said: The word tereifa in the verse concerning forbidden fat (Leviticus 7:24) teaches a different halakha. By stating: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it,鈥 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 鈥tereifa鈥 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.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 谞讘讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讟诪讬讗 讗讘诇 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讟专讬驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And both the word 鈥渃arcass鈥 and the word 鈥tereifaare 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.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 讟专驻讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐

搂 The Gemara has established that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the word 鈥tereifa鈥 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鈥? 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讟专驻讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎 carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat to become impure with it鈥 (Leviticus 22:8). Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha from this verse.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讟诪讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪谞讘诇讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛

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 鈥渃arcass鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎 carcass, or a tereifa, he shall not eat to become impure with it鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 谞讘诇讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛 诇砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Meir do with this word 鈥渃arcass鈥? The Gemara answers: Since the verse mentions eating, Rabbi Meir holds that the word 鈥渃arcass鈥 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.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But let him derive this measure from the first verse: 鈥淎nd every soul that eats a carcass鈥hall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 17:15), from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha using the language of consumption.

讞讚 诇砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转 讜讞讚 诇砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

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.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 The Gemara cites a baraita concerning the impurity of the forbidden fat of a carcass. The Sages taught: When the verse: 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) teaches that such fat is pure, the verse speaks of the forbidden fat of a kosher animal.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

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?

讗诪专转 讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 砖讞讜讟讛 讜讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 诪讛 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 砖讞讜讟讛 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讘讟诪讗讛 讗祝 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讘讟诪讗讛

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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 诪讛 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讛讜专讛 讗祝 讻砖讟讬讛专 诪讻诇诇 讞诇讘 讘讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 讘讟讛讜专讛

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.

讗诪专转

You may say in response:

讻砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讟讛讜专讛 讻砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讟诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讟专驻讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛

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: 鈥淭he fat of a tereifa may be used for any other service鈥 (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.

讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讟诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讞讬讛 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 讟专讬驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜 诪讬 砖讞诇讘讛 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专 讬爪讗 讞讬讛 砖讞诇讘讛 讜讘砖专讛 诪讜转专

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: 鈥淏ut you shall in no way eat of it,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讟诪讗讛 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 住讘讬 砖讘讬砖转讜 讘讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟诪讗

Rav Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讟讬讛专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘转诪讬诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讟讛专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 注专祝 注讝 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 understanding of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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鈥檚 neck be broken if a murdered body is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:4).

讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚诪讬谞讗 讚注讜驻讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 注讝 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讗 讚注讙诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬谞讗 讚讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讻诇诇 讚注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讻拽讚砖讬诐

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: 鈥淔orgive, Lord, Your people Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:8), just as atonement is written with regard to sacrificial animals, the breaking of the heifer鈥檚 neck is equivalent to the pinching of the nape of a bird offering, and breaking its neck prevents the heifer from imparting ritual impurity.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞转谉 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 (讘专 谞转谉) 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞诇讘 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讞诇讘 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪谞讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞诇讘

The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no fat nor blood鈥 (Leviticus 3:17). The generalization 鈥渘o fat鈥 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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讜讞诇讘讛 讟诪讗

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?

讛讬讻讗 讚注专祝 诪讬注专祝 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 讛讬讻讗 讚砖讞讟讛 诪讬砖讞讟

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.

讜转讬讛谞讬 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖诪转讛

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.

诪讻诇诇 讚诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讛讬讗 讗讜住专转讛

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讞讟讗讜转 讛诪转讜转 讗讜 讘砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讘专讬讘讜讗 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇谉 谞转注专讘讜 讘砖讜专 砖谞注讘讚讛 讘讜 注讘讬专讛 讗讜

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

Scroll To Top