## Zevachim Daf 69b

###### Zevachim 69b:1
[Zevachim 69b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:1)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:2
[Zevachim 69b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; אִם נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; נִבְלַת הָעוֹף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Zevachim 69b:3
[Zevachim 69b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:3)

מָה מָצִינוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ – שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ לַאֲכִילָה, וּמְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ; אַף מְלִיקָתוֹ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתּוֹ בַּאֲכִילָה – תְּטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִידֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:4
[Zevachim 69b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:4)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, וְלֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:5
[Zevachim 69b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״?! וְהָא ״דַּיּוֹ״ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Zevachim 69b:6
[Zevachim 69b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: מִדִּין קַל וְחוֹמֶר כֵּיצַד? ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה: וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״ – קַל וְחוֹמֶר לַשְּׁכִינָה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם; אֶלָּא דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:7
[Zevachim 69b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי אָבִין: רַבִּי מֵאִיר קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וְקָדָרֵשׁ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 69b:8
[Zevachim 69b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:8)

״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״ – וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, עוֹף אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא! עוֹף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:9
[Zevachim 69b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:9)

אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה בְּהֵמָה – דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ לַאֲכִילָה, מְטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; אַף עוֹף – דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירוֹ בַּאֲכִילָה, מְטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתוֹ מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:10
[Zevachim 69b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:10)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי טַעְמָא? קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וְקָדָרֵשׁ: ״נְבֵלָה טְרֵפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: טְרֵפָה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה? אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה – הֲרֵי נְבֵילָה אֲמוּרָה! אִם טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה! אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Zevachim 69b:11
[Zevachim 69b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 69b:12
[Zevachim 69b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:12)

הָתָם נָמֵי נֵימָא: אִם טְרֵיפָה חַיָּה – הֲרֵי נְבֵילָה אֲמוּרָה, אִם טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא בִּכְלַל נְבֵילָה! אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שֶׁחֶלְבָּהּ טָהוֹר. מִכְּלָל דְּהִיא מְטַמְּאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 69b:13
[Zevachim 69b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:13)

וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה, מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? זוֹ טְרֵיפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 69b:14
[Zevachim 69b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:14)

אֶלָּא טְרֵיפָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ – לְמַעוֹטֵי טְמֵאָה; מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָהּ טְרֵיפָה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינָהּ טְרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 69b:15
[Zevachim 69b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:15)

הָכָא נָמֵי – לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא, שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ טְרֵיפָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Zevachim 69b:16
[Zevachim 69b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:16)

עוֹף טָמֵא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מִנְּבֵילָה נָפְקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **According to Rabbi Yehuda,** the *halakha* that the carcass of **a non-kosher bird** does not impart impurity **is derived from** the phrase **“a carcass”** as it appears elsewhere.


###### Zevachim 69b:17
[Zevachim 69b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69b:17)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא נִבְלַת עוֹף טָמֵא מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל״ – מִי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל נְבֵילָה; יָצָא זֶה, שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל נְבֵילָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בַּל תֹּאכַל טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.