Yet even on your view, what does [the clause] IF THEIR UNFITNESS DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY include? (1) Rather, the first clause includes shechitah of [bird] sacrifices within, (2) while the second clause includes melikah of hullin without. (3) It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan: If a Zar nipped it; or if an unfit person nipped it; or [if it was] Piggul, nothar or [an] unclean [sacrifice].4 it does not defile in the gullet. (5) R. Isaac said: I have heard two [laws], one relating to kemizah (6) by a Zar and the other to melikah by a Zar: one descends and the other does not descend, but I do not know which is which. (7) Said Hezekiah: It is logical that [in the case of] kemizah it goes down, while [in the case of] melikah it does not go down. Why is melikah different? [presumably] because it was done at the high places? (8) [but] kemizah too was done at the high places? And should you say, There were no meal-offerings at the high places; then there were no bird[- offerings] at the high places [either]. (9) For R. Shesheth said: On the view that there were meal-offerings at the high places, there were bird[-offerings] at the high places; on the view that there were no meal-offerings, there were no bird [-offerings]. What is the reason? [And sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord]: (10) offerings [implies,] but not birds; offerings [implies,] but not meal-offerings! (11) — Say rather: There was no sanctification of a meal-offering in service vessels at the high places. (12) IF HE NIPPED [THEM] WITH HIS LEFT [HAND] OR AT NIGHT, etc. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that melikah, which is [done] within, defiles garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet; (13) therefore it states, [And every soul that eateth] nebelah [that which dieth of itself] [... he shall wash his clothes etc]. (14) [But] this too is nebelah? (15) — Rather, it states ‘Terefah’ [that which is torn of beasts]: (16) as Terefah does not permit the forbidden, so everything which does not permit the forbidden [is included]: thus melikah, which is [performed] within, is excluded: since it permits the forbidden. it does not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. (17) Hence it includes melikah (Mnemonic: Kez Hefez) (18) of sacrifices without, and melikah of hullin both within and without: since they do not permit the forbidden, they defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices both within and without defile in the gullet: therefore nebelah is stated. But this too is ‘nebelah’? (19) — Rather, therefore it states ‘Terefah’: as Terefah is the same within and without, (20) so all which are the same within and without [are included in this law]: thus the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices within and without is excluded: since these are not the same within as without, they do not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. As for hullin, it is well: that is not the same within as without; (21) but sacrifices are unfit in both cases? — Said Raba: If shechitah without is effective in that it involves kareth, (22) shall it not be effective in cleansing it from [the defilement of] nebelah? (23) We have thus found [it of shechitah] without; how do we know [it of shechitah] within? — Because it is not the same within as without. (24) If so, when one performs melikah on sacrifices without, they too [should] not [defile], since within is not the same as without? (25) — Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: You infer that which does not make it fit from that which does not make it fit. (26) but you do not infer that which does not make it fit from that which does make it fit. (27) Do you not? Surely it was taught: How do we know that [if flesh] which went out ascended [the altar] it does not descend? Because [flesh] that goes out is fit at the high places? — The Tanna relies on the extension intimated in, ‘This is the law of the burnt-offering’ (28) MISHNAH. IF ONE PERFORMED MELIKAH, AND IT [THE BIRD] WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH. R. MEIR SAID: IT DOES NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET;

---

(1). ↑ For the ALL of the first clause applies to that too.
(2). ↑ That such do not defile.
(3). ↑ That such do defile.
(4). ↑ I.e., if the flesh of a bird sacrifice became defiled after it was properly offered up.
(5). ↑ For only nebelah does this. — The ruling thus agrees with R. Johanan.
(6). ↑ V. Glos.
(7). ↑ Either a bird-offering nipped by a Zar or a meal-offering whose kemizah was performed by a Zar does not descend from the altar if it was taken up there.
(8). ↑ By a Zar.
(9). ↑ Hence no melikah.
(10). ↑ Ex. XXIV. 5. This was before the erection of the Tabernacle, and so the equivalent of the high places.
(11). ↑ The Heb. is applicable to animals only.
(12). ↑ He holds that there were both bird- and mealofferings at the high places. But whereas melikah by a Zar in the Temple can be learnt from that of the high places (in so far, at least, that it does not descend), kemizah can not. For at the high places meal-offerings were not sanctified in service vessels, whereas in the Temple they were. That being so, when kemizah is performed by a Zar it is unfit to that extent that even if taken up on to the altar, it must be taken down.
(13). ↑ I.e., after melikah done improperly the flesh defiles.
(14). ↑ Lev. XVII, 15.
(15). ↑ Since the melikah was not properly done and does not permit the eating of the sacrifice, the bird is like any other not killed by shechitah, hence nebelah.
(16). ↑ Ibid.
(17). ↑ The verse quoted is applied to the nebelah of a clean bird. Terefah is not interpreted literally, for reasons stated anon, but as a definition of nebelah, thus: only nebelah similar to Terefah defiles. Now when a bird becomes Terefah, that fact cannot possibly remove any prohibition to which it was subject. Similarly, only a nebelah which cannot remove a prohibition defiles. Now, melikah should render a bird of hullin nebelah, but a consecrated bird is thereby relieved of a prohibition, for whilst alive it could not be offered, whereas after melikah in the sanctuary it can be (i.e., its blood can be sprinkled on the altar, which is the essence of offering). Hence it does not cause the bird to defile garments even when it is improperly done, e.g., at night or with the left hand.
(18). ↑ A Mnemonic is a phrase consisting of a string of letters or words, as an aid to the memory. Here K = Kodashim (sacrifices); Z=behuz (without); H=Hullin; F=bifenim (within); Z = behuz.
(19). ↑ Since melikah is required for sacrifices, whilst hullin may not be slaughtered within at all, the birds so killed are nebelah!
(20). ↑ It is forbidden in both places.
(21). ↑ For hullin slaughtered without does not defile even when the shechitah does not permit it. e.g., if the bird is Terefah.
(22). ↑ He who slaughters a sacrificial bird without the Temple incurs kareth. This proves that his act does count as shechitah.
(23). ↑ It certainly is. Hence the deduction from the word ‘Terefah’ is necessary only in respect of hullin, but not in respect of sacrifices,
(24). ↑ Sh. M.: Since shechitah without involves kareth, whilst shechitah within does not, although it actually requires melikah.
(25). ↑ For melikah is proper within, but not without.
(26). ↑ I.e., you infer shechitah of sacrifices within from shechitah of sacrifices without; similarly, shechitah of hullin within from shechitah of hullin, when same is Terefah, without. In all these cases shechitah does not make the bird permitted.
(27). ↑ Viz., from melikah of sacrifices within, which is the proper way.
(28). ↑ Lev. VI, 2. V. supra 51a for notes.