R. JUDAH SAID: IT DOES DEFILE IN THE GULLET. SAID R. MEIR: IT IS A KAL WAHOMER: IF THE SHECHITAH OF AN ANIMAL CLEANSES IT, EVEN WHEN TEREFAH, FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, YET WHEN IT IS NEBELAH IT DEFILES THROUGH CONTACT OR CARRIAGE; IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT SHECHITAH CLEANSES A BIRD, WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, SEEING THAT WHEN IT IS NEBELAH IT DOES NOT DEFILE THROUGH CONTACT OR CARRIAGE? NOW, AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT SHECHITAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD OF HULLIN] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS; SO MELIKAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD SACRIFICE] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS. R. JOSE SAID: IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR IT TO BE LIKE THE NEBELAH OF A CLEAN [PERMITTED] ANIMAL, WHICH IS CLEANSED BY SHECHITAH, BUT NOT BY MELIKAH. (1) GEMARA. Now, does not R. Meir accept the principle of dayyo [it is sufficient]; Surely the principle of dayyo is biblical? For it was taught: How is a kal wa-homer applied? And the Lord said unto Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days? (2) How much more should a divine reproof necessitate [shame for] fourteen days; but it is sufficient for that which is inferred by an argument to be like the premise! (3) — Said R. Jose son of R. Abin: R. Meir found a text and interpreted it: (4) This is the low of the beast and of the bird. (5) Now, in which law is a beast similar to a bird and a bird to a beast? A beast defiles through contact and carriage, whereas a bird does not defile through contact or carriage; a bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet, whereas a beast does not defile garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet. But it is to tell you: as in the case of a beast, that which makes it fit for eating makes it clean when Terefah from its defilement; so in the case of a bird, that which makes it fit for eating (6) makes it clean when Terefah from its defilement. Then what is R. Judah's reason? — Said Rabbah, R. Judah found a text, and interpreted it: (7) [And every soul which eateth] nebelah or terefah (8) [ . . , he shall wash his clothes, etc.]. (9) Said R. Judah: Why is ‘Terefah’ stated? If ‘Terefah’ can live, then surely ‘nebelah’ is already stated; (10) while if ‘Terefah’ cannot live, it is included in nebelah? (11) Hence it is to include a Terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that it defiles. If so, said R. Shisbi to him, when it is written, And the fat [heleb] of nebelah, and the fat of Terefah [may be used for any other service, but ye shall in no wise eat it]: (12) there too let us argue: Why is Terefah stated? If Terefah can live, then surely nebelah is already stated; and if Terefah cannot live, it is included in nebelah? Hence it is to include a Terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that its heleb is clean? Hence it follows that it defiles? (13) But surely Rab Judah said in Rab's name, whilst others say that it was taught in a Baraitha: And if there die of a beast: (14) some beasts defile, and some beasts do not. And which is it [that is excluded]? A Terefah which was slaughtered! — Rather, [this is R. Shizbi's difficulty]: This terefah (15) is necessary in order to exclude an unclean animal, (16) [for it intimates:] only that in whose species there is Terefah: hence this [an unclean animal] is excluded, since there is no Terefah in its species.17 Then here too (18) [say that] [the inclusion of Terefah] excludes an unclean [forbidden] bird, since there is no Terefah in its species? (19) [The exclusion of] an unclean bird is, in R. Judah's opinion, derived from nebelah. For it was taught. R. Judah said: You might think that the nebelah of an unclean bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet. Therefore it states, Nebelah or Terefah he shall not eat [to defile himself therewith]: (20) only that [defiles] whose interdict is on account of ‘do not eat nebelah’; hence this [an unclean bird] is excluded, since its interdict is not on account of ‘do not eat nebelah’, but on account of ‘do not eat unclean’. (21)

---

(1). ↑ For notes v. supra 50b, 51a.
(2). ↑ Num. XII, 14.
(3). ↑ Since you argue from her father's reproof, even a Divine reproof does not necessitate a longer period of shame. As Scripture proceeds. ‘Let her be shut up without the camp seven days’, it is evident that this principle is Scriptural.
(4). ↑ He accepts the principle of dayyo, but his ruling is based on a text, which makes him disregard the principle in this instance.
(5). ↑ Lev. XI, 46.
(6). ↑ Sc. melikah, in the case of a bird sacrifice.
(7). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.).
(8). ↑ E.V. that which dieth of itself or that which is torn of beasts. According to the Talmudic interpretation an animal which dies by any method other than the correct ritual one (shechitah) is called nebelah, even if it is ritually slaughtered, but there is a defect in the shechitah. Terefah denotes an animal which was properly slaughtered with shechitah, but was then found to have been suffering from certain diseases or organic disturbances. These are listed in Hul. 42a, where there is a controversy whether a Terefah could have lived (for more than twelve months) or not. On the view that it could, it is regarded as having been alive until the shechitah; on the view that it could not, it is regarded as already dead (technically) even before the shechitah, in which case it is obviously the same as nebelah.
(9). ↑ Lev. XVII, 15.
(10). ↑ So that if the Terefah dies of its disease before it is slaughtered, it is obviously included in nebelah.
(11). ↑ Even whilst alive. So Rashi. Tosaf. and Sh. M. explain differently.
(12). ↑ Ibid. VII, 24. The Talmud (Pes. 23a) interprets this to mean that the heleb of a nebelah is clean and does not defile.
(13). ↑ The Talmud interposes: since R. Shizbi objects thus, it follows that in truth such heleb is unclean and defiles.
(14). ↑ Ibid. XI, 39. Lit. translation. ‘Of’ is partitive, and is understood as a limitation. The verse continues: he that touches the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the evening.
(15). ↑ In the verse which he quotes.
(16). ↑ The heleb of an unclean (i.e., forbidden) animal does not defile.
(17). ↑ Only the heleb of an animal which can become Terefah defiles. But an unclean animal, which cannot be eaten in any case, can never become Terefah in a technical sense, and therefore its heleb does not defile.
(18). ↑ In the verse quoted by R. Judah (the Tanna), not Rab Judah, the Amora.
(19). ↑ That is the conclusion of R. Shizbi's objection: Interpret the text thus, and the question returns. What is R. Judah's reason, after R. Meir proves the contrary?
(20). ↑ Lev. XXII, 8.
(21). ↑ Hence the former verse is left free for the interpretation stated above.