Let this too be derived from, ‘And the fat of nebelah’, [which intimates:] that whose interdict is on account of ‘do not eat the heleb of nebelah;’ (1) hence this [the heleb of a forbidden animal] is excluded, since its interdict is not on account of ‘do not eat the heleb of nebelah’, but on account of uncleanness? (2) — Rather, this terefah (3) is required in order to include hayyah. (4) I might argue: Only that whose heleb is forbidden whilst its flesh is permitted [is included in this law]; hence a hayyah is excluded, since its heleb and its flesh are permitted. (5) Therefore [the word Terefah] informs us [that it is not so]. (6) Wherein (7) does an unclean [forbidden] animal differ? (8) [presumably] because its heleb is not distinct from its flesh? (9) but then the heleb of a hayyah is not distinct from its flesh? (10) Moreover, surely it is written, but ye shall in no wise eat it? (11) — Rather, said Abaye. Terefah (12) is needed for its own purpose. (13) lest you argue: Since an unclean [animal] is forbidden whilst yet alive, and a Terefah is forbidden whilst yet alive: (14) as the heleb of an unclean [animal] is unclean [defiles], so is the heleb of a Terefah unclean. (15) If so, this too (16) is required, lest you say: Since an unclean bird may not be eaten, and a Terefah may not be eaten; as an unclean bird does not defile [garments, when the flesh is in the gullet], so a Terefah too does not defile? Moreover, can Terefah really be derived from an unclean animal: (17) an unclean animal enjoyed no period of fitness, (18) whereas a Terefah enjoyed a period of fitness? (19) And should you answer, what can be said of a Terefah from birth; yet of its kind this can be said. (20) — Rather said Raba: The Torah ordained, Let the interdict of nebelah come and fall upon the interdict of heleb; let the interdict of Terefah come and fall upon the interdict of heleb. (21) And both are necessary. For if we were informed [this about] nebelah, [I would argue that the reason is] because it defiles; (22) but as for Terefah, I would say that it does not [fall upon the interdict of heleb]. And if we were informed [this about] Terefah. [I would say that the reason is] because its interdict dates from when it was alive; but as for nebelah, l would say that it is not so. Hence [they are both] necessary. Now how does R. Meir employ this [word] terefah? (23) — He needs it to exclude shechitah which is within. (24) And R. Judah? (25) — Another ‘Terefah’ is written. (26) And R. Meir? (27) — One excludes shechitah which is within, and the other excludes an unclean forbidden bird. And R. Judah? (28) — That is derived from nebelah. (29) And R. Meir: how does he employ this ‘nebelah’? — [To show that] the standard of eating [is required], viz., as much as an olive. (30) Yet let this be derived from the first text, (31) since the Divine Law expressed it in terms of eating? — One [text] is employed to show that the standard of eating [is required for defilement], viz., as much as an olive; while the other intimates that this standard of eating must be within the time of eating half [a loaf]. (32) I might argue, since this is anomalous, (33) let it defile even when it takes more than the time required for eating half [a loaf], (34) Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise]. Our Rabbis taught: And the heleb of nebelah, and the heleb of Terefah. [may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it]: Scripture speaks of the heleb of a clean [permitted] animal. (35) You say, Scripture speaks of the heleb of a clean animal; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather of the heleb of an unclean animal? You can answer: [Scripture] declared [an animal] clean on account of its being slaughtered, and declared it clean on account of heleb: (36) as when it declared it clean on account of being slaughtered, it referred to a clean [permitted], but not an unclean [forbidden] animal; (37) so when it declared it clean on account of heleb, it referred to a clean, but not an unclean animal. Or argue in this wise: [Scripture] cleansed from nebelah, (38) and it cleansed from heleb: (39) as when it cleansed from nebelah, it was in the case of unclean, and not in the case of clean; (40) so when it cleansed from heleb, [it did so] in the case of unclean, not in the case of clean? Thus you must say,

---

(1). ↑ Only that heleb does not defile.
(2). ↑ I.e., the whole animal is forbidden.
(3). ↑ In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.
(4). ↑ A non-domestic animal, e.g., a deer, which may be eaten. The heleb of a hayyah is permitted; that of a behemah (a domestic animal, e.g., a sheep) is forbidden. The discussion hitherto has been about the heleb of a behemah.
(5). ↑ Therefore if a hayyah becomes nebelah, I would think that its heleb defiles, just as its flesh.
(6). ↑ For it teaches that the heleb of whatever is liable to become Terefah, which includes hayyah, does not defile when nebelah.
(7). ↑ ‘Said he to him’ is deleted (Sh. M.).
(8). ↑ That you do not learn from this text that its heleb is clean and does not defile.
(9). ↑ Both are forbidden, and therefore you do not apply this text to it, since that implies that there is a distinction between them.
(10). ↑ Both being permitted. Hence you should not apply it to hayyah either.
(11). ↑ Lev. VII, 24. From this we infer anon that the heleb of a hayyah which is nebelah does defile. Hence the text cannot apply to it.
(12). ↑ In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.
(13). ↑ To show that the heleb of a Terefah which died is clean.
(14). ↑ In the sense that shechitah cannot permit it.
(15). ↑ Hence the text teaches otherwise.
(16). ↑ Terefah in the text quoted by R. Judah.
(17). ↑ That you need a text to show that it does not defile.
(18). ↑ Never at any time might it be eaten.
(19). ↑ Before it became Terefah.
(20). ↑ Though that particular Terefah was never fit, Terefah in general was fit at one time.
(21). ↑ The text teaches that when one eats heleb of nebelah or Terefah, he is liable not only on account of heleb but also on account of nebelah or Terefah. For otherwise one might argue: since the interdict of heleb comes first, the other interdicts cannot apply to it at all.
(22). ↑ Which heleb does not. Hence it is logical that the interdict of nebelah, being greater in that respect, falls upon that of heleb.
(23). ↑ In the verse quoted by R. Judah.
(24). ↑ As stated supra 69a.
(25). ↑ How does he know that?
(26). ↑ Terefah is written in Lev. XVII, 15 and XXII,
(8). ↑ Hence one is used for each.
(27). ↑ How does he utilize this second ‘Terefah’?
(28). ↑ Whence does he derive the latter?
(29). ↑ As supra 69b bottom.
(30). ↑ One is not liable for eating nebelah unless he eats at least as much as an olive (this is the general standard for all forbidden food). The text intimates that this too is the smallest quantity which defiles.
(31). ↑ Lev. XVII, 15.
(32). ↑ One is not liable for eating unless he eats as much as an olive within the normal time for eating half a loaf, which is half a meal (Rashi: half a loaf is the size of four average eggs; Maim.: three average eggs). The text teaches that when a man eats the flesh of nebelah (of a bird), he does not defile his garments unless he eats as much as an olive within that time.
(33). ↑ There is no other case in Scripture where an article does not defile through contact, but only when it enters the gullet.
(34). ↑ Being unique in one respect, it might be unique in another.
(35). ↑ Teaching that its heleb does not defile as nebelah.
(36). ↑ Scripture decreed that when an animal is slaughtered (with shechitah) it does not defile; and that the heleb of nebelah does not defile.
(37). ↑ Even if an unclean animal is ritually slaughtered, it defiles.
(38). ↑ There is a case where nebelah does not defile.
(39). ↑ Heleb does not defile, as stated.
(40). ↑ An unclean (forbidden) bird does not defile (as nebelah) when it is in the gullet, whereas a clean bird does.