when you argue in the one way [the text] applies to clean, whilst when you argue in the other way it applies to unclean. Therefore it says, ‘Terefah’. [which intimates,] the kind where there is Terefah: then I might exclude the unclean, since there is no Terefah in its kind, (1) but I will not exclude hayyah, since there is Terefah in its kind. Scripture, however, teaches: ‘But ye shall in no wise eat of it’, [intimating that it refers to] that whose heleb is forbidden whereas its flesh is permitted; thus hayyah is excluded, since its heleb and its flesh are permitted. R. Jacob b. Abba said to Raba: If so, (2) is it only the nebelah of a clean animal that defiles, whereas the nebelah of an unclean animal does not defile? — Said he to him: How many elders [scholars] of you have erred therein! (3) the second clause (4) applies to the nebelah of an unclean bird. R. Johanan said: Only unblemished [birds] did R. Meir declare clean, (5) but not blemished ones. While R. Eleazar maintained: [He ruled thus] even in the case of blemished ones. It was stated likewise: R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name: R. Meir declared blemished [birds] clean, even ducks and fowls. (6) R. Jeremiah asked: What if one beheaded a goat? (7) What is the reason in the case of ducks and fowls? [Is it] because they are species of birds; but a goat is not of the same species as a heifer. (8) Or perhaps, it is of the species of cattle? (9) R. Dimi sat and recited this discussion. Said Abaye to him: Hence it follows that the beheaded heifer (10) is clean? — Yes, he replied: the School of R. Jannai said: ‘Forgiveness’ (11) is written in connection therewith, as in the case of sacrifices. (12) R. Nathan the father of R. Huna objected: ‘But ye shall in no wise eat of it’: I know [this law only of] heleb which may not be eaten but may be [otherwise] used. (13) How do we know [it of] the heleb of the ox that is stoned (14) and the beheaded heifer? — Because it says, All heleb [... ye shall not eat]. (15) But if you think that the beheaded heifer is clean, could it be clean while its heleb is unclean? (16) Where one did indeed behead it, no text is required; it is required only where one slaughtered it. (17) Then let shechitah be efficacious in cleansing it from nebelah? (18) — The text is necessary only where it died. (19) Hence it follows that it was forbidden whilst yet alive? (20) — Yes. R. Jannai observed: I have heard a time limit for it, (21) but have forgotten it; while our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley, that renders it forbidden. MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME MIXED UP WITH SIN-OFFERINGS THAT MUST BE LEFT TO DIE, (22) OR WITH AN OX THAT IS TO BE STONED, (23) EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, ALL MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH AN OX WITH WHICH TRANSGRESSION HAD BEEN COMMITTED, e.g. (24) ,

---

(1). ↑ There is no particular interdict of Terefah since it is forbidden in any case.
(2). ↑ If you argue, ‘as when it cleansed from nebelah it was in the case of unclean and not in the case of clean’, which implies that the nebelah of a forbidden animal is clean.
(3). ↑ I am astonished that you (and presumably, your colleagues in the Academy — perhaps R. Jacob spoke on their behalf) — should so err.
(4). ↑ That to which he referred.
(5). ↑ After melikah, if they are Terefah. The reason is because melikah is applicable to them.
(6). ↑ Which are not eligible sacrifices at all. For Terefah too is not fit and yet R. Meir declares it clean.
(7). ↑ V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. Beheading’ instead of shechitah normally renders an animal nebelah, so that it defiles, but since it was prescribed for the heifer, it presumably does not defile. What, however, if he beheaded a goat instead of a heifer, and for the same purpose: is the goat nebelah or not?
(8). ↑ Hence it will defile. — A heifer is counted amongst the large cattle, while a goat belongs to the small; therefore they are regarded as different species.
(9). ↑ Behemah; v. p. 342, n. 9.
(10). ↑ V. Deut. XXI, I ff.
(11). ↑ Ibid. 8.
(12). ↑ Hence it is treated as such, and does not defile.
(13). ↑ As Scripture states, may be used for any other service. Only such heleb does not defile.
(14). ↑ V. Ex. XXI, 28f. All benefit of the ox was forbidden.
(15). ↑ Lev. VII, 23. This ref. adopts Sh. M.’s emendation of Rashi, and is the preceding verse. The marginal ref. is Lev. III, 17, which seems out of place. — ‘All’ is an extension and includes the heleb of these.
(16). ↑ Obviously not, and no verse would be necessary to teach it.
(17). ↑ After becoming forbidden whilst alive through being set aside for this purpose, it was slaughtered (with shechitah) instead of beheaded. Then a text is required to show that its heleb does not defile.
(18). ↑ Though shechitah will not permit it, at least it should free it from defilement, since we find no instance of a slaughtered and clean (permitted) animal defiling.
(19). ↑ This retracts the preceding answer. It had died of itself before it was beheaded. Here its flesh does defile as nebelah, and the text teaches that its heleb does not defile.
(20). ↑ Since the question is asked in respect of a heifer which died, it follows that even before it was beheaded, whilst yet alive, all benefit thereof was forbidden, and that is why the question is asked concerning the heleb.
(21). ↑ When it becomes forbidden.
(22). ↑ I.e., which for some reason can neither be offered up nor revert to hullin, so that they must not be put to work, but must be kept until they die. They are as follows: (i) The young of a sin-offering which calved before it was slaughtered. (ii) One whose owner died. (iii) The substitute of a sin-offering (v. p. 22, n. 8). (iv) A sin-offering whose owner had already made atonement. E.g., it was lost, whereupon he dedicated another and sacrificed it, and then the original one was found. And (v) an animal consecrated before it was a year old, but which passed its first year before being sacrificed (Rashi, as marginally emended). In cur. edd. Rashi enumerates an animal found to be blemished after consecration as the fifth.
(23). ↑ V. Ex. XXI, 28.
(24). ↑ Lit., ‘or’.