Zevachim 70a — the Talmud in English

This one too, let it emerge for me

that the milk of an impure animal causes impurity,

from"

and the milk of a carcass

and the milk of a tereifa shall be used for every labor, but you shall certainly not eat it"—for where do you derive its purity from this verse? For the verse is speaking not of impurity but of eating, as it is written, “eat—you shall certainly not eat it,” and it is possible to expound:

one whose prohibition is because of “you shall not eat the milk of a carcass”

and so on: its flesh is permitted; that one I purified its milk for you,

this one is excluded, whose prohibition is not because of “you shall not eat the milk of a carcass”

but because it is impure, for all of it is prohibited because of “you shall not eat the impure”; and in its case the verse does not purify its milk, but its milk is impure like its flesh. If so, one must still ask: why was “tereifa” written in the verse?

And we answer:

Rather, this “tereifa” is needed to include a wild animal

the extra word “tereifa” is needed to teach us that the milk of a pure wild animal that died is pure. For

it might enter your mind to say

since it is written, “eat—you shall certainly not eat it,”

one whose milk is prohibited and whose flesh is permitted

namely, a domesticated animal whose milk is prohibited and whose flesh is permitted—that one alone I purified its milk for you with regard to a carcass—

a wild animal, whose milk and flesh are permitted, is excluded

for since its milk is permitted like its flesh, it might enter your mind to say that with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a dead wild animal as well, its milk should cause impurity according to the law of its flesh;

it teaches us

“tereifa”: and we expound, any species that has a tereifa among its kind has pure milk, even a wild animal.

And we challenge: How is it possible to say that the milk of a carcass of a wild animal is pure?

What is different

the milk of

an impure animal

that we do not derive its purity, since

its milk is not distinct from its flesh

and both are prohibited for eating, so we find it possible to apply to the milk alone “eat—you shall certainly not eat it”;

a wild animal too: its milk is not distinct from its flesh

in law, since both are permitted for eating, and we cannot apply to it “eat—you shall certainly not eat it.” If so, with regard to impurity as well, its milk should cause impurity like its flesh, and we should not derive its purity?

And we challenge further:

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty from the implication of the verse, for

it is written, “eat—you shall certainly not eat it,”

and this implies that it is not speaking of the milk of a wild animal, for the verse purified from carcass impurity only milk that is prohibited for eating [to which “eat—you shall certainly not eat it” refers]; but the verse did not purify the milk of a wild animal if the animal became a carcass; rather, the milk causes impurity like the flesh?

And we answer:

Rather, said Abaye: “tereifa” is needed for itself.

This “tereifa” is needed to teach about itself, that the milk of a pure domesticated animal that was a tereifa and subsequently died is pure. And indeed, “tereifa” refers to a living animal; and as for what you challenged, a carcass has already been stated in the verse, and since a tereifa is considered alive, at the time of its death it becomes a carcass. Even so, it is needed, so that you should not

say: Since an impure animal is prohibited during its lifetime and a tereifa is prohibited during its lifetime,

it might enter your mind to say that the law of a tereifa should be compared to that of an impure animal: since both are prohibited during their lifetimes, one would say,

just as the milk of an impure animal is impure, so too the milk of a tereifa is impure;

it teaches us that this tereifa—the law of a pure domesticated animal that is a tereifa and dies—is like the law of an ordinary pure domesticated animal that dies, for its milk is pure.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

then this “tereifa” that is written with regard to a bird, “and the person who eats a carcass or a tereifa,” by which we excluded above an impure bird from causing impurity,

this too is needed

also for itself, for it is needed

so that you should not say: Since an impure bird is prohibited for eating and a tereifa is prohibited for eating,

it might enter your mind to say that the law of a dead tereifa bird should be compared to that of an impure bird: since both are prohibited for eating, one would say,

just as an impure bird does not cause impurity

in the throat,

so too a tereifa does not cause impurity;

it teaches us that the law of a pure bird that is a tereifa and dies is like the law of an ordinary pure bird that dies, for its carcass causes clothing impurity in the throat. If so, it is difficult: from where do you derive the exclusion that the carcass of an impure bird does not cause impurity!?

And we raise a further objection:

Furthermore,

with regard to a domesticated animal,

is it possible to derive a tereifa from an impure animal?

How could Abaye think to say that the verse is needed for itself, to purify a tereifa so that it should not be derived from an impure animal? They are not comparable:

an impure animal never had a time of fitness,

for an impure animal was never fit;

a tereifa had a time of fitness.

A tereifa, however, was fit and suitable like every pure domesticated animal until the time when it became a tereifa.

And we say:

And if you would say: A tereifa from the womb—what can be said?

perhaps you would say that we also find a tereifa that has no time of fitness, such as a tereifa from birth; if so, it can be compared to an impure animal?

And we reject this:

In any event, among its kind there is one.

For other types of tereifa are fit and have a time of fitness. If so, it is still difficult why Abaye thought to say that we would derive a tereifa from an impure animal. The difficulty returns to its place: why was this “tereifa” written?

And we answer:

Rather, said Rava,

this “tereifa” comes there with regard to milk because of the end of the verse, which is written, “you shall certainly not eat it.” And lest you say that a new prohibition cannot take effect upon the prohibition of milk that preceded it, therefore

the Torah

came and

said: Let the prohibition of a carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition of milk.

And likewise, if one ate a tereifa that became a carcass,

let the prohibition of a tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition of milk

to make the one who eats it liable because of milk, because of a carcass, and because of a tereifa; for the prohibitions of a carcass and a tereifa take effect even upon the prior prohibition of milk.

And we explain:

And they are necessary,

to write both “carcass” and “tereifa,” to teach us that their prohibitions take effect upon the prohibition of milk:

For if it had taught us

only a carcass, I might have said that it is more stringent

because it causes impurity

for it causes impurity because of a carcass, and therefore its prohibition takes effect upon the prohibition of milk.

But a tereifa,

which does not cause impurity,

I might say, not

would the prohibition of a tereifa take effect upon the prohibition of milk.

And if it had taught us a tereifa

alone, I might have said that it is more stringent

because its prohibition applies during the lifetime

for during its lifetime too it is prohibited because it is a tereifa, and therefore it takes effect upon the prohibition of milk.

But a carcass,

which is not prohibited during the lifetime,

I might say, not

would the prohibition of a carcass take effect upon the prohibition of milk. Therefore,

they are necessary

to write both a carcass and a tereifa.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Meir,

who says that with regard to a bird, its slaughter purifies its tereifa [by a kal va-chomer from a tereifa domesticated animal that was slaughtered],

this tereifa

that is written with regard to a bird, “a carcass or a tereifa he shall not eat, to become impure through it” [Leviticus 22],

what does he do with it?

What does it come to teach?

And we answer:

It is needed to exclude slaughter that is inside

Rabbi Meir excludes a non-sacred bird slaughtered inside, whose slaughter is invalid and which does not cause impurity in the throat.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Judah,

who needs this “tereifa” written with regard to a bird to expound that its slaughter does not purify its tereifa, from where does he derive the exclusion of a non-sacred bird slaughtered inside?

And we answer:

Another “tereifa” is written.

Rabbi Judah excludes a non-sacred bird from another verse written with regard to a bird, as it is written: “And every person who eats a carcass or a tereifa, whether a native or a resident, shall wash his garments” [Leviticus 17].

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Meir,

what does he learn from the other verse concerning tereifa that is written with regard to a bird?

And we answer:

One is to exclude slaughter that is inside,

from the verse “a carcass or a tereifa he shall not eat,” Rabbi Meir excludes a non-sacred bird slaughtered inside.

And one is to exclude an impure bird.

From the verse “and every person who eats a carcass or a tereifa,” we expound: one whose kind includes a tereifa, namely, a pure bird, causes impurity in the throat—to exclude an impure bird, which does not cause impurity in the throat.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Judah,

who needs both verses concerning tereifa with regard to a bird, from where does he exclude an impure bird from throat impurity?

And we answer:

He derives it from “carcass.”

From the verse “he shall not eat a carcass,” he expounds: one whose warning is because of “you shall not eat a carcass,” but not one whose warning is because of “you shall not eat an impure animal.”

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Meir,

who excludes an impure bird from the verse concerning tereifa,

what does he do with this “carcass”?

What does he learn from the extra verse “he shall not eat” concerning a carcass?

And we answer:

For the measure of eating, an olive-bulk,

Rabbi Meir derives from it the measure of carcass impurity: it causes impurity only in the measure of its prohibition for eating, namely, an olive-bulk.

And we raise an objection:

And let it emerge for me from the first verse,

why does Rabbi Meir not derive this from the first verse, “every person who eats a carcass,”

since the Merciful One expressed it in the language of eating,

since the Torah was particular

to expound

the prohibition concerning a carcass in the language of eating, derive from it the measure of eating, an olive-bulk?

And we answer: Rabbi Meir derives the measure of eating from both verses:

one is for the measure of eating, an olive-bulk.

From one verse he derives that it causes impurity only in the measure of its prohibition for eating, namely, an olive-bulk.

And one is for the measure of eating, the time required to eat a half-loaf.

From the second verse he derives that if he delayed in eating the olive-bulk longer than the time required to eat a half-loaf, it is like other acts of eating that do not combine for punishments, and this too does not combine to cause impurity in the throat.

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novelty,

throat impurity

it is,

for we have not found such impurity in the Torah, that it has no impurity from outside but only in the throat, therefore I might think that even if he delayed in eating

longer than the time required to eat a half-loaf, it should also cause impurity; it teaches us

that it causes impurity only if he ate an olive-bulk of the carcass of a pure bird within the time required to eat a half-loaf.

And since we are occupied with the expositions of the verses concerning a carcass and a tereifa, the Gemara brings a beraita that expounds the verse, “and the milk of a carcass and the milk of a tereifa shall be used for every labor, but you shall certainly not eat it”:

The Sages taught:

“And the milk of a carcass and the milk of a tereifa.”

The verse is speaking of the milk of a pure domesticated animal! Do you say that the verse is speaking of the milk of a pure domesticated animal, or is it only speaking of the milk of an impure domesticated animal?

You have said: It purified from the category of slaughtered animals

that slaughter purifies from causing impurity,

and it purified from the category of milk,

for it is stated in the verse that the milk of a carcass is pure; if so, the verse excluded slaughtered flesh and milk from the general category of carcass impurity.

Just as when it purified from the category of slaughtered animals, it did so in the pure and not in the impure,

just as the verse purified slaughtered flesh from causing impurity, it purified only that of a pure animal,

so too, when it purified from the category of milk, it did so in the pure and not in the impure;

so too, the verse purified from carcass impurity only the milk of a pure animal, but not that of an impure one.

Or proceed along this path,

for it is possible to derive the opposite by means of a comparison:

It purified from the category of a carcass, and it purified from the category of milk.

The verse purified milk from the category of carcass impurity, and likewise we find that the verse generally purified one carcass with regard to birds [as will be explained shortly] and excluded it from the category of carcass impurity.

Just as when it purified from the category of a carcass,

the verse purified

in the impure and not in the pure,

for it purified from causing impurity in the throat only the carcass of an impure bird,

so too, when it purified from the category of milk, it did so in the impure and not in the pure;

so too, it purified from causing impurity only the milk of an impure domesticated animal, but not that of a pure one.