Zevachim 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

This too can be derived for me:

It can likewise be learned that the milk of an impure animal conveys impurity

from"

the milk of an unslaughtered carcass

and the milk of an animal with a tereifa condition shall be used for any labor, but you shall not eat it." From where do you derive that it is pure from this verse? After all, the verse is not speaking of impurity but of eating, as it is written: "Eat—you shall not eat it." And it is to be expounded:

One whose prohibition is due to the prohibition: You shall not eat the milk of an unslaughtered carcass

and so on—its flesh is permitted; that is the one I purified for you

This one is excluded, as its prohibition is not due to the prohibition: You shall not eat the milk of an unslaughtered carcass, but rather because it is impure

for the entire animal is prohibited under the prohibition: You shall not eat an impure animal, and in its case the verse did not purify its milk; rather, its milk is impure like its flesh. If so, the question still remains: Why was the verse required to mention a tereifa?

And we answer:

Rather, this mention of a tereifa is needed to include a wild animal

, as the additional 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: "and eat—you shall not eat it,"

it refers to one whose milk is prohibited while its flesh is permitted

that is, a domesticated animal whose milk is prohibited but whose flesh is permitted; only that one I purified for you, rendering its milk pure with regard to an unslaughtered carcass.

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

since, because its milk is permitted just like its flesh, I might have said that with regard to the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass of a dead wild animal, its milk too should convey impurity like its flesh.

It teaches us

"a tereifa"; and we expound: Any species that has a tereifa within its kind has pure milk—even a wild animal.

And we challenge this: How can it be said that the milk of a wild animal that is an unslaughtered carcass is pure?

What is the difference between

the milk of

an impure animal

for which we do not derive purity, since

its milk is not distinct from its flesh

and both are prohibited for consumption? We find it possible to apply the phrase "and eat—you shall not eat it" to the milk alone;

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

in this regard, since both are permitted for consumption, and the phrase "eat—you shall not eat it" cannot be applied to it. If so, with regard to impurity as well, its milk should convey impurity like its flesh, and we should not derive purity for it?

And we challenge this further:

And furthermore,

the implication of the verse is

the verse states: "and eat—you shall not eat it,"

which indicates that it is not speaking of the milk of a wild animal; the verse purified from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass only milk that is prohibited for consumption [to which the phrase "and eat—you shall not eat it" refers]. But the verse did not purify the milk of a wild animal if the animal became an unslaughtered carcass; rather, the milk conveys impurity like the flesh?

And we answer:

Rather, said Abaye: The mention of a tereifa is needed for itself.

This tereifa is needed to teach about itself: When a pure domesticated animal had a tereifa condition and subsequently died, its milk is pure. And in fact, the reference is to a domesticated animal with a tereifa condition, and as for your challenge, an unslaughtered carcass has already been stated in the verse. Since a tereifa is considered alive, at the time of its death it becomes an unslaughtered carcass; nevertheless, the verse is needed, so that one should not

say: Since an impure animal is prohibited while alive, and an animal with a tereifa condition is prohibited while alive

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. I would therefore say:

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

the verse teaches us that the status of a pure domesticated animal that has a tereifa condition and dies is like that of an ordinary pure domesticated animal that dies: its milk is pure.

And we challenge this:

If so,

with regard to the tereifa written concerning a bird, in the verse "and any person who eats an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa," from which we excluded earlier an impure bird, teaching that it does not convey impurity,

this too is needed for itself

as a necessary teaching in its own right:

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

it might enter your mind to say that the law of a dead bird with a tereifa condition should be compared to that of an impure bird, since both are prohibited for consumption. I would therefore say:

Just as an impure bird does not convey impurity

in the throat,

so too a tereifa does not convey impurity;

the verse teaches us that the status of a pure bird with a tereifa condition that dies is like that of an ordinary pure bird that dies, whose carcass conveys impurity to the garments of one who swallows it. If so, the question arises: From where do you derive that the carcass of an impure bird does not convey impurity?!

And we challenge this further:

And furthermore,

with regard to a domesticated animal,

is it possible to learn the law of a tereifa from that of an impure animal?

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

An impure animal never had a time when it was fit,

as an impure animal was never fit.

A tereifa had a time when it was fit.

A tereifa was fit and suitable, like any pure domesticated animal, until the time when it developed its tereifa condition.

And we say:

And if you would say: What can be said about a tereifa from birth?

You might say that there is also a tereifa that never had a time when it was fit, such as one that was a tereifa from birth; if so, it can be compared to an impure animal?

And we reject this:

At least within its species there is [a distinction].

Other types of tereifa are fit and had a time when they were fit. If so, the difficulty still remains: Why did Abaye think that we would derive a tereifa from an impure animal? The challenge thus returns to its original place: Why was the tereifa mentioned?

And we answer:

Rather, said Rava

, the tereifa is mentioned with regard to milk because of the latter part of the verse, which states: "you shall not eat it." And lest you say that a new prohibition cannot take effect upon the preexisting prohibition of forbidden milk,

the Torah

came and

said: The prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass shall come and take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk.

And likewise, if one ate a tereifa that subsequently became an unslaughtered carcass,

the prohibition of a tereifa shall come and take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk

so that one who eats it is liable on account of forbidden milk, an unslaughtered carcass, and a tereifa, for the prohibitions of an unslaughtered carcass and a tereifa take effect even upon the preexisting prohibition of forbidden milk.

And we explain:

And they are both necessary

to write both an unslaughtered carcass and a tereifa, to teach that their prohibitions take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk:

For if it had taught us

only an unslaughtered carcass, I would have said that it is more stringent

because it conveys impurity

as it conveys impurity due to being an unslaughtered carcass, and therefore its prohibition takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk.

But with regard to a tereifa

which does not convey impurity,

I would say no

the prohibition of a tereifa does not take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk.

And if it had taught us a tereifa

alone, I would have said that it is more stringent

because its prohibition applies while the animal is alive

as it is prohibited as a tereifa even during its lifetime, and therefore its prohibition takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk.

But an unslaughtered carcass

which is not prohibited during the animal's lifetime,

I would say no

the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass does not take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden milk. Therefore,

both are necessary

to write both an unslaughtered carcass and a tereifa.

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Meir,

who says that the slaughter of a bird purifies its tereifa condition [by a kal va-chomer from a tereifa domesticated animal that was slaughtered],

this tereifa

which is written with regard to a bird—"an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa shall not be eaten, to render it impure" [Leviticus 22]—

what does he do with it?

Why is it stated?

And we answer:

He needs it to exclude slaughter performed inside

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

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Judah,

who needs this tereifa written with regard to a bird to expound that its slaughter does not purify its tereifa condition, from where does he exclude a non-sacred bird slaughtered inside?

And we answer:

Another tereifa is written.

Rabbi Judah excludes a non-sacred bird from another verse written concerning a bird, as it is written: "And any person who eats an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa, whether a native or a stranger, shall wash his garments" [Leviticus 17].

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Meir,

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

And we answer:

One [verse] is to exclude slaughter performed inside,

as from the verse "an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa shall not be eaten," Rabbi Meir excludes a non-sacred bird slaughtered inside.

And one [verse] is to exclude an impure bird.

From the verse "and any person who eats an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa" we expound: It refers to a species that has a tereifa within its kind, namely, a pure bird, which conveys impurity in the throat; this excludes an impure bird, which does not convey impurity in the throat.

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Judah,

who requires both verses concerning a tereifa in the case of a bird, from where does he exclude an impure bird with regard to impurity in the throat?

And we answer:

He derives it from "unslaughtered carcass"

from the verse "it shall not be eaten," expounding: It refers to one whose warning is due to the prohibition "you shall not eat an unslaughtered carcass," but not to one whose warning is due to the prohibition "you shall not eat an impure animal."

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Meir,

who excludes an impure bird from the verse concerning a tereifa,

what does he do with this mention of an unslaughtered carcass?

What does he learn from the superfluous verse "it shall not be eaten" concerning an unslaughtered carcass?

And we answer:

For the measure of eating, an olive-bulk

, Rabbi Meir learns from it the measure of impurity of an unslaughtered carcass: It conveys impurity only when present in the measure of its prohibition for consumption, namely, an olive-bulk.

And we challenge this:

Let him derive it from the first verse

, why does Rabbi Meir not learn this from the first verse, "and any person who eats an unslaughtered carcass,"

since the Merciful One expressed it in the language of eating

and since the Torah took care

to express

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

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

One [verse is] for the measure of eating, an olive-bulk.

From one verse he learns that it conveys impurity only in the measure of its prohibition for consumption, namely, an olive-bulk.

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

From the second verse he learns that if one delayed while eating the olive-bulk longer than the time required to eat half a loaf, it is like other acts of eating whose portions do not combine for purposes of liability; this portion likewise does not combine to render him impure in the throat.

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since the impurity

of the throat

is

a novelty, as we do not find in the Torah such an impurity that has no external source but exists only in the throat, I might think that even if one delayed during the eating

longer than the time required to eat half a loaf, he would nevertheless become impure; it teaches us

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

Since we are engaged in expounding the verses concerning an unslaughtered carcass and a tereifa, the Gemara cites a beraita that expounds the verse, "And the milk of an unslaughtered carcass and the milk of a tereifa shall be used for any labor, but you shall not eat it":

The Sages taught: "

And the milk of an unslaughtered carcass and the milk of a tereifa."

The verse is speaking of the milk of a pure domesticated animal! You say that the verse is speaking of the milk of a pure domesticated animal; or perhaps it is speaking only of the milk of an impure domesticated animal?

You have said: It purified [milk] by comparison with a slaughtered animal

which slaughter purifies from conveying impurity,

and it purified [milk] by comparison with milk

as the verse states that the milk of an unslaughtered carcass is pure. Thus, the verse removed slaughtered flesh and milk from the general category of the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses.

Just as when it purified [flesh] by comparison with a slaughtered animal, it purified it in the case of a pure animal but not an impure one,

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

so too, when it purified [milk] by comparison with milk, it purified it in the case of a pure animal but not an impure one,

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

Or follow this path

, for it is possible to learn the opposite by means of a comparison based on a common feature:

It purified [something] by comparison with an unslaughtered carcass, and it purified [something] by comparison with milk.

The verse purified milk from the general category of the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, and we likewise find that elsewhere the verse purified one unslaughtered carcass in the case of birds [as will be explained shortly] and removed it from the general category of the impurity of unslaughtered carcasses.

Just as when it purified [something] by comparison with an unslaughtered carcass

, the verse purified it

in the case of an impure animal but not a pure one

as it purified from conveying impurity in the throat only the carcass of an impure bird,

so too, when it purified [something] by comparison with milk, it purified it in the case of an impure animal but not a pure one

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