Zevachim 70b — the Talmud in English

You said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

When you come by this way,

by the first way, to learn from a slaughtered animal,

it is with a pure animal;

it follows that the verse renders pure only [the milk] of a pure animal.

When he comes by this way,

by the second way, to learn from an impure bird,

it is with an impure animal.

It follows that the verse renders pure only [the milk] of an impure animal; therefore, we cannot derive by bameh matzinu.

The verse says “torn,” [meaning]: one whose species contains a torn animal.

Rather, necessarily, the verse is speaking of the carcass of an animal in which there is the law of terefa—to prohibit it from eating—that is, a pure animal.

And we object:

“I shall exclude the impure animal, whose species does not contain a torn animal,”

from the implication of “torn” we learn that one must exclude only an impure animal whose species does not contain a torn animal, so that its milk should be impure,

“but I shall not exclude the wild animal, whose species contains a torn animal,”

and one should not exclude the pure wild animal, whose species contains a torn animal, so that its milk should be pure, like the milk of a pure animal?

The verse says: “But you shall not eat it.”

And we expound:

[one] whose milk is forbidden and whose flesh is permitted;

specifically, its milk is pure.

Excluded

is the milk of

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

for the verse did not render its milk pure from imparting impurity.

And we raise an objection against the beraita:

Rav Yaakov bar Abba said to Rava: “But from now on,”

for it teaches, “just as he rendered pure from the category of carcass in the impure [animal], but not in the pure [animal],” which implies that the carcass of an impure animal is pure,

it is only the carcass of a pure animal that imparts impurity; the carcass of an impure animal does not impart impurity—

is this possible?! How can one say that the carcass of an impure animal does not impart impurity?

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rava said to Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba:

“How many old men have you caused to be confused by this!”

I am astonished at the many elders such as yourselves who have become confused by this.

The latter part comes to the carcass of an impure bird.

That which it teaches in the latter part, “just as he rendered pure from the category of carcass in the impure [animal], but not in the pure [animal],” speaks only of an impure bird, which the verse rendered pure from imparting impurity in the house of swallowing, and it did not speak at all of an impure animal. For it does not come to teach about the milk of an impure animal by this way, but rather by the law of an impure bird [whose carcass does not impart impurity in the house of swallowing], and not by the law of an impure animal [whose carcass imparts impurity.

And the Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Meir in our Mishna, who holds that melika renders a terefa bird pure from imparting the impurity of a carcass in the house of swallowing, and it brings a dispute of amoraim concerning his position:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Meir did not render pure

the melika of a terefa from the impurity of a carcass

except

only

in

birds

without defect

in which melika applies,

but in

birds

with defects, he did not

render them pure through melika.

And Rabbi Elazar said: Even in birds with defects,

which are unfit for the altar, Rabbi Meir holds that melika is effective to render them pure from the impurity of a carcass, unlike the Mishna above, on page 68b, where the tanna holds that melika does not render birds with defects pure.

And likewise we find:

It was also stated: Rav Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Meir would render birds with defects pure,

and an additional novelty:

and even geese and chickens,

which are not offered upon the altar; nevertheless, if they were consecrated inside, melika is effective to render them pure from the impurity of the house of swallowing. And it is like a terefa that is not offered upon the altar among turtledoves and young pigeons, and nevertheless it became pure through melika, since melika renders consecrated things fit inside in every bird.

And after we have learned the comparison of geese and chickens to a bird, the Gemara raises a doubt concerning the laws of the calf whose neck is broken according to Rabbi Meir:

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: [If] he broke the neck of a goat

over the slain person, instead of breaking the neck of a calf over him as required,

what is [the law]

according to Rabbi Meir? Shall we say that just as Rabbi Meir renders geese and chickens pure through melika, since they are included in the category of bird, whose melika renders it pure from a carcass, so too the act of breaking the neck of the goat renders it pure from a carcass, just as breaking the neck is effective for making the calf fit, rendering it free from the impurity of a carcass?

And [this is] the explanation of the sides of the doubt:

As for geese and chickens, what is the reason

that Rabbi Meir permitted them as well through melika, like a bird?

For they are of the species of birds,

because both of them are a species of birds, and melika is effective to render a bird inside pure, and the same law applies to them.

But a goat is not of the species of a calf whose neck is broken,

for a goat is not the same species as a calf: the goat is a species of small cattle, whereas a calf is a species of large cattle; therefore, breaking the neck of the goat is not effective to render it pure, as it is effective with a calf?

Or perhaps

also a goat

is of the species of animals

like a calf, and since both are a species of animal, although this one is a species of small cattle and that one a species of large cattle, breaking the neck is effective to render both pure from the impurity of a carcass?

Rav Yirmeya’s doubt was not resolved, but the Gemara discusses proving from his words another law concerning the calf whose neck is broken:

Rav Dimi sat and recited this teaching

of Rabbi Yirmeya.

Abaye said to him: “By implication, the calf whose neck is broken is pure.”

Since the entire doubt is whether breaking the neck of a goat has the same law as breaking the neck of a calf, it is evident that with the calf itself breaking the neck certainly is effective to render it pure?

He said to him,

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

“Yes. The school of Rabbi Yannai says: ‘Atonement is written concerning it, as concerning consecrated things.’”

The calf whose neck is broken is called an atonement, as it is written [Deuteronomy 21:8], “Atone for Your people Israel.” Therefore, its neck-breaking renders it pure, as with consecrated things, which also come in order to atone.

And we object:

Rav Natan, the father of Rav Huna, raised an objection:

It is written concerning milk:

“But you shall not eat it,”

and we expound:

I have only

[that it is pure] from the impurity of a carcass

in the case of milk that is forbidden to eat but permitted to derive benefit from,

as it is written, “It may be used for any work.”

The milk of an ox that is to be stoned and of a calf whose neck is broken,

which are forbidden to derive benefit from,

from where

[do we know] that it is pure from the impurity of a carcass?

The verse says: “Every milk,”

for adjacent to it is written, “For anyone who eats the milk of an animal,” and we include the milk of an ox that is to be stoned and of a calf whose neck is broken, so that even though they are forbidden to derive benefit from, their milk is pure.

And Rav Natan asks:

And if it enters your mind that a calf whose neck is broken is pure,

how could it enter your mind to say that it is pure while its milk is impure? If a calf whose neck is broken is indeed pure, as Rav Dimi said, why is a special verse needed to include that its milk is pure? It is impossible that the calf is pure while its milk is impure.

And we answer:

Where he broke its neck thoroughly, it was not needed for him;

a special verse was not needed to render the milk of the calf pure after its neck was broken, since all of it is pure.

When it was needed

“every milk” to render the milk of the calf pure

was where he slaughtered it thoroughly,

in a case where, after it had become forbidden while alive [as will be explained below], it was slaughtered; and although it is forbidden, we learn that its milk is pure.

And we ask:

Then its slaughter should be effective for rendering it pure from the impurity of a carcass.

Even though slaughter does not permit it either for eating or for deriving benefit, nevertheless it should render it pure from imparting impurity, for we have not found a slaughtered [animal] among pure animals that imparts impurity, and consequently it is obvious that its milk too is pure, like all its flesh; and why was a verse needed to render its milk pure?

And we answer:

It is necessary [for a case] where it died.

It is speaking of a calf that died [not through slaughter], whose flesh is impure; therefore, the verse “every milk” is needed to render its milk pure, even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from and I do not apply to it “It may be used for any work.”

And we ask:

By implication,

from the fact that we establish this with a calf that died, it is necessarily so

that it is forbidden while alive,

that the calf becomes forbidden to derive benefit from while alive, before its neck has been broken, even though it has not yet had its neck broken? And we answer:

Yes,

indeed so. For

Rabbi Yannai said: “I heard a boundary,”

a definition concerning this matter: I heard from when the calf becomes forbidden to derive benefit from,

“but I forgot it. And the scholars undertook to say,”

and the students thought on their own to say,

“Its descent to the rough valley is what prohibits it.”

For the descent to the rough valley is what gives it the designation of one whose neck is broken, and therefore it becomes forbidden already while alive.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Bird Sin-Offering.”

The first Mishna deals with a mixture of disqualified things among valid sacred things, and with a mixture of different sacred things with one another.

Mishna:

1.

All the sacrificial offerings

that are valid

that became mixed with “sin offerings destined to die,”

which are disqualified for sacrifice, and whose law is death [by confining them in an enclosure, without food, until they die by themselves].

Or

that

became mixed

the valid sacrificial offerings

with the ox destined to be stoned,

whose judgment was finalized to be stoned because it killed a person, and behold, it is disqualified for sacrifice—

behold,

even

if the mixture consisted of one animal

among

disqualified animals

in ten thousand

valid sacrificial offerings—

they will all die,

all the animals in the mixture,

because concerning each and every animal we have a doubt: perhaps it is the disqualified animal that became mixed with the valid ones. And they have no permission even if a blemish falls upon them and they are redeemed, for behold, they are forbidden in benefit on account of the sin offerings destined to die or on account of the ox destined to be stoned that is mixed here.

And the law of “nullification in the majority” was not stated here, for several reasons that will be explained in the Gemara.

2.

And if

became mixed

the valid sacrificial offerings

with an ox in which a transgression was committed

which disqualifies it for sacrifice to the altar, but it is permitted for eating by an ordinary person—