Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 7

Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 7 Mishnah 6

זבחים פרק ז׳ משנה ו׳

6
If the priest pinched the nape of the bird’s neck properly and then it was found to be a tereifa, and it was therefore disqualified from being sacrificed and forbidden for consumption by a priest, Rabbi Meir says: An olive-bulk of its meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as the pinching prevents it from assuming the status of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda says: Its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and its meat renders one who swallows it ritually impure. Rabbi Meir said: My opinion can be inferred a fortiori. If an animal carcass transmits impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, and nevertheless the slaughter of an animal purifies it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, i.e., its slaughter prevents it from assuming the impurity status of a carcass, then with regard to a bird carcass, which possesses a lesser degree of impurity, as it does not transmit impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, but only through swallowing it, is it not logical that its slaughter should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity? And once it is established that slaughter renders a bird that is a tereifa pure, it can be inferred that just as we found with regard to its slaughter that it renders a bird fit for consumption and purifies a bird, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, so too its pinching, which renders a bird offering fit with regard to consumption, should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity. Rabbi Yosei says: Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter renders even a bird that is a tereifa pure, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every a fortiori inference, namely, that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: It is sufficient for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a tereifa to be like that of the carcass of an animal that is a tereifa; its slaughter renders it pure, but its pinching does not.
מָלַק וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מָה אִם נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ, נִבְלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ. מַה מָּצִינוּ בִשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה, וּמְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ, אַף מְלִיקָתָהּ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה, תְּטַהֵר אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ:
ו׳

אינה מטמאה בבית הבליעה – that the pinching of the bird’s head purifies it from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

ר' יהודה אומר מטמאה בבית הבליעה – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that the ritual slaughtering of an unconsecrated bird does not have any effect nor the pinching of the bird’s neck which is a Holy Thing that is deemed torn in a bird to remove it from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

אינו דין שתהא שחיטה כו' – and since you derived that ritual slaughter purifies the bird with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months (i.e., an animal torn apart by a beast of prey or afflicted with a severe organic disease or congenital defect) with regard to an unconsecrated bird from an a fortiori inference, we derive the pinching of a bird’s head of Holy Things from it through an analogy based upon an induction (i.e., what do we find with regard to – with regard to similar cases…? Analogy based upon one verse or analogy based upon two verses), just as we found through proper slaughter, etc., even the pinching of a bird’s neck that makes it appropriate for eating, it will purify its being viewed as having a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months from its defilement.

רבי יוסי אומר דיה כו' – since we don’t find explicitly that ritual slaughter removes it from being a bird with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months, other than through an a fortiori inference from the condition that will cause an animal to die within twelve months (i.e., an animal torn apart by a beast of prey or afflicted with a severe organic disease or congenital defect), it comes to learn, it is sufficient that it will be like an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months whose ritual slaughter will purify it from being considered as torn apart or afflicted with a congenital defect or a severe organic disease and not through the pinching of its neck, that it is sufficient that the law which is derived by conclusion ad majus to be as strict as the law from which it is derived (i.e., you cannot go beyond the latter). And there are three arguments in the manner: Rabbi Meir holds that both ritual slaughter and pinching the neck of the bird remove it from being considered having a condition that will cause the animal to die within twelve months. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that whether one performs ritual slaughter or the pinching of the neck of the bird, it will not affect the fact of the animal having a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months to remove it from being considered an un-slaughtered carcass. But Rabbi Yossi holds that ritual slaughtering is effective; pinching of the bird’s neck is not effective. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

אינה מטמאה בבית הבליעה. דמליקתה מטהרתה מידי נבלה:

ר׳ יהודה אומר מטמאה בבית הבליעה. דסבירא ליה לר״י דלא אהני שחיטה בעוף של חולין ולא מליקה בקדשים בטריפה בעוף להוציאה מידי נבילה:

אינו דין שתהא שחיטה כו׳. וכיון דילפת ששחיטה מטהר את הטריפה בעוף בחולין מק״ו, ילפינן מליקת קדשים מינה בבנין אב, מה מצינו בשחיטה כו׳, אף מליקה המכשרת באכילה תטהר טריפתה מטומאתה:

רבי יוסי אומר דיה כו׳. כיון דלא אשכחן בהדיא דשחיטה מוציאה מידי נבילה בעוף, אלא מק״ו מנבלת בהמה אתה בא ללמוד, דיה שתהא כנבלת בהמה ששחיטתה מטהרתה מידי נבילה ולא מליקתה, דדיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון. ושלש מחלוקות בדבר, ר״מ סבר, אחד שחיטה ואחד מליקה מוציאה בעוף מידי נבלה. ור׳ יהודה סבר, בין שחיטה בין מליקה לא מהני בטריפה בעוף להוציאה מידי נבלה. ור׳ יוסי סבר, שחיטה מהניא, מליקה לא מהניא. והלכה כר׳ יוסי: