ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 70
(a) According to Abaye, the Pasuk "ve'Cheilev T'reifah" - comes to declare
it (the Cheilev) Tahor after the animal's death, because otherwise. we would
have learned that it is Tamei from a non-Kasher animal (which, like
T'reifah) is forbidden whilst it is still alive, rather than from a
Neveilah, which is not.
(b) This would enable us to reinstate Rebbi Yehudah's original D'rashah from
"u'Tereifah" by a bird ("Le'havi T'reifah she'Shachtah, she'Metam'ah").
(c) This answer is unacceptable however - because here again, we could make
the parallel D'rashah from "u'T'reifah" (to prevent us learning that it is
Metamei from Of Tamei).
(d) In any event, we could not learn a Kasher ...
1. ... animal or bird that became a T'reifah from a non-Kasher one - since
the latter was never permitted (whereas the former was), or even if ...
2. ... it was born a T'reifah - since some of the same species are born
Kasher (which is not the case by a non-Kasher animal).
(a) Rava finally learns from "Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah" - that
(despite the principle of 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur') the Isur of Neveilah and
that of T'reifah takes effect even though the Isur of Cheilev preceded them.
(b) And the Torah finds it necessary to insert them both, because had it
written only "Cheilev ...
1. ... Neveilah", we would have thought that Neveilah takes effect only -
because it is also Metamei, whereas T'reifah is not.
(c) We have finally proved - the validity of Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah from
"u'Treifah" (since this time, the D'rashah from "Cheilev T'reifah" pertains
specifically to Cheilev, and has no parallel D'rashah that one could learn
from "u'T'reifah" that is written by a bird.
2. ... T'reifah", we would have thought that T'reifah takes effect - only
because it becomes forbidden already in the animal's lifetime, whereas
Neveilah does not.
(a) Rebbi Meir learns from "u'T'reifah" the D'rashah that we already cited
earlier (i.e. 'to preclude the Shechitah of a Chulin bird bi'Fenim') from
Tum'ah. Rebbi Yehudah learns this from another Pasuk (where the Torah also
writes "Neveilah u'T'reifah", both in connection with a bird).
(b) Rebbi Meir learns from the latter Pasuk, to preclude a non-Kasher bird
from Tum'ah (since T'reifah does not pertain to it). Rebbi Yehudah learns
this from - "Neveilah", which precludes a Tamei bird from Tum'ah (in the
same way as "u'Tereifah" does).
(c) Rebbi Meir learns from ,,,
1. ... the first "Neveilah" - that the Shiur Tum'ah of a bird (be'Beis
ha'Beli'ah) is a 'k'Zayis' (like Neveilah).
(d) This latter D'rashah is necessary, because we might otherwise have
thought - that since the Tum'ah of 'Beis ha'Beli'ah is a Chidush, it will
not require a 'K'dei Achilas P'ras', but will be Metamei the person who eats
it, irrespective of how long it takes.
2. ... the second "Neveilah" - that one only becomes Tamei if one eats it
'bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras (the time it takes to eat three [or four]
egg-volumes), like the Isur of Neveilah (but not if it takes longer).
(a) The Torah writes (in connection with the exemption from Tum'ah of the
Cheilev of an animal) "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah". The Beraisa
learns from Shechitah that the Torah must be referring specifically to the
Cheilev of a Kasher animal - with a Binyan Av, that the Cheilev of a
Neveilah is Tahor, just like Shechitah is Metaher specifically a Kasher
(b) The Tana suggests that, on the other hand, maybe we learn the opposite
from Neveilah. When the Tana says 'Mah ke'she'Tihar mi'K'lal Neveilah,
bi'Temei'ah ve'Lo bi'Tehorah' - he is referring to a Neveilah of a bird,
which is Metamei by a Tahor bird, but Tamei by a non-Kasher one.
(c) Seeing as the exemption of Cheilev from Tum'ah could now be referring to
the Cheilev of a Kasher animal or of a non-Kasher one (a Beheimah Temei'ah)
depending on whether one learns it from Shechitah or from Neveilah, the
Beraisa resolves the She'eilah from the word "T'reifah'' - precluding a
Beheimah Temei'ah, which is not subject to T'reifah.
(d) And from "ve'Achol Lo Sochluhu" (written in connection with the
exemption of Cheilev from Tum'ah), the Tana goes on to preclude - the
Cheilev of a Chayah, whose Cheilev is permitted together with the Basar (and
which now also becomes Tamei together with it).
(a) We learnt in the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Mah ke'she'Metaher mi'K'lal
Neveilah bi'Temei'ah ve'Lo bi'Tehorah'. Rav Ya'akov bar Aba extrapolated
from there - that the Neveilah of a non-Kasher animal is not Metamei.
(b) Rava was surprised at him making such a mistake" - since the Seifa of
our Mishnah is talking about a Nivlas Of Tamei (and not a Nivlas Beheimah
(a) Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Rebbi Meir's ruling that the Melikah of a
T'reifah is Tahor by restricting it to Temimin, but not to Ba'alei Mumin -
which are not subject to Melikah in the first place.
(b) Rebbi Elazar says - that there is no difference, and that Rebbi Meir
considers both Tahor.
(c) In fact, Rebbi Elazar carries this even further. According to him -
Rebbi Meir declares even ducks and chickens Tahor (even though they are not
fit to go on the Mizbe'ach) ...
(d) ... because a T'reifah is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach either, yet
Rebbi Meir declares it Tahor, so why should they be any different.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Rebbi Meir will also declare Tahor a goat
whose neck the elders broke instead of a calf. Rebbi Yirmiyah holds - that
Rebbi Meir declares the Eglah Arufah itself Tahor, since breaking its neck
is its Hechsher Mitzvah, just as the Melikah of a bird removes the Tum'as
Neveilah because that is its Hechsher.
(b) The She'eilah is then, whether the goat ...
1. ... is Tahor - because it is an animal, just like the calf.
(c) When Abaye asked Rav Dimi on what basis Rebbi Yirmiyah compares the
Eglah Arufah (which is after all, not Kodshim) to a Kodshim bird, the latter
cited Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, who said - that since the Torah wrote
"Kaparah" by it, like it did by Kodshim, it is compared to Kodshim (in this
regard) and is Tahor.
2. ... not be Tahor - because it is a different species than a calf (see
Tosfos DH 'Aval').
(a) From the Pasuk "Ki *Kol* Ochel *Cheilev*, the Beraisa incorporates - the
of a Shor ha'Niskal and an Eglah Arufah in the preclusion from Tum'ah.
(b) Rav Nasan Avuhah de'Rav Huna asks from here on Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai -
that if the Eglah Arufah itself is Tahor, why do we need a Pasuk to declare
its Cheilev Tahor?
(c) We reply - that the Beraisa is not speaking about a calf whose neck was
broken (which is its Hechsher [like the case of Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai]) -
but in a case where it was Shechted (which is not)
(d) The problem with this however, is - that, if that is so, why does the
Shechitah not remove Tum'as Neveilah (like it always does), irrespective of
whether it is Machshir it to be eaten or to derive benefit from it or not?
(a) So we establish it when the calf died by itself, in which case the
animal itself is Tamei. Nevertheless, we require a Pasuk to declare the
Cheilev Tahor - because, we might have thought that the Cheilev of an Eglah
Arufah is different than the Cheilev of any other Neveilah, which is Tahor -
because, since the Eglah Arufah is Asur be'Hana'ah, it does not belong to
the category of "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah", mentioned there in the Pasuk.
**** Hadran Alach 'Chatas ha'Of' *****
(b) We extrapolate from here that the Eglah Arufah must be Asur be'Hana'ah
already in its lifetime - because otherwise, since it was not Shechted, why
would it otherwise be Asur be'Hana'ah?
(c) Rebbi Yanai specifically said that it was, but he could not recall what
it was that rendered it Asur. His colleagues reminded him - that taking it
down to the valley (to have its neck broken) is the point that renders it
forbidden (as we learned in Kidushin).