Zevachim Daf 70 זבחים דַף 70

The Gemara seeks to explain the superfluous "טריפה" in the passuk which prohibits eating “חלב of נבילה and חלב of טריפה.” After several suggestions are rejected, Rava ultimately answers: התורה אמרה יבא איסור נבילה ויחול על איסור חלב – the Torah is saying, let the נבילה prohibition come and take effect on top of the חלב prohibition, יבא איסור טריפה ויחול על איסור חלב – and let the טריפה prohibition come and take effect on top of the חלב prohibition (and we do not say אין איסור חל על איסור – one prohibition cannot take effect on top of a preexisting prohibition). The Torah needed to write both נבילה and טריפה, because if the Torah had only written that נבילה takes effect on חלב, one might think that is משום דמטמיא – because it is metamei (and therefore stringent), but the טריפה prohibition (which is not מטמא) would not take effect on חלב. Had the Torah only written טריפה takes effect on חלב, one might think that is משום דאיסורה מחיים – because its prohibition applies even while the animal is alive, but נבילה does not. Therefore, the Torah wrote that both take effect on חלב.

Rebbe Meir taught that מליקה even prevents tumah of a bird which is a טריפה. Rebbe Yochanan says that Rebbe Meir only considered them tahor if they were תמימין – unblemished, but regarding בעלי מומין, he agrees they are metamei as נבילה. Rebbe Elazar disagrees, and says Rebbe Meir would even consider בעלי מומין tahor when killed with מליקה. Rav Bivi said that Rebbe Elazar went further and said that even regarding אווזין ותרנגולין – geese and chickens, which are not valid species for korbanos at all, Rebbe Meir would still rule them tahor when killed with מליקה. Rebbe Yirmiyah asked: ערף עז – if one performed “arifah” on a goat (killing from the back of the neck, like an עגלה ערופה), is it tamei as a נבילה? Are geese and chickens tahor (when killed with מליקה) according to Rebbe Meir only because they are part of the bird category, whereas a goat, which is not in the same category as an עגלה, would not be prevented from becoming a נבילה through עריפה? Or, since they are both a species of בהמה – domesticated animal, the עריפה would be effective to prevent its tumah?

Abaye observed that Rebbe Yirmiyah’s inquiry above about עריפה on a goat presupposes that an עגלה ערופה is tahor. Rav Dimi confirmed this, quoting Rebbe Yannai’s yeshivah saying: כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים – atonement is written about it, like kodashim, so it is similarly tahor when properly killed. This is challenged from a Baraisa which darshens a passuk to teach that the cheilev of an עגלה ערופה is tahor (although the עגלה is forbidden in any benefit). If the עגלה ערופה itself is tahor, why would anyone think its חלב would be tamei? The Gemara agrees that where עריפה was performed on it, it is certainly tahor, and even שחיטה would prevent it from becoming a נבילה. The passuk is teaching that where the עגלה died on its own, and is a נבילה, the חלב is still tahor. This proves that an עגלה ערופה is forbidden in benefit even without עריפה being performed (since the Baraisa is discussing an עגלה without עריפה), and Rebbe Yannai reported when it becomes forbidden: ירידתה לנחל איתן היא אוסרתה – its descent to the hard valley is what prohibits it.