Zevachim 64
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Three actions were performed at the bottom of the altar on the southwest side, as derived from verses in the Torah. The bird burnt offering was usually brought on the southeast side so that the kohen could be close to the beit hadeshen, where parts of the bird were discarded. Three actions were performed at the top of the altar on the southwest side, and the kohen performing the action would go directly there instead of walking around the altar entirely. The reason was to avoid damaging the items from the smoke rising at the top of the altar.
The Mishna describes in detail how the bird sin offering was performed. A braita provides a source explaining why the blood of this offering was placed on the lower part of the altar and not the upper part, as is done with the animal sin offering and the bird burnt offering.
Two different versions of how to perform melika are presented—one in the name of Rav and one from a braita. It was known to be one of the more difficult actions the kohen had to perform. Performing the kmitza on the meal offering and the chafina with the incense on Yom Kippur were also known to be challenging.
The Mishna describes in detail how the bird burnt offering was performed. Some elements were similar to the sin offering, yet many differed. For example, the head was not severed in the sin offering, but was in the burnt offering. The entire bird was eaten by the kohanim in the sin offering, whereas the burnt offering was completely burned, aside from the parts tossed into the beit hadeshen (crop, feathers, and innards). Other differences include the laws regarding sacrificing with intent for the wrong type of offering. The sin offering is disqualified, as with animal offerings, while the burnt offering is not. Regular laws of pigul apply to both.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in honor of the Aliyah today of their daughter Tamar Davida. “May her new life in Israel be full of bri’ut and simcha.
Zevachim 64
שֶׁאִם הִיזָּה וְלֹא מִיצָּה – כְּשֵׁירָה; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.
because if he sprinkled the blood but did not squeeze out the rest of it, it is still valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below. This version of the baraita states that the offering is valid no matter where on the altar its blood was squeezed out; but it is essential that blood is sprinkled on the lower half of the altar.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים כּוּ׳. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
§ The mishna teaches that there were three matters for which the portion of the southwest corner below the red line served as the proper location: The sacrificing of a bird sin offering, and the bringing of the meal offerings near the altar, and pouring the remaining blood. The Gemara cites sources to prove that each of these three matters was performed at the southwest corner: The source with regard to the bird sin offering is that which we said earlier (63b), that it is derived from a comparison to meal offerings.
הַגָּשׁוֹת – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The source for bringing meal offerings near the altar at the southwest corner is derived from that which is written: “And he shall bring it to the front of the altar.” The source for pouring the remaining blood at the southwest corner of the altar is as it is written: “And all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), which the Gemara derives to be referring to the southwest corner (see 53a).
מִלְּמַעְלָה: נִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם, וְהַיַּיִן, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף כְּשֶׁהִיא רַבָּה בַּמִּזְרָח. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּרוֹבָה מִבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
§ The mishna teaches that there were three matters for which the portion of the southwest corner above the red line served as the proper location: The water and wine libations, and sacrificing a bird burnt offering when they were numerous in the east, i.e., the southeast corner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the sacrificial rites of a bird burnt offering were ideally supposed to be performed at the southeast corner of the altar? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Because it is the closest of all the corners to the place of the ashes, i.e., the place where the ashes from the altar are placed every morning. The crop and feathers of a bird burnt offering are placed there as well.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כֹּחָן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים – שֶׁאֵין לָךְ קַל בָּעוֹפוֹת יוֹתֵר מִמּוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן זוֹרְקָן יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה.
The Gemara cites a comment pertaining to the mishna’s statement that when the southeast corner of the altar is too crowded, the sacrificial rites of a bird burnt offering can be performed at the southwest corner: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Come and see how great was the strength of the priests, as you have no parts of birds lighter than the crop and feathers, and there were times when the priest would toss them more than thirty cubits from the southwest corner of the altar to the place of the ashes.
דִּתְנַן: נָטַל מַחְתָּה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּפִינָּה אֶת הַגֶּחָלִים אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ, וְחָתָה מִן הַמְאוּכָּלוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, וְיוֹרֵד. הִגִּיעַ לָרִצְפָּה – מַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי צָפוֹן, וְהוֹלֵךְ לְמִזְרָחוֹ שֶׁל כֶּבֶשׁ כְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. צָבַר אֶת הַגֶּחָלִים עַל גַּבֵּי הָרִצְפָּה רָחוֹק מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים – מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין מוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה, וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Tamid 28b) describing the procedure of separating the ashes: The priest would take a coal pan of silver and ascend to the top of the altar and clear the upper layer of coals to this side and to that side, and, using the coal pan, scoop up coals from among the inner, consumed coals and descend the ramp. When he reached the floor of the Temple courtyard, he would turn his face to the left, toward the north, and walk about ten cubits along the eastern side of the ramp. There, he would heap the coals upon the floor at a distance of three handbreadths from the ramp. This was the location where one places the crop and feathers, and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the Candelabrum.
הָנֵי טְפֵי מִתְּלָתִין וְחַד הָוְיָין! מְקוֹם גַּבְרֵי לָא חָשֵׁיב.
The Gemara challenges: The distance from the southwest corner to the location described in that mishna is more than thirty-one cubits. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not consider the space taken up by people, i.e., the priest performing the service, in his calculation.
כׇּל הָעוֹלִים לְמִזְבֵּחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נְסָכִים – שֶׁמָּא יִתְעַשְּׁנוּ, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף – שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת בֶּעָשָׁן.
§ The mishna teaches that everyone who ascends the ramp to the altar ascends via the right side of the ramp, circles the altar until reaching the southwest corner, and descends via the left side of the ramp, with the exception of one ascending in order to perform the wine or water libations, or to sacrifice a bird burnt offering on the southwest corner of the altar. In those cases the priest would ascend directly to the southwest corner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for these exceptions to the standard practice? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the libations, the priest would not walk all the way around the altar lest the wine or water absorb the smoke of the altar fire. And with regard to a bird burnt offering he would not walk all the way around lest the bird die from inhaling the smoke.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: בָּא לוֹ לְהַקִּיף אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מֵאַיִן הוּא מַתְחִיל? מִקֶּרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית; וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ יַיִן לְנַסֵּךְ!
The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Tamid 33b): If the High Priest was performing the sacrificial rites of the daily offering, after he would place the limbs on the fire on top of the altar and he would come to circle the altar, from where does he start walking? He starts from the southeast corner, continues to the northeast corner, then to the northwest corner, and finally arrives at the southwest corner. And he is given wine to pour on the altar. This indicates that the High Priest circles the altar while holding the wine for the libation, and there is no concern that it will absorb too much smoke.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
הַקָּפָה בָּרֶגֶל. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״נוֹתְנִין לוֹ יַיִן לְנַסֵּךְ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״אוֹמֵר לוֹ נַסֵּךְ״; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The circling around the altar by the High Priest is done on foot, i.e., empty-handed, as he was given the wine to pour only once he arrived at the southwest corner. Rava said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches that he is given wine to pour, and the mishna does not teach that one tells him to pour the wine, which would have indicated that the High Priest was already holding the wine as he circled the altar. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the language of the mishna that the High Priest was given the wine only once he arrived at the southwest corner of the altar.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הָעוֹלִין לְמִזְבֵּחַ – עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל, עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ מִזְרָח וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲרָב; חוּץ מִן הָעוֹלֶה לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ – שֶׁעוֹלִים דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲרָב וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲרָב, עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All those who ascend the ramp to the altar ascend via the right side of the ramp and descend via the left side; they ascend via the east side of the ramp and descend via the west side, except for one who ascends for one of these three matters: The wine libation, the water libation, and the sacrificial rite of a bird burnt offering. In these cases, one ascends via the west side of the ramp and descends via the west side; one ascends via the right side and descends via the right side.
״דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין״?! דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל הוּא! אָמַר רָבִינָא: תְּנִי ״שְׂמֹאל״. רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״יָמִין״ – יָמִין דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, וּמַאי ״שְׂמֹאל״ – שְׂמֹאל דְּגַבְרָא.
The Gemara asks: Does one who ascends via the west side of the ramp do so via the right side? Ascending via the west side of the ramp is the same as ascending via the left. Ravina says: Emend the baraita so that it teaches that he ascends via the left side. Rava says: What is the meaning of the right side mentioned in the latter clause of the baraita? It is the right side from the standpoint of the altar, facing south, in which case the altar’s west side is synonymous with its right side. And what is the meaning of the left side mentioned in the first clause of the baraita? It is the left side from the standpoint of a person facing the altar.
וְנִיתְנֵי אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּגַבְרָא! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara objects: But let the baraita be consistent and teach both this case and that case, i.e., the first clause and latter clause, from the standpoint of the altar, or let it teach both this case and that case from the standpoint of a person facing the altar. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף כֵּיצַד הָיָה נַעֲשֵׂית? (עָלָה לַכֶּבֶשׁ וּפָנָה לַסּוֹבֵב בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית), הָיָה מוֹלֵק אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ מִמּוּל עׇרְפָּה וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל, וּמַזֶּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה מִתְמַצֶּה עַל הַיְסוֹד; וְאֵין לְמִזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא דָּמָהּ, וְכוּלָּהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
MISHNA: The sacrifice of the bird sin offering, how was it performed? The priest would pinch off the bird’s head by cutting opposite its nape with his thumbnail and would not separate the bird’s head from its body. And he sprinkles from its blood on the wall of the altar below the red line. The remaining blood would be squeezed out from the body of the bird on the base of the altar. The altar has only its blood and the entire bird goes to the priests for consumption.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִזָּה מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת״ – מִגּוּף הַחַטָּאת. הָא כֵּיצַד? אוֹחֵז בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַגּוּף, וּמַזֶּה עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְלֹא עַל קִיר הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וְלֹא עַל קִיר הֵיכָל, וְלֹא עַל קִיר אוּלָם. וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה קִיר הַתַּחְתּוֹן.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bird sin offering: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9). This teaches that the blood is sprinkled directly from the body of the sin offering, not with the priest’s finger or from a vessel. How so? The priest holds the head and the body and sprinkles its blood on the wall of the altar. And he does not sprinkle it on the wall of the ramp, and not on the wall of the Sanctuary, and not on the wall of the Entrance Hall. And which is this wall of the altar that the blood is sprinkled on? This is the lower wall, below the red line.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קִיר הָעֶלְיוֹן? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁעוֹלָתָהּ לְמַטָּה – חַטָּאתָהּ לְמַעְלָה; עוֹף, שֶׁעוֹלָתוֹ לְמַעְלָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ לְמַעְלָה?!
The baraita suggests: Or perhaps the verse is referring only to the upper wall, above the red line. And this should be a logical inference: Just as with regard to an animal offering, where the blood of a burnt offering is applied below the red line (see 10b), nevertheless, the blood of the sin offering is applied above the red line (see Leviticus 4:30), with regard to a bird offering, where the blood of the burnt offering is sprinkled above the red line (see 65a), is it not logical that the blood of its sin offering is sprinkled above the red line?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – קִיר שֶׁהַשְּׁיָרִין שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְמַצִּים לַיְסוֹד; וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה קִיר הַתַּחְתּוֹן.
Therefore, the verse states: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out [yimmatze] at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9), which teaches that the priest sprinkles the blood on the wall where its remaining blood drains to the base of the altar. And which wall is this? This is the lower wall. The surrounding ledge of the altar is located one cubit above the red line, and any blood sprinkled above this ledge will not drip down to the base of the altar. The verse teaches that the blood is sprinkled on the wall of the altar from which it would drip down to the altar’s base unimpeded.
וְנַעְבֵּיד מֵעִילַּאי, וַהֲדַר נַעְבֵּיד מִתַּתַּאי! אָמַר רָבָא: מִי כְּתִיב ״יְמַצֶּה״?! ״יִמָּצֵה״ כְּתִיב, דְּמִמֵּילָא מַשְׁמַע.
The Gemara suggests: Let the priest perform the sprinkling of the blood above, as the baraita logically deduced, and then perform the squeezing below in fulfillment of the aforementioned verse. Rava said: Is it written: He shall drain [yematze]? It is written: It shall be drained [yimmatze], which indicates that the blood trickles down to the base of the altar by itself. Accordingly, the blood must be sprinkled on a part of the altar wall from which it can trickle down to the base of the altar.
אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? אוֹחֵז גַּפָּיו בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּשְׁתֵּי רַגְלַיִם בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּמוֹתֵחַ צַוָּארָהּ עַל רוֹחַב גּוּדָלוֹ, וּמוֹלְקָהּ.
§ Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: How does the priest pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? He holds the bird by its back in the palm of his hand and holds its wings with two fingers, i.e., the middle and index fingers, and its two legs with his next two fingers, i.e., the ring finger and pinky, leaving the head resting between his index finger and thumb, and he stretches its neck over the width of his thumb and pinches its nape with his thumbnail.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תְּנָא: צִיפְּרָא מִלְּבַר; אוֹחֵז גַּפָּיו בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּשְׁנֵי רַגְלַיִם בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּמוֹתֵחַ צַוָּארוֹ עַל רוֹחַב שְׁתֵּי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וּמוֹלֵק. וְזוֹ עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
The Gemara cites a varying opinion: It was taught in a baraita: The bird is not in the priest’s palm, but rather on the outside of his hand. The priest holds its wings with two fingers and its two legs with two fingers. Using his thumb, the priest bends its head into his palm and stretches its neck over the width of his two fingers, and pinches its nape. And this is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple to perform.
זוֹ הִיא – וְתוּ לָא?! וְהָאִיכָּא קְמִיצָה וַחֲפִינָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה מֵעֲבוֹדוֹת קָשׁוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
The Gemara asks: This is the most difficult rite to perform, and no other? But isn’t there also the removal of the handful of the meal offering and the handful of the incense on Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: Rather, say that the pinching procedure was a difficult sacrificial rite, one of the most difficult sacrificial rites in the Temple to perform.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כֵּיצַד נַעֲשֵׂית? עָלָה לַכֶּבֶשׁ וּפָנָה לַסּוֹבֵב, בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית. הָיָה מוֹלֵק אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ מִמּוּל עׇרְפָּה, וּמַבְדִּיל, וּמִיצָּה אֶת דָּמָהּ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. נָטַל אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְהִקִּיף בֵּית מְלִיקָתוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, סְפָגוֹ בְּמֶלַח, וּזְרָקוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים.
MISHNA: The sacrifice of the bird burnt offering, how was it performed? The priest ascended the ramp and turned to the surrounding ledge and came to the southeast corner of the altar. He would then pinch off the bird’s head by cutting at its nape with his thumbnail and separate the bird’s head from its body, and would squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar. He took the head and neared the place of its pinching, i.e., its nape, to the altar in order to squeeze the blood from the head. He would then absorb the remaining blood with salt and throw the head onto the fire on the altar.
בָּא לוֹ לַגּוּף, וְהֵסִיר אֶת הַמּוּרְאָה וְאֶת הַנּוֹצָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי הַמֵּעַיִים הַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּם, וְהִשְׁלִיכָן לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן. שִׁיסַּע, וְלֹא הִבְדִּיל. וְאִם הִבְדִּיל – כָּשֵׁר. סוֹפְגוֹ בְּמֶלַח, וְזֹרְקוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים.
He then arrived at the body and removed the crop and the feather attached to it and the innards that emerge with them and he tossed them to the place of the ashes. He then ripped the bird lengthwise and did not separate the two halves of the bird; but if he separated them, the offering is valid. He would then absorb the remaining blood with salt and throw the body of the bird onto the fire on the altar.
לֹא הֵסִיר הַמּוּרְאָה וְלֹא הַנּוֹצָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים הַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּם, וְלֹא סְפָגוֹ בְּמֶלַח – כֹּל שֶׁשִּׁינָּה בָּהּ מֵאַחֵר שֶׁמִּיצָּה אֶת דָּמָהּ, כְּשֵׁירָה. הִבְדִּיל בַּחַטָּאת וְלֹא הִבְדִּיל בָּעוֹלָה – פָּסוּל. מִיצָּה אֶת דַּם הָרֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף – פְּסוּלָה. דַּם הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ – כְּשֵׁירָה.
If he neither removed the crop, nor the feather and the innards that emerge with them, nor absorbed the blood with salt, with regard to any detail that he changed in the sacrificial rites after he squeezed out its blood, the offering is valid. If he separated the head from the body in sacrificing the sin offering, or if he did not separate the head from the body in sacrificing the burnt offering, the offering is disqualified. In a case where he squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid.
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ וְלִשְׁמָהּ – פָּסוּל. עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לִבְעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה.
In the case of a bird sin offering that the priest pinched not for its sake, or if he squeezed out its blood not for its sake, or if he did so for its sake and then not for its sake, or not for its sake and then for its sake, it is disqualified, like all other sin offerings that are disqualified when performed not for their sake (see 2a). A bird burnt offering sacrificed not for its sake is valid; it is just that it did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.
אֶחָד חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, שֶׁמְּלָקָן וְשֶׁמִּיצָּה אֶת דָּמָן – לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ; פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.
With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering where the priest pinched its nape or squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified. But there is no liability to receive karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.
כֵּיצַד קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ? מָלַק בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם בִּשְׁתִיקָה; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – זֶהוּ שֶׁקָּרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.
How is the permitting factor sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one pinched the nape in silence, i.e., with no disqualifying intent, and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of the parts typically eaten or to burn the portions that are to be burned on the altar, beyond its designated time; or in the case of one who pinched with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar beyond its designated time, and squeezed out its blood in silence; or in the case of one who pinched and squeezed out the blood with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar beyond its designated time, that is the case of a bird offering where the permitting factor is sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.
כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ? מָלַק חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, מִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ;
How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If the priest pinched the nape of the bird with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it beyond its designated time, or he pinched with the intent to partake of it or burn it beyond its designated time and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area, or if the priest pinched and squeezed out the blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevachim Daf 58-65 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 64: Bird Offerings – Not for the Faint of Heart
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Raanana, Israel
Ontario, Canada
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Zevachim 64
שֶׁאִם הִיזָּה וְלֹא מִיצָּה – כְּשֵׁירָה; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.
because if he sprinkled the blood but did not squeeze out the rest of it, it is still valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below. This version of the baraita states that the offering is valid no matter where on the altar its blood was squeezed out; but it is essential that blood is sprinkled on the lower half of the altar.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים כּוּ׳. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
§ The mishna teaches that there were three matters for which the portion of the southwest corner below the red line served as the proper location: The sacrificing of a bird sin offering, and the bringing of the meal offerings near the altar, and pouring the remaining blood. The Gemara cites sources to prove that each of these three matters was performed at the southwest corner: The source with regard to the bird sin offering is that which we said earlier (63b), that it is derived from a comparison to meal offerings.
הַגָּשׁוֹת – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The source for bringing meal offerings near the altar at the southwest corner is derived from that which is written: “And he shall bring it to the front of the altar.” The source for pouring the remaining blood at the southwest corner of the altar is as it is written: “And all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), which the Gemara derives to be referring to the southwest corner (see 53a).
מִלְּמַעְלָה: נִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם, וְהַיַּיִן, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף כְּשֶׁהִיא רַבָּה בַּמִּזְרָח. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּרוֹבָה מִבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
§ The mishna teaches that there were three matters for which the portion of the southwest corner above the red line served as the proper location: The water and wine libations, and sacrificing a bird burnt offering when they were numerous in the east, i.e., the southeast corner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the sacrificial rites of a bird burnt offering were ideally supposed to be performed at the southeast corner of the altar? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Because it is the closest of all the corners to the place of the ashes, i.e., the place where the ashes from the altar are placed every morning. The crop and feathers of a bird burnt offering are placed there as well.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כֹּחָן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים – שֶׁאֵין לָךְ קַל בָּעוֹפוֹת יוֹתֵר מִמּוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן זוֹרְקָן יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה.
The Gemara cites a comment pertaining to the mishna’s statement that when the southeast corner of the altar is too crowded, the sacrificial rites of a bird burnt offering can be performed at the southwest corner: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Come and see how great was the strength of the priests, as you have no parts of birds lighter than the crop and feathers, and there were times when the priest would toss them more than thirty cubits from the southwest corner of the altar to the place of the ashes.
דִּתְנַן: נָטַל מַחְתָּה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּפִינָּה אֶת הַגֶּחָלִים אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ, וְחָתָה מִן הַמְאוּכָּלוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, וְיוֹרֵד. הִגִּיעַ לָרִצְפָּה – מַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי צָפוֹן, וְהוֹלֵךְ לְמִזְרָחוֹ שֶׁל כֶּבֶשׁ כְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. צָבַר אֶת הַגֶּחָלִים עַל גַּבֵּי הָרִצְפָּה רָחוֹק מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים – מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין מוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה, וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Tamid 28b) describing the procedure of separating the ashes: The priest would take a coal pan of silver and ascend to the top of the altar and clear the upper layer of coals to this side and to that side, and, using the coal pan, scoop up coals from among the inner, consumed coals and descend the ramp. When he reached the floor of the Temple courtyard, he would turn his face to the left, toward the north, and walk about ten cubits along the eastern side of the ramp. There, he would heap the coals upon the floor at a distance of three handbreadths from the ramp. This was the location where one places the crop and feathers, and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the Candelabrum.
הָנֵי טְפֵי מִתְּלָתִין וְחַד הָוְיָין! מְקוֹם גַּבְרֵי לָא חָשֵׁיב.
The Gemara challenges: The distance from the southwest corner to the location described in that mishna is more than thirty-one cubits. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not consider the space taken up by people, i.e., the priest performing the service, in his calculation.
כׇּל הָעוֹלִים לְמִזְבֵּחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נְסָכִים – שֶׁמָּא יִתְעַשְּׁנוּ, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף – שֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת בֶּעָשָׁן.
§ The mishna teaches that everyone who ascends the ramp to the altar ascends via the right side of the ramp, circles the altar until reaching the southwest corner, and descends via the left side of the ramp, with the exception of one ascending in order to perform the wine or water libations, or to sacrifice a bird burnt offering on the southwest corner of the altar. In those cases the priest would ascend directly to the southwest corner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for these exceptions to the standard practice? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the libations, the priest would not walk all the way around the altar lest the wine or water absorb the smoke of the altar fire. And with regard to a bird burnt offering he would not walk all the way around lest the bird die from inhaling the smoke.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: בָּא לוֹ לְהַקִּיף אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מֵאַיִן הוּא מַתְחִיל? מִקֶּרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית; וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ יַיִן לְנַסֵּךְ!
The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Tamid 33b): If the High Priest was performing the sacrificial rites of the daily offering, after he would place the limbs on the fire on top of the altar and he would come to circle the altar, from where does he start walking? He starts from the southeast corner, continues to the northeast corner, then to the northwest corner, and finally arrives at the southwest corner. And he is given wine to pour on the altar. This indicates that the High Priest circles the altar while holding the wine for the libation, and there is no concern that it will absorb too much smoke.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
הַקָּפָה בָּרֶגֶל. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״נוֹתְנִין לוֹ יַיִן לְנַסֵּךְ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״אוֹמֵר לוֹ נַסֵּךְ״; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The circling around the altar by the High Priest is done on foot, i.e., empty-handed, as he was given the wine to pour only once he arrived at the southwest corner. Rava said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches that he is given wine to pour, and the mishna does not teach that one tells him to pour the wine, which would have indicated that the High Priest was already holding the wine as he circled the altar. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the language of the mishna that the High Priest was given the wine only once he arrived at the southwest corner of the altar.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הָעוֹלִין לְמִזְבֵּחַ – עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל, עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ מִזְרָח וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲרָב; חוּץ מִן הָעוֹלֶה לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ – שֶׁעוֹלִים דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲרָב וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲרָב, עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All those who ascend the ramp to the altar ascend via the right side of the ramp and descend via the left side; they ascend via the east side of the ramp and descend via the west side, except for one who ascends for one of these three matters: The wine libation, the water libation, and the sacrificial rite of a bird burnt offering. In these cases, one ascends via the west side of the ramp and descends via the west side; one ascends via the right side and descends via the right side.
״דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין״?! דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל הוּא! אָמַר רָבִינָא: תְּנִי ״שְׂמֹאל״. רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״יָמִין״ – יָמִין דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, וּמַאי ״שְׂמֹאל״ – שְׂמֹאל דְּגַבְרָא.
The Gemara asks: Does one who ascends via the west side of the ramp do so via the right side? Ascending via the west side of the ramp is the same as ascending via the left. Ravina says: Emend the baraita so that it teaches that he ascends via the left side. Rava says: What is the meaning of the right side mentioned in the latter clause of the baraita? It is the right side from the standpoint of the altar, facing south, in which case the altar’s west side is synonymous with its right side. And what is the meaning of the left side mentioned in the first clause of the baraita? It is the left side from the standpoint of a person facing the altar.
וְנִיתְנֵי אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּגַבְרָא! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara objects: But let the baraita be consistent and teach both this case and that case, i.e., the first clause and latter clause, from the standpoint of the altar, or let it teach both this case and that case from the standpoint of a person facing the altar. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף כֵּיצַד הָיָה נַעֲשֵׂית? (עָלָה לַכֶּבֶשׁ וּפָנָה לַסּוֹבֵב בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית), הָיָה מוֹלֵק אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ מִמּוּל עׇרְפָּה וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל, וּמַזֶּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה מִתְמַצֶּה עַל הַיְסוֹד; וְאֵין לְמִזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא דָּמָהּ, וְכוּלָּהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
MISHNA: The sacrifice of the bird sin offering, how was it performed? The priest would pinch off the bird’s head by cutting opposite its nape with his thumbnail and would not separate the bird’s head from its body. And he sprinkles from its blood on the wall of the altar below the red line. The remaining blood would be squeezed out from the body of the bird on the base of the altar. The altar has only its blood and the entire bird goes to the priests for consumption.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִזָּה מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת״ – מִגּוּף הַחַטָּאת. הָא כֵּיצַד? אוֹחֵז בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַגּוּף, וּמַזֶּה עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְלֹא עַל קִיר הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וְלֹא עַל קִיר הֵיכָל, וְלֹא עַל קִיר אוּלָם. וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה קִיר הַתַּחְתּוֹן.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bird sin offering: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9). This teaches that the blood is sprinkled directly from the body of the sin offering, not with the priest’s finger or from a vessel. How so? The priest holds the head and the body and sprinkles its blood on the wall of the altar. And he does not sprinkle it on the wall of the ramp, and not on the wall of the Sanctuary, and not on the wall of the Entrance Hall. And which is this wall of the altar that the blood is sprinkled on? This is the lower wall, below the red line.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קִיר הָעֶלְיוֹן? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁעוֹלָתָהּ לְמַטָּה – חַטָּאתָהּ לְמַעְלָה; עוֹף, שֶׁעוֹלָתוֹ לְמַעְלָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ לְמַעְלָה?!
The baraita suggests: Or perhaps the verse is referring only to the upper wall, above the red line. And this should be a logical inference: Just as with regard to an animal offering, where the blood of a burnt offering is applied below the red line (see 10b), nevertheless, the blood of the sin offering is applied above the red line (see Leviticus 4:30), with regard to a bird offering, where the blood of the burnt offering is sprinkled above the red line (see 65a), is it not logical that the blood of its sin offering is sprinkled above the red line?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – קִיר שֶׁהַשְּׁיָרִין שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְמַצִּים לַיְסוֹד; וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה קִיר הַתַּחְתּוֹן.
Therefore, the verse states: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out [yimmatze] at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9), which teaches that the priest sprinkles the blood on the wall where its remaining blood drains to the base of the altar. And which wall is this? This is the lower wall. The surrounding ledge of the altar is located one cubit above the red line, and any blood sprinkled above this ledge will not drip down to the base of the altar. The verse teaches that the blood is sprinkled on the wall of the altar from which it would drip down to the altar’s base unimpeded.
וְנַעְבֵּיד מֵעִילַּאי, וַהֲדַר נַעְבֵּיד מִתַּתַּאי! אָמַר רָבָא: מִי כְּתִיב ״יְמַצֶּה״?! ״יִמָּצֵה״ כְּתִיב, דְּמִמֵּילָא מַשְׁמַע.
The Gemara suggests: Let the priest perform the sprinkling of the blood above, as the baraita logically deduced, and then perform the squeezing below in fulfillment of the aforementioned verse. Rava said: Is it written: He shall drain [yematze]? It is written: It shall be drained [yimmatze], which indicates that the blood trickles down to the base of the altar by itself. Accordingly, the blood must be sprinkled on a part of the altar wall from which it can trickle down to the base of the altar.
אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? אוֹחֵז גַּפָּיו בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּשְׁתֵּי רַגְלַיִם בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּמוֹתֵחַ צַוָּארָהּ עַל רוֹחַב גּוּדָלוֹ, וּמוֹלְקָהּ.
§ Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: How does the priest pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? He holds the bird by its back in the palm of his hand and holds its wings with two fingers, i.e., the middle and index fingers, and its two legs with his next two fingers, i.e., the ring finger and pinky, leaving the head resting between his index finger and thumb, and he stretches its neck over the width of his thumb and pinches its nape with his thumbnail.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תְּנָא: צִיפְּרָא מִלְּבַר; אוֹחֵז גַּפָּיו בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּשְׁנֵי רַגְלַיִם בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וּמוֹתֵחַ צַוָּארוֹ עַל רוֹחַב שְׁתֵּי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וּמוֹלֵק. וְזוֹ עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
The Gemara cites a varying opinion: It was taught in a baraita: The bird is not in the priest’s palm, but rather on the outside of his hand. The priest holds its wings with two fingers and its two legs with two fingers. Using his thumb, the priest bends its head into his palm and stretches its neck over the width of his two fingers, and pinches its nape. And this is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple to perform.
זוֹ הִיא – וְתוּ לָא?! וְהָאִיכָּא קְמִיצָה וַחֲפִינָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה מֵעֲבוֹדוֹת קָשׁוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
The Gemara asks: This is the most difficult rite to perform, and no other? But isn’t there also the removal of the handful of the meal offering and the handful of the incense on Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: Rather, say that the pinching procedure was a difficult sacrificial rite, one of the most difficult sacrificial rites in the Temple to perform.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כֵּיצַד נַעֲשֵׂית? עָלָה לַכֶּבֶשׁ וּפָנָה לַסּוֹבֵב, בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית. הָיָה מוֹלֵק אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ מִמּוּל עׇרְפָּה, וּמַבְדִּיל, וּמִיצָּה אֶת דָּמָהּ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. נָטַל אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְהִקִּיף בֵּית מְלִיקָתוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, סְפָגוֹ בְּמֶלַח, וּזְרָקוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים.
MISHNA: The sacrifice of the bird burnt offering, how was it performed? The priest ascended the ramp and turned to the surrounding ledge and came to the southeast corner of the altar. He would then pinch off the bird’s head by cutting at its nape with his thumbnail and separate the bird’s head from its body, and would squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar. He took the head and neared the place of its pinching, i.e., its nape, to the altar in order to squeeze the blood from the head. He would then absorb the remaining blood with salt and throw the head onto the fire on the altar.
בָּא לוֹ לַגּוּף, וְהֵסִיר אֶת הַמּוּרְאָה וְאֶת הַנּוֹצָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי הַמֵּעַיִים הַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּם, וְהִשְׁלִיכָן לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן. שִׁיסַּע, וְלֹא הִבְדִּיל. וְאִם הִבְדִּיל – כָּשֵׁר. סוֹפְגוֹ בְּמֶלַח, וְזֹרְקוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים.
He then arrived at the body and removed the crop and the feather attached to it and the innards that emerge with them and he tossed them to the place of the ashes. He then ripped the bird lengthwise and did not separate the two halves of the bird; but if he separated them, the offering is valid. He would then absorb the remaining blood with salt and throw the body of the bird onto the fire on the altar.
לֹא הֵסִיר הַמּוּרְאָה וְלֹא הַנּוֹצָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים הַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּם, וְלֹא סְפָגוֹ בְּמֶלַח – כֹּל שֶׁשִּׁינָּה בָּהּ מֵאַחֵר שֶׁמִּיצָּה אֶת דָּמָהּ, כְּשֵׁירָה. הִבְדִּיל בַּחַטָּאת וְלֹא הִבְדִּיל בָּעוֹלָה – פָּסוּל. מִיצָּה אֶת דַּם הָרֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף – פְּסוּלָה. דַּם הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ – כְּשֵׁירָה.
If he neither removed the crop, nor the feather and the innards that emerge with them, nor absorbed the blood with salt, with regard to any detail that he changed in the sacrificial rites after he squeezed out its blood, the offering is valid. If he separated the head from the body in sacrificing the sin offering, or if he did not separate the head from the body in sacrificing the burnt offering, the offering is disqualified. In a case where he squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid.
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ וְלִשְׁמָהּ – פָּסוּל. עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לִבְעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה.
In the case of a bird sin offering that the priest pinched not for its sake, or if he squeezed out its blood not for its sake, or if he did so for its sake and then not for its sake, or not for its sake and then for its sake, it is disqualified, like all other sin offerings that are disqualified when performed not for their sake (see 2a). A bird burnt offering sacrificed not for its sake is valid; it is just that it did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.
אֶחָד חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, שֶׁמְּלָקָן וְשֶׁמִּיצָּה אֶת דָּמָן – לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ; פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.
With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering where the priest pinched its nape or squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified. But there is no liability to receive karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.
כֵּיצַד קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ? מָלַק בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם בִּשְׁתִיקָה; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – זֶהוּ שֶׁקָּרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.
How is the permitting factor sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one pinched the nape in silence, i.e., with no disqualifying intent, and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of the parts typically eaten or to burn the portions that are to be burned on the altar, beyond its designated time; or in the case of one who pinched with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar beyond its designated time, and squeezed out its blood in silence; or in the case of one who pinched and squeezed out the blood with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar beyond its designated time, that is the case of a bird offering where the permitting factor is sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.
כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ? מָלַק חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, מִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ;
How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If the priest pinched the nape of the bird with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it beyond its designated time, or he pinched with the intent to partake of it or burn it beyond its designated time and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area, or if the priest pinched and squeezed out the blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area,
