Zevachim 65
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Mishna, as in Chapter 2 (Zevachim 29b), outlines various scenarios in which a thought can, or cannot, render a sacrifice pigul, thereby making consumption of the meat punishable/not punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with one of the rulings and maintains that if melika (the ritual slaughter of a bird) was performed with the intent to offer the blood beyond its designated time, and the blood was then squeezed with the intent to burn the flesh outside the Azara (Temple courtyard), the offering would be considered pigul. This is because, although the sacrifice was already disqualified for other reasons, the disqualification due to improper intent regarding time occurred first.
A braita examines the verses concerning the bird burnt offering and derives several halakhot specific to this sacrifice:
- One who volunteers to bring this type of offering may bring only one bird.
- Melika must be performed by a kohen.
- Melika is not performed with a knife.
- Melika is performed at the top of the altar.
- Melika is done on the back of the bird’s neck.
- The bird’s head must be severed.
- All the blood must be squeezed out – none may remain.
- The blood is squeezed onto the upper part of the altar wall.
- There is a debate whether melika and the squeezing of the blood are performed on the sovev (the ledge surrounding the altar) or at its top.
Another braita presents differing opinions regarding which parts of the bird are cast onto the beit hadeshen (the ash heap) and how those parts are removed. The bird is split in half – this is done by hand, as derived from a verse in Judges concerning Shimshon.
Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna regarding a bird sin offering in which the kohen severs the head: is the offering thereby disqualified or not? Three interpretations are offered to explain the basis of their disagreement.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by my parents, Paula and Robert Cohen, in loving memory of my grandmother, Sonja Waschitz, Sara bat Yitzchak z”l, on her fifth yahrzeit. My grandmother was a true role model of hard work, perseverance, and optimism. The values she instilled in me continue to guide and inspire me every single day.
Zevachim 65
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף (שֶׁמְּלָקוֹ) [שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ] שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וּמִיצָּה דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ; אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִיצָּה הַדָּם שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – זֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.
or in the case of a bird sin offering where one pinched its nape not for its sake and squeezed out its blood with the intent of consuming it or burning it beyond its designated time, or in a case where he pinched its nape with the intent to consume it or burn it beyond its designated time and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, or in a case where he pinched its nape and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, that is a case of a bird offering whose permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.
לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר, כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
If one pinched the nape of the bird and squeezed out its blood with the intent to eat an olive-bulk of the offering outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וְאִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. [וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וָזֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.]
Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said that this is the principle: If the improper intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. And if the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case where the intent with regard to time came first and that case where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet.
לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.
If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is valid, because eating and burning do not join together.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse pertaining to a bird burnt offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar, and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). What is the meaning when the verse states: And the priest shall bring it to the altar? Since the previous verse states that “he shall bring his offering,” this verse should have started with the phrase “And he shall pinch off its head.”
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִן הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה״ – יָכוֹל הַמִּתְנַדֵּב עוֹף לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי פְּרִידִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – אֲפִילּוּ פְּרִידָה אַחַת יָבִיא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
Since it is stated in the preceding verse: “And if his offering to the Lord be a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves, or of pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14), one might have thought that one who donates a bird as an offering may not donate fewer than two birds. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” indicating that one may bring even one bird to be sacrificed on the altar.
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַכֹּהֵן״? לִקְבּוֹעַ לוֹ כֹּהֵן. שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בֶּן צֹאן, שֶׁקָּבַע לוֹ צָפוֹן – לָא קָבַע לוֹ כֹּהֵן; עוֹף, שֶׁלָּא קָבַע לוֹ צָפוֹן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִקְבַּע לוֹ כֹּהֵן?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״(אֶל) הַכֹּהֵן״ – לִקְבּוֹעַ לוֹ כֹּהֵן.
The baraita continues analyzing the verse: What is the meaning when the verse states that “the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15)? It is to establish that only a priest may pinch its nape, as one might have thought that even a non-priest may perform this procedure. Could this not be derived through logical inference: And if with regard to a sheep burnt offering, with regard to which the verse established that it must be slaughtered in the north (see Leviticus 1:11), it did not establish that it must be slaughtered by a priest (see 32a), then in the case of a bird burnt offering, with regard to which the verse did not establish that its nape must be pinched in the north, is it not logical that the verse does not establish that its nape must be pinched by a priest? To counter this, the verse states that “the priest shall bring it to the altar,” in order to establish that its nape must be pinched specifically by a priest.
יָכוֹל יִמְלְקֶנּוּ בְּסַכִּין? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה אִם שְׁחִיטָה, שֶׁלֹּא קָבַע לָהּ כֹּהֵן – קָבַע לָהּ כְּלִי; מְלִיקָה, שֶׁקָּבַע לָהּ כֹּהֵן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּקְבַּע לָהּ כְּלִי?!
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the priest should pinch its nape with a knife. And one could derive this through a logical inference: And if with regard to slaughtering, with regard to which the verse did not establish that it must be performed by a priest, it established that it must be performed with an instrument, i.e., a knife (see 97b); then in the case of pinching, which the verse established must be performed by a priest, is it not logical that the verse establishes that it must be performed with an instrument?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּהֵן… וּמָלַק״. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁזָּר קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ?! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּהֵן״? שֶׁתְּהֵא מְלִיקָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן.
To counter this, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it near the altar and pinch off its head.” In explanation of this verse, Rabbi Akiva said: Could it enter your mind that a non-priest may approach the altar in order to sacrifice an offering? Since this is impossible, the verse does not need to state that the sacrificial rite is performed by a priest. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “The priest”? It means that the pinching must be performed with the very body of the priest.
יָכוֹל יִמְלְקֶנָּה בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמָלַק… וְהִקְטִיר״ – מָה הַקְטָרָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף מְלִיקָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
The baraita continues to analyze the verse: One might have thought that the priest may pinch the bird’s nape whether above the red line of the altar or below it. To counter this, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it unto the altar and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar.” The verse juxtaposes the pinching to the burning of the bird on the altar to teach that just as the burning occurs atop the altar, so too, the pinching occurs on the top part of the wall of the altar.
״וּמָלַק״ – מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַצַּוָּאר? וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״וּמָלַק״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וּמָלַק״; מָה לְהַלָּן מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, אַף כָּאן מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף!
The baraita continues: The verse states that the priest shall “pinch off its head,” which must be performed at the nape. Do you say that the pinching occurs at the nape, or is it only at the throat? It can be derived through a logical inference: It is stated here, with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And pinch off its head” (Leviticus 1:15), and it is stated there, with regard to a bird sin offering: “And pinch off its head opposite its nape, but shall not separate it” (Leviticus 5:8). Just as there, the head is pinched at the nape, so too here, the head is pinched at the nape.
אִי – מָה לְהַלָּן מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל, אַף כָּאן מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר״; מָה הַקְטָרָה – הָרֹאשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף לְעַצְמוֹ, אַף מְלִיקָה – הָרֹאשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף לְעַצְמוֹ.
If the halakha of a bird burnt offering is derived from that of a bird sin offering, perhaps it should also be derived that just as there, the priest pinches off the head but does not separate it completely from the body, so too here, with regard to a bird burnt offering, he pinches off the head but does not separate it from the body. To counter this, the verse states with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). This indicates that just as with regard to the burning of the bird burnt offering, the head is burned by itself and the body is burned by itself, so too with regard to the pinching, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, i.e., the head is completely detached from the body.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקְטָרַת הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר אוֹתוֹ״ – הֲרֵי הַקְטָרַת הַגּוּף אֲמוּרָה; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״? בְּהַקְטָרַת הָרֹאשׁ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that the burning of the head is by itself and the body is burned by itself? As it is stated: “And he shall rend it by its wings…and the priest shall make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:17). Since the burning of the body is stated in this verse, how do I realize the meaning of the earlier phrase: “And make it smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15)? One must conclude that the verse is speaking about the burning of the head.
״וְנִמְצָה דָּמוֹ״ – כּוּלּוֹ. ״עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – וְלֹא עַל קִיר הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וְלֹא עַל קִיר הַהֵיכָל; וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? זֶה קִיר הָעֶלְיוֹן.
The baraita continues to expound the verse stated with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And its blood shall be drained out on the wall of the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). When the verse states: “And its blood shall be drained out,” it means that all of it must be drained out. The continuation of the verse indicates that it must be drained out “on the wall of the altar,” and not on the wall of the ramp, nor on the wall of the Sanctuary. And which wall of the altar is this? This is the upper wall, i.e., above the red line.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קִיר הַתַּחְתּוֹן? וְדִין הוּא: מָה בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁחַטָּאתָהּ לְמַעְלָה – עוֹלָתָהּ לְמַטָּה; עוֹף, שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ לְמַטָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁעוֹלָתוֹ לְמַטָּה?
Or perhaps the verse is referring only to the lower wall, i.e., below the red line; and this can be supported by a logical inference: And if with regard to an animal offering, where the blood of its sin offering is applied above the red line, the blood of its burnt offering is applied below the red line, then with regard to a bird offering, where the blood of its sin offering is sprinkled below the red line, is it not logical that the blood of its burnt offering is sprinkled below the red line?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמָלַק… וְהִקְטִיר… וְנִמְצָה דָּמוֹ״ – וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ לְאַחַר שֶׁהִקְטִיר חוֹזֵר וּמְמַצֶּה?! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה הַקְטָרָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף מִיצּוּי בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. הָא כֵּיצַד? הָיָה עוֹלֶה בַּכֶּבֶשׁ וּפוֹנֶה לַסּוֹבֵב, וּבָא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית; הָיָה מוֹלֵק אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ מִמּוּל עׇרְפָּה וּמַבְדִּיל, וּמְמַצֶּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה מֵרַגְלָיו, אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה – כְּשֵׁירָה.
To counter this, the verse states: “And pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out.” Could it enter your mind that after he has burned the bird, the priest goes back and drains out its blood? Rather, the verse serves to tell you: Just as the burning occurs atop the altar, so too, the draining occurs atop the altar. How so? The priest would ascend the ramp and turn to the surrounding ledge and arrive at the southeast corner. He would pinch off the bird’s head at its nape, and separate it from its body. He would then squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar beside him. Nevertheless, if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, i.e., below the surrounding ledge, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid.
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל עַצְמָהּ אֵין נַעֲשֵׂית אֶלָּא בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
The baraita concludes by citing a dissenting opinion: Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: The entire rite of a bird burnt offering is performed only atop the altar. The Gemara asks: Since the first tanna and Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov agree that the bird must be burned atop the altar and its blood must be squeezed on the top part of the wall of the altar, what is the difference between them?
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲרָכָה עַל גַּבֵּי סוֹבֵב אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Abaye and Rava both say: There is a difference between them with regard to whether one may form an arrangement of wood on the surrounding ledge and burn the bird there. According to the first tanna, this is permitted when needed, and therefore it is valid if the priest squeezes out the blood on the wall up to a cubit below the surrounding ledge. According to Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, one may never burn the bird on the surrounding ledge, and therefore it is not valid if the priest squeezed out the blood below the surrounding ledge.
בָּא לוֹ לַגּוּף כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ״ – זוֹ זֶפֶק.
§ The mishna teaches that after the priest throws the bird’s head onto the fire on the altar, he arrives at the body and removes the crop and the feathers attached to it and the innards that emerge with them, and tosses them to the place of the ashes. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse pertaining to a bird burnt offering: “And he shall take away murato with its feathers” (Leviticus 1:16). This word, murato, is referring to the crop.
יָכוֹל יַקְדִּיר בְּסַכִּין וְיִטְּלֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּנֹצָתָהּ״ – נוֹטֵל אֶת הַנּוֹצָה עִמָּהּ. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן אוֹמֵר: נוֹטְלָהּ וְנוֹטֵל קוּרְקְבָנָהּ עִמָּהּ.
Had the verse written only “its crop,” one might have thought that the priest may cut the skin with a knife and take the crop without any other part of the bird. Therefore, the verse states: “With its feathers [benotzatah],” which teaches that he takes the feathers with it, i.e., he must remove the skin with the feathers still attached. The Gemara presents another opinion: Abba Yosei ben Ḥanan says: He takes the crop and he also takes its gizzard with it.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״בְּנֹצָתָהּ״ – בְּנוֹצָה שֶׁלָּהּ; קוֹדְרָהּ בְּסַכִּין כְּמִין אֲרוּבָּה.
A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word benotzatah is a contraction of the words benotza shelah, meaning its feathers. This teaches that the priest cuts it with a knife, creating an opening like a window opposite the crop. This allows him to remove the crop with only the feathers and skin directly opposite it, and that is what he brings to the place of the ashes.
שִׁיסַּע וְלֹא הִבְדִּיל. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשִׁסַּע״ – אֵין שִׁיסַּע אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי״.
§ The mishna teaches that after removing the crop and the feathers and innards that emerged with it, the priest ripped the bird lengthwise and did not separate the two halves of the bird. In this regard the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall rend” (Leviticus 1:17). The act of rending is performed only by hand, and so too, the verse states with regard to Samson: “And he rent it as one would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand” (Judges 14:6).
לֹא הֵסִיר אֶת הַמּוּרְאָה כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף.
§ The mishna teaches that if the priest did not remove the crop, or he changed any detail of the sacrificial rite after he squeezed out the blood, the offering is valid. If he separated the head from the body of a bird sin offering, it is disqualified. The Gemara says: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: I heard that one may separate the head from the body of a bird sin offering.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב; וְכֵיוָן דְּמִצּוּי דָּם, קָעָבֵיד מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of the disagreement? Rav Ḥisda says: The difference between them concerns the question of whether squeezing out the blood of a bird sin offering after its blood has been sprinkled is indispensable. The first tanna, whose opinion is cited in the mishna, holds that squeezing out the blood of a bird sin offering is indispensable. And since squeezing out the blood is indispensable, the priest will have to squeeze out the blood after separating the head from the body, and he will have performed the rite of a bird burnt offering on a bird sin offering, which disqualifies the offering (see 66a).
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לֹא מְעַכֵּב, וּמְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that squeezing out the blood of a bird sin offering is not indispensable. Consequently, if the priest would separate the bird’s head from its body, he would refrain from squeezing out the blood, in which case the rite is dissimilar to that of a bird burnt offering. And the separation of the head is considered as though the priest was merely cutting flesh, and the offering is valid.
רָבָא אָמַר: שְׁהִיָּיה בְּסִימָן שֵׁנִי בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: שְׁהִיָּיה בְּסִימָן שֵׁנִי בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף – לֹא מְעַכֵּב; וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁהִיָּיה, קָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה בְּחַטָּאת.
Rava says there is an alternative explanation of the dispute: It is possible that all agree that squeezing the blood of a bird sin offering is indispensable, and there is a difference between them with regard to whether interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman, i.e., the gullet or windpipe, one of the organs that must be cut in the ritual slaughter, of a bird burnt offering disqualifies the offering. The first tanna holds that interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman of a bird burnt offering does not disqualify the offering, and therefore, if the priest separates the head of a bird sin offering from its body, even though he interrupted the pinching before severing the second siman, he has performed the rite of a bird burnt offering on a bird sin offering, which disqualifies it.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: מְעַכֵּב; וְכֵיוָן דִּשְׁהִיָּיה, מְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that interrupting the pinching of a bird burnt offering disqualifies the offering. Therefore, in the case of a bird sin offering, since the priest interrupted the pinching before severing the second siman, even if he separates the head from the body he is merely cutting flesh, i.e., it is an insignificant act because he is not performing the rite of a burnt offering on a sin offering, and the offering is not disqualified.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: רוֹב בָּשָׂר מְעַכֵּב אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Abaye says there is a third explanation of the dispute between the tanna’im: It is possible that all agree that interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman disqualifies a bird burnt offering, and there is a difference between them with regard to whether cutting the majority of the flesh of the nape of a bird sin offering is indispensable.
וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק; חַד אָמַר: שְׁהִיָּיה בְּסִימָן שֵׁנִי בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְחַד אָמַר: רוֹב בָּשָׂר מְעַכֵּב אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara points out: And Rava and Abaye disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak. One says that the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerns whether interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman of a bird burnt offering disqualifies the offering. And one says that the difference between them concerns whether cutting the majority of the flesh of the nape of a bird sin offering is indispensable.
מִכְּלָל דְּבָעֵינַן דְּרוֹב בָּשָׂר בַּתְּחִילָּה?! אִין; וְהָתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה. הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה – חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד אוֹ רוּבּוֹ, וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ. וּבָעוֹלָה – שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara asks: Since there is a dispute concerning whether cutting the majority of the flesh of the nape of a bird sin offering is indispensable, can it be deduced by inference that all agree that we require the priest to cut the majority of the flesh ab initio? The Gemara responds: Yes; and similarly it was taught in baraita: How does one pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? Using his thumbnail, the priest cuts the spine and nape, without cutting through the majority of the flesh, until he reaches either the gullet or the windpipe. Upon reaching the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman entirely, or at least the majority of it, and he cuts the majority of the flesh with it. And in the case of a bird burnt offering, he cuts the two simanim or the majority of the two simanim.
אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אָמַר: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּדָת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ? אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין. וּמַאי ״לֹא יַבְדִּיל״ –
The Gemara relates that the Rabbis said this dispute between the amora’im concerning the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Have they not heard that which Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, used to say: I heard that one may completely separate the head of a bird sin offering from its body. And what is the meaning of the verse that states: “But shall not separate it” (Leviticus 5:8)?
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.
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.
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, 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 started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
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
Palo Alto, CA, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Zevachim 65
ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ (Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉ) [Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧΦΌ] Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ; ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ§ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ; ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ.
or in the case of a bird sin offering where one pinched its nape not for its sake and squeezed out its blood with the intent of consuming it or burning it beyond its designated time, or in a case where he pinched its nape with the intent to consume it or burn it beyond its designated time and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, or in a case where he pinched its nape and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, that is a case of a bird offering whose permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.
ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ₯, ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ₯ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.
If one pinched the nape of the bird and squeezed out its blood with the intent to eat an olive-bulk of the offering outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧ β Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ. [ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.]
Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said that this is the principle: If the improper intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. And if the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case where the intent with regard to time came first and that case where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet.
ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ.
If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is valid, because eating and burning do not join together.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨?
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse pertaining to a bird burnt offering: βAnd the priest shall bring it to the altar, and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altarβ (Leviticus 1:15). What is the meaning when the verse states: And the priest shall bring it to the altar? Since the previous verse states that βhe shall bring his offering,β this verse should have started with the phrase βAnd he shall pinch off its head.β
ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·.
Since it is stated in the preceding verse: βAnd if his offering to the Lord be a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves, or of pigeonsβ (Leviticus 1:14), one might have thought that one who donates a bird as an offering may not donate fewer than two birds. Therefore, the verse states: βAnd the priest shall bring it,β indicating that one may bring even one bird to be sacrificed on the altar.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄? ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ. Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ¦ΦΉΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ; Χ’ΧΦΉΧ£, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ?! ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄(ΧΦΆΧ) ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
The baraita continues analyzing the verse: What is the meaning when the verse states that βthe priest shall bring it to the altarβ (Leviticus 1:15)? It is to establish that only a priest may pinch its nape, as one might have thought that even a non-priest may perform this procedure. Could this not be derived through logical inference: And if with regard to a sheep burnt offering, with regard to which the verse established that it must be slaughtered in the north (see Leviticus 1:11), it did not establish that it must be slaughtered by a priest (see 32a), then in the case of a bird burnt offering, with regard to which the verse did not establish that its nape must be pinched in the north, is it not logical that the verse does not establish that its nape must be pinched by a priest? To counter this, the verse states that βthe priest shall bring it to the altar,β in order to establish that its nape must be pinched specifically by a priest.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ?!
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the priest should pinch its nape with a knife. And one could derive this through a logical inference: And if with regard to slaughtering, with regard to which the verse did not establish that it must be performed by a priest, it established that it must be performed with an instrument, i.e., a knife (see 97b); then in the case of pinching, which the verse established must be performed by a priest, is it not logical that the verse establishes that it must be performed with an instrument?
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ… ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§Χ΄. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·?! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄? Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
To counter this, the verse states: βAnd the priest shall bring it near the altar and pinch off its head.β In explanation of this verse, Rabbi Akiva said: Could it enter your mind that a non-priest may approach the altar in order to sacrifice an offering? Since this is impossible, the verse does not need to state that the sacrificial rite is performed by a priest. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: βThe priestβ? It means that the pinching must be performed with the very body of the priest.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§… ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Χ΄ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·.
The baraita continues to analyze the verse: One might have thought that the priest may pinch the birdβs nape whether above the red line of the altar or below it. To counter this, the verse states: βAnd the priest shall bring it unto the altar and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar.β The verse juxtaposes the pinching to the burning of the bird on the altar to teach that just as the burning occurs atop the altar, so too, the pinching occurs on the top part of the wall of the altar.
Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§Χ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ£. ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ£; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ: Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§Χ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§Χ΄; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ£, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ£!
The baraita continues: The verse states that the priest shall βpinch off its head,β which must be performed at the nape. Do you say that the pinching occurs at the nape, or is it only at the throat? It can be derived through a logical inference: It is stated here, with regard to a bird burnt offering: βAnd pinch off its headβ (Leviticus 1:15), and it is stated there, with regard to a bird sin offering: βAnd pinch off its head opposite its nape, but shall not separate itβ (Leviticus 5:8). Just as there, the head is pinched at the nape, so too here, the head is pinched at the nape.
ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ?! ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Χ΄; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ.
If the halakha of a bird burnt offering is derived from that of a bird sin offering, perhaps it should also be derived that just as there, the priest pinches off the head but does not separate it completely from the body, so too here, with regard to a bird burnt offering, he pinches off the head but does not separate it from the body. To counter this, the verse states with regard to a bird burnt offering: βAnd pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altarβ (Leviticus 1:15). This indicates that just as with regard to the burning of the bird burnt offering, the head is burned by itself and the body is burned by itself, so too with regard to the pinching, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, i.e., the head is completely detached from the body.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨.
The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that the burning of the head is by itself and the body is burned by itself? As it is stated: βAnd he shall rend it by its wingsβ¦and the priest shall make it smoke upon the altarβ (Leviticus 1:17). Since the burning of the body is stated in this verse, how do I realize the meaning of the earlier phrase: βAnd make it smoke on the altarβ (Leviticus 1:15)? One must conclude that the verse is speaking about the burning of the head.
Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ. Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ? ΧΦΆΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ.
The baraita continues to expound the verse stated with regard to a bird burnt offering: βAnd its blood shall be drained out on the wall of the altarβ (Leviticus 1:15). When the verse states: βAnd its blood shall be drained out,β it means that all of it must be drained out. The continuation of the verse indicates that it must be drained out βon the wall of the altar,β and not on the wall of the ramp, nor on the wall of the Sanctuary. And which wall of the altar is this? This is the upper wall, i.e., above the red line.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ; Χ’ΧΦΉΧ£, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ?
Or perhaps the verse is referring only to the lower wall, i.e., below the red line; and this can be supported by a logical inference: And if with regard to an animal offering, where the blood of its sin offering is applied above the red line, the blood of its burnt offering is applied below the red line, then with regard to a bird offering, where the blood of its sin offering is sprinkled below the red line, is it not logical that the blood of its burnt offering is sprinkled below the red line?
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§… ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨… ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ?! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ; ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΧ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
To counter this, the verse states: βAnd pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out.β Could it enter your mind that after he has burned the bird, the priest goes back and drains out its blood? Rather, the verse serves to tell you: Just as the burning occurs atop the altar, so too, the draining occurs atop the altar. How so? The priest would ascend the ramp and turn to the surrounding ledge and arrive at the southeast corner. He would pinch off the birdβs head at its nape, and separate it from its body. He would then squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar beside him. Nevertheless, if the priest performed the squeezing below his feet, i.e., below the surrounding ledge, even one cubit beneath the ledge, it is valid.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ?
The baraita concludes by citing a dissenting opinion: Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov say: The entire rite of a bird burnt offering is performed only atop the altar. The Gemara asks: Since the first tanna and Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov agree that the bird must be burned atop the altar and its blood must be squeezed on the top part of the wall of the altar, what is the difference between them?
ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ: Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ.
Abaye and Rava both say: There is a difference between them with regard to whether one may form an arrangement of wood on the surrounding ledge and burn the bird there. According to the first tanna, this is permitted when needed, and therefore it is valid if the priest squeezes out the blood on the wall up to a cubit below the surrounding ledge. According to Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaβakov, one may never burn the bird on the surrounding ledge, and therefore it is not valid if the priest squeezed out the blood below the surrounding ledge.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ»Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΆΧ§.
Β§ The mishna teaches that after the priest throws the birdβs head onto the fire on the altar, he arrives at the body and removes the crop and the feathers attached to it and the innards that emerge with them, and tosses them to the place of the ashes. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse pertaining to a bird burnt offering: βAnd he shall take away murato with its feathersβ (Leviticus 1:16). This word, murato, is referring to the crop.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
Had the verse written only βits crop,β one might have thought that the priest may cut the skin with a knife and take the crop without any other part of the bird. Therefore, the verse states: βWith its feathers [benotzatah],β which teaches that he takes the feathers with it, i.e., he must remove the skin with the feathers still attached. The Gemara presents another opinion: Abba Yosei ben αΈ€anan says: He takes the crop and he also takes its gizzard with it.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ; Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word benotzatah is a contraction of the words benotza shelah, meaning its feathers. This teaches that the priest cuts it with a knife, creating an opening like a window opposite the crop. This allows him to remove the crop with only the feathers and skin directly opposite it, and that is what he brings to the place of the ashes.
Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ. ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ’Χ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
Β§ The mishna teaches that after removing the crop and the feathers and innards that emerged with it, the priest ripped the bird lengthwise and did not separate the two halves of the bird. In this regard the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: βAnd he shall rendβ (Leviticus 1:17). The act of rending is performed only by hand, and so too, the verse states with regard to Samson: βAnd he rent it as one would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his handβ (Judges 14:6).
ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ: Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£.
Β§ The mishna teaches that if the priest did not remove the crop, or he changed any detail of the sacrificial rite after he squeezed out the blood, the offering is valid. If he separated the head from the body of a bird sin offering, it is disqualified. The Gemara says: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: I heard that one may separate the head from the body of a bird sin offering.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of the disagreement? Rav αΈ€isda says: The difference between them concerns the question of whether squeezing out the blood of a bird sin offering after its blood has been sprinkled is indispensable. The first tanna, whose opinion is cited in the mishna, holds that squeezing out the blood of a bird sin offering is indispensable. And since squeezing out the blood is indispensable, the priest will have to squeeze out the blood after separating the head from the body, and he will have performed the rite of a bird burnt offering on a bird sin offering, which disqualifies the offering (see 66a).
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that squeezing out the blood of a bird sin offering is not indispensable. Consequently, if the priest would separate the birdβs head from its body, he would refrain from squeezing out the blood, in which case the rite is dissimilar to that of a bird burnt offering. And the separation of the head is considered as though the priest was merely cutting flesh, and the offering is valid.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ.
Rava says there is an alternative explanation of the dispute: It is possible that all agree that squeezing the blood of a bird sin offering is indispensable, and there is a difference between them with regard to whether interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman, i.e., the gullet or windpipe, one of the organs that must be cut in the ritual slaughter, of a bird burnt offering disqualifies the offering. The first tanna holds that interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman of a bird burnt offering does not disqualify the offering, and therefore, if the priest separates the head of a bird sin offering from its body, even though he interrupted the pinching before severing the second siman, he has performed the rite of a bird burnt offering on a bird sin offering, which disqualifies it.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that interrupting the pinching of a bird burnt offering disqualifies the offering. Therefore, in the case of a bird sin offering, since the priest interrupted the pinching before severing the second siman, even if he separates the head from the body he is merely cutting flesh, i.e., it is an insignificant act because he is not performing the rite of a burnt offering on a sin offering, and the offering is not disqualified.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ.
Abaye says there is a third explanation of the dispute between the tannaβim: It is possible that all agree that interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman disqualifies a bird burnt offering, and there is a difference between them with regard to whether cutting the majority of the flesh of the nape of a bird sin offering is indispensable.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§; ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara points out: And Rava and Abaye disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav YitzαΈ₯ak. One says that the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerns whether interrupting the pinching before severing the second siman of a bird burnt offering disqualifies the offering. And one says that the difference between them concerns whether cutting the majority of the flesh of the nape of a bird sin offering is indispensable.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ?! ΧΦ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£? ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΦ° Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΆΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΆΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΦ° Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉ. ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ.
The Gemara asks: Since there is a dispute concerning whether cutting the majority of the flesh of the nape of a bird sin offering is indispensable, can it be deduced by inference that all agree that we require the priest to cut the majority of the flesh ab initio? The Gemara responds: Yes; and similarly it was taught in baraita: How does one pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? Using his thumbnail, the priest cuts the spine and nape, without cutting through the majority of the flesh, until he reaches either the gullet or the windpipe. Upon reaching the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman entirely, or at least the majority of it, and he cuts the majority of the flesh with it. And in the case of a bird burnt offering, he cuts the two simanim or the majority of the two simanim.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ’Φ·? ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ: Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ΄ β
The Gemara relates that the Rabbis said this dispute between the amoraβim concerning the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Have they not heard that which Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, used to say: I heard that one may completely separate the head of a bird sin offering from its body. And what is the meaning of the verse that states: βBut shall not separate itβ (Leviticus 5:8)?
