Zevachim 65

חטאת העוף שמלקו שלא לשמה ומיצה הדם חוץ לזמנו או שמלק חוץ לזמנו ומיצה דמו שלא לשמה או שמלק ומיצה הדם שלא לשמה זהו שלא קרב המתיר כמצותו

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.

לאכול כזית בחוץ כזית למחר כזית למחר כזית בחוץ כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת

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.

אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל אם מחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת ואם מחשבת המקום קדמה למחשבת הזמן פסול ואין בו כרת [וחכמים אומרים זה וזה פסול ואין בו כרת]

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.

לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן והקריבו מה תלמוד לומר

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.”

לפי שנאמר והקריב מן התרים או מן בני היונה יכול המתנדב עוף לא יפחות משני פרידין תלמוד לומר והקריבו אפילו פרידה אחת יביא אל המזבח

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.

מה תלמוד לומר הכהן לקבוע לו כהן שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה בן צאן שקבע לו צפון לא קבע לו כהן עוף שלא קבע לו צפון אינו דין שלא יקבע לו כהן תלמוד לומר (אל) הכהן לקבוע לו כהן

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.

יכול ימלקנו בסכין ודין הוא ומה אם שחיטה שלא קבע לה כהן קבע לה כלי מליקה שקבע לה כהן אינו דין שיקבע לה כלי

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?

תלמוד לומר כהן ומלק אמר רבי עקיבא וכי תעלה על דעתך שזר קרב לגבי מזבח אלא מה תלמוד לומר כהן שתהא מליקה בעצמו של כהן

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.

יכול ימלקנה בין מלמעלה בין מלמטה תלמוד לומר ומלק והקטיר מה הקטרה בראש המזבח אף מליקה בראש המזבח

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.

ומלק ממול עורף אתה אומר ממול עורף או אינו אלא מן הצואר ודין הוא נאמר כאן ומלק ונאמר להלן ומלק מה להלן ממול עורף אף כאן ממול עורף

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.

אי מה להלן מולק ואינו מבדיל אף כאן מולק ואינו מבדיל תלמוד לומר ומלק והקטיר מה הקטרה הראש לעצמו והגוף לעצמו אף מליקה הראש לעצמו והגוף לעצמו

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.

ומנין שהקטרת הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו שנאמר והקטיר אותו הרי הקטרת הגוף אמורה הא מה אני מקיים והקטיר המזבחה בהקטרת הראש הכתוב מדבר

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.

ונמצה דמו כולו אל קיר המזבח ולא על קיר הכבש ולא על קיר ההיכל ואיזה זה זה קיר העליון

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.

או אינו אלא קיר התחתון ודין הוא מה בהמה שחטאתה למעלה עולתה למטה עוף שחטאתו למטה אינו דין שעולתו למטה

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?

תלמוד לומר ומלק והקטיר ונמצה דמו וכי תעלה על דעתך לאחר שהקטיר חוזר וממצה אלא לומר לך מה הקטרה בראש המזבח אף מיצוי בראש המזבח הא כיצד היה עולה בכבש ופונה לסובב ובא לו לקרן דרומית מזרחית היה מולק את ראשה ממול ערפה ומבדיל וממצה מדמה על קיר המזבח אם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה כשירה

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.

רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומרים כל עצמה אין נעשית אלא בראש המזבח מאי בינייהו

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?

אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו עושה מערכה על גבי סובב איכא בינייהו

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 the 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.

בא לו לגוף כו׳ תנו רבנן והסיר את מראתו בנצתה זו זפק

§ 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.

יכול יקדיר בסכין ויטלנו תלמוד לומר בנצתה נוטל את הנוצה עמה אבא יוסי בן חנן אומר נוטלה ונוטל קורקבנה עמה

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.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא בנצתה בנוצה שלה קודרה בסכין כמין ארובה

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.

שיסע ולא הבדיל תנו רבנן ושסע אין שיסע אלא ביד וכן הוא אומר וישסעהו כשסע הגדי

§ 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).

לא הסיר את המוראה כו׳ מתניתין דלא כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דתניא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון שמעתי שמבדילין בחטאת העוף

§ 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.

מאי בינייהו אמר רב חסדא מיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר מיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב וכיון דמצוי דם קעביד מעשה עולה בחטאת העוף

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).

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר מיצוי חטאת העוף לא מעכב ומחתך בשר בעלמא הוא

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.

רבא אמר שהייה בסימן שני בעולת העוף מעכב איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר שהייה בסימן שני בעולת העוף לא מעכב ואף על גב דשהייה קא עביד מעשה עולה בחטאת

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.

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר מעכב וכיון דשהייה מחתך בשר בעלמא הוא

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.

אביי אמר רוב בשר מעכב איכא בינייהו

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.

ובפלוגתא דרבי זירא ורבי שמואל בר רב יצחק חד אמר שהייה בסימן שני בעולת העוף מעכב איכא בינייהו וחד אמר רוב בשר מעכב איכא בינייהו

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.

מכלל דבעינן דרוב בשר בתחילה אין והתניא כיצד מולקין חטאת העוף חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר עד שמגיע לוושט או לקנה הגיע לוושט או לקנה חותך סימן אחד או רובו ורוב בשר עמו ובעולה שנים או רוב שנים

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.

אמרוה קמיה דרבי ירמיה אמר לא שמיע להו הא דאמר רבי שמעון בן אליקים משום רבי אלעזר בן פדת משום רבי אלעזר בן שמוע אומר היה רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון שמעתי בחטאת העוף שמבדילין ומאי לא יבדיל

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)?