Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 17, 2018 | 讚壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 65

Study Guide Zevachim 65. How were the bird burnt offerings performed? How did they differ from the bird sin offerings?

讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖诪诇拽讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜诪讬爪讛 讛讚诐 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖诪诇拽 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜诪讬爪讛 讚诪讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讗讜 砖诪诇拽 讜诪讬爪讛 讛讚诐 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 [讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转]

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse pertaining to a bird burnt offering: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it to the altar, and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar鈥 (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 鈥渉e shall bring his offering,鈥 this verse should have started with the phrase 鈥淎nd he shall pinch off its head.鈥

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 诪谉 讛转专讬诐 讗讜 诪谉 讘谞讬 讛讬讜谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛诪转谞讚讘 注讜祝 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 驻专讬讚讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转 讬讘讬讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞

Since it is stated in the preceding verse: 鈥淎nd if his offering to the Lord be a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves, or of pigeons鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it,鈥 indicating that one may bring even one bird to be sacrificed on the altar.

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讻讛谉 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 讻讛谉 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘谉 爪讗谉 砖拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 注讜祝 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 (讗诇) 讛讻讛谉 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 讻讛谉

The baraita continues analyzing the verse: What is the meaning when the verse states that 鈥渢he priest shall bring it to the altar鈥 (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 鈥渢he priest shall bring it to the altar,鈥 in order to establish that its nape must be pinched specifically by a priest.

讬讻讜诇 讬诪诇拽谞讜 讘住讻讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讗诐 砖讞讬讟讛 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讛 讻讛谉 拽讘注 诇讛 讻诇讬 诪诇讬拽讛 砖拽讘注 诇讛 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讛 讻诇讬

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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讛谉 讜诪诇拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讝专 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讛谉 砖转讛讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讘注爪诪讜 砖诇 讻讛谉

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it near the altar and pinch off its head.鈥 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: 鈥淭he priest鈥? It means that the pinching must be performed with the very body of the priest.

讬讻讜诇 讬诪诇拽谞讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讗祝 诪诇讬拽讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞

The baraita continues to analyze the verse: One might have thought that the priest may pinch the bird鈥檚 nape whether above the red line of the altar or below it. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it unto the altar and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar.鈥 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.

讜诪诇拽 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讜诪诇拽 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜诪诇拽 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝

The baraita continues: The verse states that the priest shall 鈥減inch off its head,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head鈥 (Leviticus 1:15), and it is stated there, with regard to a bird sin offering: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head opposite its nape, but shall not separate it鈥 (Leviticus 5:8). Just as there, the head is pinched at the nape, so too here, the head is pinched at the nape.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讜诇拽 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讚讬诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讜诇拽 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讚讬诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讛专讗砖 诇注爪诪讜 讜讛讙讜祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗祝 诪诇讬拽讛 讛专讗砖 诇注爪诪讜 讜讛讙讜祝 诇注爪诪讜

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: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar鈥 (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.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讛拽讟专转 讛专讗砖 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛讙讜祝 讘注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗讜转讜 讛专讬 讛拽讟专转 讛讙讜祝 讗诪讜专讛 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讘讛拽讟专转 讛专讗砖 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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: 鈥淎nd he shall rend it by its wings鈥and the priest shall make it smoke upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:17). Since the burning of the body is stated in this verse, how do I realize the meaning of the earlier phrase: 鈥淎nd make it smoke on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:15)? One must conclude that the verse is speaking about the burning of the head.

讜谞诪爪讛 讚诪讜 讻讜诇讜 讗诇 拽讬专 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 注诇 拽讬专 讛讻讘砖 讜诇讗 注诇 拽讬专 讛讛讬讻诇 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 拽讬专 讛注诇讬讜谉

The baraita continues to expound the verse stated with regard to a bird burnt offering: 鈥淎nd its blood shall be drained out on the wall of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:15). When the verse states: 鈥淎nd its blood shall be drained out,鈥 it means that all of it must be drained out. The continuation of the verse indicates that it must be drained out 鈥渙n the wall of the altar,鈥 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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 拽讬专 讛转讞转讜谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 砖讞讟讗转讛 诇诪注诇讛 注讜诇转讛 诇诪讟讛 注讜祝 砖讞讟讗转讜 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖注讜诇转讜 诇诪讟讛

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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜谞诪爪讛 讚诪讜 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 诇讗讞专 砖讛拽讟讬专 讞讜讝专 讜诪诪爪讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讗祝 诪讬爪讜讬 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘讻讘砖 讜驻讜谞讛 诇住讜讘讘 讜讘讗 诇讜 诇拽专谉 讚专讜诪讬转 诪讝专讞讬转 讛讬讛 诪讜诇拽 讗转 专讗砖讛 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讛 讜诪讘讚讬诇 讜诪诪爪讛 诪讚诪讛 注诇 拽讬专 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 诪专讙诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讻砖讬专讛

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out.鈥 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 注爪诪讛 讗讬谉 谞注砖讬转 讗诇讗 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The baraita concludes by citing a dissenting opinion: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: The entire rite of a bird burnt offering is performed only atop the altar. The Gemara asks: Since the first tanna and Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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?

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讜砖讛 诪注专讻讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讜讘讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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 Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

讘讗 诇讜 诇讙讜祝 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛住讬专 讗转 诪专讗转讜 讘谞爪转讛 讝讜 讝驻拽

搂 The mishna teaches that after the priest throws the bird鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall take away murato with its feathers鈥 (Leviticus 1:16). This word, murato, is referring to the crop.

讬讻讜诇 讬拽讚讬专 讘住讻讬谉 讜讬讟诇谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘谞爪转讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛谞讜爪讛 注诪讛 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇 拽讜专拽讘谞讛 注诪讛

Had the verse written only 鈥渋ts crop,鈥 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: 鈥淲ith its feathers [benotzatah],鈥 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 岣nan says: He takes the crop and he also takes its gizzard with it.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讘谞爪转讛 讘谞讜爪讛 砖诇讛 拽讜讚专讛 讘住讻讬谉 讻诪讬谉 讗专讜讘讛

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.

砖讬住注 讜诇讗 讛讘讚讬诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖住注 讗讬谉 砖讬住注 讗诇讗 讘讬讚 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬砖住注讛讜 讻砖住注 讛讙讚讬

搂 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: 鈥淎nd he shall rend鈥 (Leviticus 1:17). The act of rending is performed only by hand, and so too, the verse states with regard to Samson: 鈥淎nd he rent it as one would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand鈥 (Judges 14:6).

诇讗 讛住讬专 讗转 讛诪讜专讗讛 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注转讬 砖诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

搂 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪爪讜讬 讚诐 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of the disagreement? Rav 岣sda 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).

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇讗 诪注讻讘 讜诪讞转讱 讘砖专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讛讬讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 砖讛讬讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诇讗 诪注讻讘 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讛讬讬讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 讘讞讟讗转

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪注讻讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚砖讛讬讬讛 诪讞转讱 讘砖专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讜讘 讘砖专 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Abaye says there is a third explanation of the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m: 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.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讞讚 讗诪专 砖讛讬讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讜讘 讘砖专 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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 Yitz岣k. 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚讘注讬谞谉 讚专讜讘 讘砖专 讘转讞讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讜诇拽讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讞讜转讱 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转 讘诇讗 专讜讘 讘砖专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讛讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讞讜转讱 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讗讜 专讜讘讜 讜专讜讘 讘砖专 注诪讜 讜讘注讜诇讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻讚转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注转讬 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讘讚讬诇

The Gemara relates that the Rabbis said this dispute between the amora鈥檌m 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: 鈥淏ut shall not separate it鈥 (Leviticus 5:8)?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 65

讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖诪诇拽讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讜诪讬爪讛 讛讚诐 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖诪诇拽 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜诪讬爪讛 讚诪讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讗讜 砖诪诇拽 讜诪讬爪讛 讛讚诐 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 [讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转]

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse pertaining to a bird burnt offering: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it to the altar, and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar鈥 (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 鈥渉e shall bring his offering,鈥 this verse should have started with the phrase 鈥淎nd he shall pinch off its head.鈥

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 诪谉 讛转专讬诐 讗讜 诪谉 讘谞讬 讛讬讜谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛诪转谞讚讘 注讜祝 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 驻专讬讚讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转 讬讘讬讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞

Since it is stated in the preceding verse: 鈥淎nd if his offering to the Lord be a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves, or of pigeons鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it,鈥 indicating that one may bring even one bird to be sacrificed on the altar.

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讻讛谉 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 讻讛谉 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘谉 爪讗谉 砖拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 注讜祝 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 (讗诇) 讛讻讛谉 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 讻讛谉

The baraita continues analyzing the verse: What is the meaning when the verse states that 鈥渢he priest shall bring it to the altar鈥 (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 鈥渢he priest shall bring it to the altar,鈥 in order to establish that its nape must be pinched specifically by a priest.

讬讻讜诇 讬诪诇拽谞讜 讘住讻讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讗诐 砖讞讬讟讛 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讛 讻讛谉 拽讘注 诇讛 讻诇讬 诪诇讬拽讛 砖拽讘注 诇讛 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讛 讻诇讬

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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讛谉 讜诪诇拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讝专 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讛谉 砖转讛讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讘注爪诪讜 砖诇 讻讛谉

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it near the altar and pinch off its head.鈥 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: 鈥淭he priest鈥? It means that the pinching must be performed with the very body of the priest.

讬讻讜诇 讬诪诇拽谞讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讗祝 诪诇讬拽讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞

The baraita continues to analyze the verse: One might have thought that the priest may pinch the bird鈥檚 nape whether above the red line of the altar or below it. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it unto the altar and pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar.鈥 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.

讜诪诇拽 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讜诪诇拽 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜诪诇拽 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝

The baraita continues: The verse states that the priest shall 鈥減inch off its head,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head鈥 (Leviticus 1:15), and it is stated there, with regard to a bird sin offering: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head opposite its nape, but shall not separate it鈥 (Leviticus 5:8). Just as there, the head is pinched at the nape, so too here, the head is pinched at the nape.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讜诇拽 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讚讬诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讜诇拽 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讚讬诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讛专讗砖 诇注爪诪讜 讜讛讙讜祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗祝 诪诇讬拽讛 讛专讗砖 诇注爪诪讜 讜讛讙讜祝 诇注爪诪讜

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: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar鈥 (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.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讛拽讟专转 讛专讗砖 讘注爪诪讜 讜讛讙讜祝 讘注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗讜转讜 讛专讬 讛拽讟专转 讛讙讜祝 讗诪讜专讛 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讘讛拽讟专转 讛专讗砖 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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: 鈥淎nd he shall rend it by its wings鈥and the priest shall make it smoke upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:17). Since the burning of the body is stated in this verse, how do I realize the meaning of the earlier phrase: 鈥淎nd make it smoke on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:15)? One must conclude that the verse is speaking about the burning of the head.

讜谞诪爪讛 讚诪讜 讻讜诇讜 讗诇 拽讬专 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 注诇 拽讬专 讛讻讘砖 讜诇讗 注诇 拽讬专 讛讛讬讻诇 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 拽讬专 讛注诇讬讜谉

The baraita continues to expound the verse stated with regard to a bird burnt offering: 鈥淎nd its blood shall be drained out on the wall of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:15). When the verse states: 鈥淎nd its blood shall be drained out,鈥 it means that all of it must be drained out. The continuation of the verse indicates that it must be drained out 鈥渙n the wall of the altar,鈥 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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 拽讬专 讛转讞转讜谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 砖讞讟讗转讛 诇诪注诇讛 注讜诇转讛 诇诪讟讛 注讜祝 砖讞讟讗转讜 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖注讜诇转讜 诇诪讟讛

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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪诇拽 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜谞诪爪讛 讚诪讜 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 诇讗讞专 砖讛拽讟讬专 讞讜讝专 讜诪诪爪讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讗祝 诪讬爪讜讬 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘讻讘砖 讜驻讜谞讛 诇住讜讘讘 讜讘讗 诇讜 诇拽专谉 讚专讜诪讬转 诪讝专讞讬转 讛讬讛 诪讜诇拽 讗转 专讗砖讛 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讛 讜诪讘讚讬诇 讜诪诪爪讛 诪讚诪讛 注诇 拽讬专 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 诪专讙诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讻砖讬专讛

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd pinch off its head, and make it smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out.鈥 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 注爪诪讛 讗讬谉 谞注砖讬转 讗诇讗 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The baraita concludes by citing a dissenting opinion: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: The entire rite of a bird burnt offering is performed only atop the altar. The Gemara asks: Since the first tanna and Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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?

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讜砖讛 诪注专讻讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讜讘讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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 Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

讘讗 诇讜 诇讙讜祝 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛住讬专 讗转 诪专讗转讜 讘谞爪转讛 讝讜 讝驻拽

搂 The mishna teaches that after the priest throws the bird鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall take away murato with its feathers鈥 (Leviticus 1:16). This word, murato, is referring to the crop.

讬讻讜诇 讬拽讚讬专 讘住讻讬谉 讜讬讟诇谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘谞爪转讛 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛谞讜爪讛 注诪讛 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟诇讛 讜谞讜讟诇 拽讜专拽讘谞讛 注诪讛

Had the verse written only 鈥渋ts crop,鈥 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: 鈥淲ith its feathers [benotzatah],鈥 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 岣nan says: He takes the crop and he also takes its gizzard with it.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讘谞爪转讛 讘谞讜爪讛 砖诇讛 拽讜讚专讛 讘住讻讬谉 讻诪讬谉 讗专讜讘讛

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.

砖讬住注 讜诇讗 讛讘讚讬诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖住注 讗讬谉 砖讬住注 讗诇讗 讘讬讚 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬砖住注讛讜 讻砖住注 讛讙讚讬

搂 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: 鈥淎nd he shall rend鈥 (Leviticus 1:17). The act of rending is performed only by hand, and so too, the verse states with regard to Samson: 鈥淎nd he rent it as one would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand鈥 (Judges 14:6).

诇讗 讛住讬专 讗转 讛诪讜专讗讛 讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注转讬 砖诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

搂 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪爪讜讬 讚诐 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of the disagreement? Rav 岣sda 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).

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇讗 诪注讻讘 讜诪讞转讱 讘砖专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讛讬讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 砖讛讬讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诇讗 诪注讻讘 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讛讬讬讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 讘讞讟讗转

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诪注讻讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚砖讛讬讬讛 诪讞转讱 讘砖专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讜讘 讘砖专 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Abaye says there is a third explanation of the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m: 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.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讞讚 讗诪专 砖讛讬讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讜讘 讘砖专 诪注讻讘 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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 Yitz岣k. 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚讘注讬谞谉 讚专讜讘 讘砖专 讘转讞讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讜诇拽讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讞讜转讱 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转 讘诇讗 专讜讘 讘砖专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讛讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讞讜转讱 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讗讜 专讜讘讜 讜专讜讘 讘砖专 注诪讜 讜讘注讜诇讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 驻讚转 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注转讬 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讘讚讬诇

The Gemara relates that the Rabbis said this dispute between the amora鈥檌m 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: 鈥淏ut shall not separate it鈥 (Leviticus 5:8)?

Scroll To Top