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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 18, 2018 | 讛壮 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 66

Different interpretations are brought for Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that one can sever both simanim of the bird sin offering even though the Torah seems to indicate otherwise. If a bird sin offering is done in the manner of a bird burnt offering or with the intent that it be a bird burnt offering or in the location that the bird burnt offering is done, it is disqualified. The reverse holds true for the bird burnt offering. The gemara聽tries to figure out which act is done intheh聽wrong location – the melika or the mitzoi/hazaah?

讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讚讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讻住讜转

It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then with regard to a pit in the public domain, where it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥and does not cover it鈥 (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讬砖诇诐 注诇讜讬讛 讛讜讗 讚专诪讬 诇讻住讜讬讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:34), it is evident that it is incumbent upon him to cover the pit. But here, since it is written with regard to a bird burnt offering: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it to the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:15), the term 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that the verse is referring only to a burnt offering, and the verse has thereby differentiated between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.

诇讗 讬讘讚讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讚讬诇

Consequently, it is obvious that whereas the priest must completely separate the head of a bird burnt offering, this is not the halakha with regard to a sin offering. Why do I need the verse to state with regard to a bird sin offering: 鈥淏ut shall not separate it鈥 (Leviticus 5:8)? Conclude from this verse that it is not forbidden to separate the head of a bird sin offering from the body, but rather one does not have to separate it.

诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛讙讜祝 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讜诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛讙讜祝 讜诇讗 诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛专讗砖 讬讻讜诇 诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛讙讜祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid. The Sages taught in a baraita: In reference to a bird burnt offering, the verse states, seemingly unnecessarily: 鈥淚t is a burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:17). This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid. One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body the offering is still valid. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t is.鈥

诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚专讜讘 讚诪讬诐 讘讙讜祝 砖讻讬讞讬

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for the opinion that the offering is valid if the priest squeezed out only the blood of the body but not if he squeezed out only the blood of the head? Ravina said: There is no conclusive proof from the language of the verse itself, but it stands to reason that this is the case, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讻砖讬专讛

MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio.

讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讛

If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.

注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻砖讬专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讻砖讬专讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬讛

A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.

讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讛

If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.

讙诪壮 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪注转讬 砖诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offer-ing that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that the priests would sever the head completely even in the sacrifice of a bird sin offering?

讜诇讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara responds: And what is wrong with this conclusion? Have we not already explained that the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

诇讗 讚砖谞讬 讘讛讝讗讛

The Gemara offers another explanation: No, the mishna is referring to a case where the priest changed the procedure in the rite of sprinkling by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注砖讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讛讗诪专 诪专 诪诇讬拽讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘诪讝讘讞 讻砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚砖谞讬 讘讛讝讗讛 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 讘讛讝讗讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讘讛讝讗讛

This, too, stands to reason that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, and this applies even if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what rite did the priest change the location of the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching, performing it above the red line, didn鈥檛 the Master already say with regard to a bird sin offering that pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed the location of the sprinkling? And since the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to sprinkling, by inference, the ruling of the first clause is also stated with regard to sprinkling.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

The Gemara responds to this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讻讜壮 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬

搂 According to the mishna, a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉

If we say that he changed the pinching of the bird鈥檚 nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then from the fact that the latter clause, i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), teaches: All of the offerings enumerated above do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when it is in the throat, and one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, by inference, we must say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, doesn鈥檛 he say later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property?

讜讗诇讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬

Rather, the mishna must be referring to a change in the procedure of squeezing out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬

But say the last clause of the subsequent mishna: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering, and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, with regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讘诪讬爪讜讬 诪讬 讗诪专

If we say that he changed the squeezing, this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua says that one is not liable for misuse specifically when the priest changed the pinching, as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but does he say this in a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the squeezing procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.

讜讗诇讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬

Rather, this final clause must be referring to a change with regard to the pinching. But can it be that the first clause concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering and the last clause concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change with regard to the pinching, but the middle clause concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing?

讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to a change with regard to the pinching, and the middle clause is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转

MISHNA: And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.

注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛

In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讛 讗诐 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 注讜诇讛 砖诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬诪注诇讜 讘讛

The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it?

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讞讟讗转 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 转讗诪专 讘注讜诇讛 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse?

  • 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 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 66

讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讚讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讻住讜转

It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then with regard to a pit in the public domain, where it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man shall open a pit鈥and does not cover it鈥 (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讬砖诇诐 注诇讜讬讛 讛讜讗 讚专诪讬 诇讻住讜讬讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: 鈥淭he owner of the pit shall pay鈥 (Exodus 21:34), it is evident that it is incumbent upon him to cover the pit. But here, since it is written with regard to a bird burnt offering: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it to the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:15), the term 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that the verse is referring only to a burnt offering, and the verse has thereby differentiated between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.

诇讗 讬讘讚讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讚讬诇

Consequently, it is obvious that whereas the priest must completely separate the head of a bird burnt offering, this is not the halakha with regard to a sin offering. Why do I need the verse to state with regard to a bird sin offering: 鈥淏ut shall not separate it鈥 (Leviticus 5:8)? Conclude from this verse that it is not forbidden to separate the head of a bird sin offering from the body, but rather one does not have to separate it.

诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛讙讜祝 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讜诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛讙讜祝 讜诇讗 诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛专讗砖 讬讻讜诇 诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 诪讬爪讛 讚诐 讛讙讜祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid. The Sages taught in a baraita: In reference to a bird burnt offering, the verse states, seemingly unnecessarily: 鈥淚t is a burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:17). This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid. One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body the offering is still valid. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t is.鈥

诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚专讜讘 讚诪讬诐 讘讙讜祝 砖讻讬讞讬

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for the opinion that the offering is valid if the priest squeezed out only the blood of the body but not if he squeezed out only the blood of the head? Ravina said: There is no conclusive proof from the language of the verse itself, but it stands to reason that this is the case, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讻砖讬专讛

MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio.

讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讛

If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.

注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻砖讬专讛 讻诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讻砖讬专讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬讛

A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.

讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇讛 注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讛

If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.

讙诪壮 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪注转讬 砖诪讘讚讬诇讬谉 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offer-ing that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that the priests would sever the head completely even in the sacrifice of a bird sin offering?

讜诇讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara responds: And what is wrong with this conclusion? Have we not already explained that the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

诇讗 讚砖谞讬 讘讛讝讗讛

The Gemara offers another explanation: No, the mishna is referring to a case where the priest changed the procedure in the rite of sprinkling by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注砖讗讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讛讗诪专 诪专 诪诇讬拽讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘诪讝讘讞 讻砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚砖谞讬 讘讛讝讗讛 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 讘讛讝讗讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讘讛讝讗讛

This, too, stands to reason that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, and this applies even if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what rite did the priest change the location of the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching, performing it above the red line, didn鈥檛 the Master already say with regard to a bird sin offering that pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed the location of the sprinkling? And since the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to sprinkling, by inference, the ruling of the first clause is also stated with regard to sprinkling.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

The Gemara responds to this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讻讜壮 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬

搂 According to the mishna, a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉

If we say that he changed the pinching of the bird鈥檚 nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then from the fact that the latter clause, i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), teaches: All of the offerings enumerated above do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when it is in the throat, and one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, by inference, we must say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, doesn鈥檛 he say later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property?

讜讗诇讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬

Rather, the mishna must be referring to a change in the procedure of squeezing out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讚砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬

But say the last clause of the subsequent mishna: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering, and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, with regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚砖谞讬 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讘诪讬爪讜讬 诪讬 讗诪专

If we say that he changed the squeezing, this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua says that one is not liable for misuse specifically when the priest changed the pinching, as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but does he say this in a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the squeezing procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.

讜讗诇讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬

Rather, this final clause must be referring to a change with regard to the pinching. But can it be that the first clause concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering and the last clause concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change with regard to the pinching, but the middle clause concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing?

讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to a change with regard to the pinching, and the middle clause is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转

MISHNA: And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.

注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖注砖讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诪注砖讛 讞讟讗转 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛

In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讛 讗诐 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 注讜诇讛 砖诪讜注诇讬诐 讘讛 诇砖诪讛 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬诪注诇讜 讘讛

The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it?

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讞讟讗转 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇砖诐 注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 转讗诪专 讘注讜诇讛 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讛 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse?

Scroll To Top