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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 19, 2018 | ื•ืณ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื—

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

Zevachim 67

Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a bird burnt offering that isย slughtered in the place of the bird sin offering and in the way the sin offering is done and with the intent of it being a sin offering, there is no law of meila (misuse of consecrated property). There is a debate between him and Rabbi Eliezer, each bringing arguments and counter-arguments. Rav Ada bar Ahava explains that Rabbi Yehoshuaย holds that the offering transforms into a sin offering. The gemara asks if the reverse would hold true for a sin offering offered as a burnt offering. Mishnayot in masechetย Kinim are brought to question Rav Ada bar Aghava’s understanding of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืœืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ืืชื” ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืฉืžื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืฉื™ืžืขืœื• ื‘ื”

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The case of offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove that the fact that one changed the offeringโ€™s designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse is not a relevant factor. As in this case, one changed their designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse and, nevertheless, one is liable for misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering, concerning which even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, the halakha is that one would be liable for misusing it.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืœืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ืชืจ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื›ื•ืœื• ื”ื™ืชืจ

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that is no proof, as if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is that one who slaughtered them changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. Would you say the halakha is the same in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation to an item that is permitted in its entirety, i.e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืฉื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืืฃ ืืชื” ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ืฉื™ืžืขืœื• ื‘ื”

GEMARA: The discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is taught in a baraita, where it is recounted in greater detail: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The case of a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering will prove my point, as here the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, and yet one is liable for misusing it. And you too should not be puzzled about the bird burnt offering that was sacrificed as a sin offering, concerning which even though the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, the halakha is that one is liable for misusing it.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื ืฉืื ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ืœื ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื”

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say that this this is the halakha with regard to a guilt offering sacrificed as a peace offering, as although the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation, he still did not change its location but sacrificed it in the north of the Temple courtyard, which is the appropriate location for both guilt offerings and peace offerings, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, where the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืฉื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืœืฉื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืฃ ืืชื” ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื” ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering will prove my point, as here the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location, and yet one is liable for misusing it. You too should not be puzzled about the bird burnt offering that was sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, concerning which even though the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location, the halakha is that one is liable for misusing it.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื• ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื” ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื”

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say that this this is the halakha with regard to a guilt offering sacrificed as a peace offering, in which case the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and changed its location, but he did not change its procedure, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely according to the procedure of a sin offering, in which case the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and procedure and also changed its location?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืืฉื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืœืฉื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื•

The baraita ends here, and it would appear that Rabbi Eliezer had no response to this claim. Rava said: Why? Let him say to Rabbi Yehoshua that a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering with a deviation with regard to the offeringโ€™s owner, i.e., he slaughtered it for the sake of someone other than the offeringโ€™s owner, will prove my opinion; as this is tantamount to a case where the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and changed its location and also changed its procedure, yet one is liable for its misuse.

ืžื“ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื ื—ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื ืžืฉื›ืช ื•ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

Rava concluded: Since he did not say this to him, learn from it that at this stage Rabbi Eliezer grasped Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s line of reasoning; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rabbi Yehoshua would say the following reasoning: 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, once he pinched one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [siman], i.e., either the gullet or the windpipe, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžืขืœื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืžื›ื™ ืžืœื™ืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืชื™ืžืฉืš ื•ืชื”ื•ื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื ืื” ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ืžืฉื ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ื•ืชื• ืœื

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in the case of a bird sin offering that one sacrificed above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering, too, as soon as he pinches one siman it should be removed from its status as a sin offering and become a bird burnt offering. And if you would say that indeed that is so, this is difficult: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say in the name of Rabbi Benaโ€™a that this is the accurate presentation of the mishna? What, does he not mean that this is the accurate presentation in the sense that Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle applies specifically to the case stated in the mishna, namely, that of a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering, and to nothing more?

ืœื ื›ืš ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ื›ื•ืœื” ืžืฉื ื”

The Gemara answers: No, what Rabbi Benaโ€™a means is that this is the accurate presentation of the entire mishna. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely as a sin offering, he holds similarly that a bird sin offering sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering assumes the status of a burnt offering.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ื ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืœืžื˜ื” ืœื™ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื ืžืฉื›ืช ื•ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

Rav Ashi said: The two cases are different. Granted, Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle applies to 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. Since the method of preparing this bird sin offering is by pinching one siman, and the method of preparing that bird burnt offering is by pinching two simanim, and since there can be no bird burnt offering below the red line, therefore once he pinched one siman below the red line, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

ืืœื ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืžืœื™ืงื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืžื›ื™ ืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื™ืคืกืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืžืœื™ืง ื‘ืื™ื“ืš ืกื™ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืžืฉื›ื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

But one cannot say this with regard to a bird sin offering that was sacrificed as a burnt offering. Since the Master said with regard to the bird sin offering: Pinching is valid everywhere on the altar, it follows that as soon as one pinched one siman for the sake of a burnt offering it was disqualified, like any other sin offering pinched for the sake of a different type of offering. Consequently, when he then pinched the other siman according to the procedure of a burnt offering, how could it then be removed from its status as a sin offering and become a bird burnt offering?

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื ืžืฉื›ืช ื•ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself, that Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rabbi Yehoshua would say: 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, once he pinched one siman, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื˜ืืช ืœื–ื• ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืœื–ื•

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to this principle from a mishna in tractate Kinnim (24a). A woman after childbirth must bring two bird offerings: A burnt offering and a sin offering. The mishna discusses a case where two women after childbirth, one of whom already brought her burnt offering and one of whom already brought her sin offering, bring their remaining offerings to the Temple, a sin offering for this one and a burnt offering for that one, but confusion has arisen as to which bird is which.

ืขืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžื˜ื”

If the priest sacrificed both of them above the red line, half of the birds, i.e., one of them, is fit, as in any event the burnt offering has been sacrificed properly, and half of the birds, i.e., the other one, is disqualified. Likewise, if he sacrificed both of them below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offering was sacrificed properly, and half are disqualified. If he sacrificed one above the red line and one below, they are both disqualified, as I say that perhaps the sin offering was sacrificed above, and the burnt offering was sacrificed below.

ื ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืขื•ืœื” ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืชื™ืžืฉื•ืš ื•ืชื”ื•ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

But according to Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle, the sin offering should be deemed fit in any event; even though the burnt offering was indeed sacrificed below the red line, it should be removed from its status as a burnt offering and become a bird sin offering.

ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื—ื“ ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืชืจื™ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจ

The Gemara rejects this claim: It is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his principle with regard to one person, whose offering the priest sacrificed below the red line instead of above it; but did he state it with regard to two people, one of whose offering the priest sacrificed for the sake of the other person? In the case of the two women, the priest sacrificed the offering for the sake of a different person altogether, and Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that such an offering does not become a sin offering.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืกืชื•ืžื” ื•ืžืคื•ืจืฉืช

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge from a mishna in tractate Kinnim (24a). The mishna discusses a case of two women who jointly brought three pairs of birds, as follows: The birds of one pair were designated as a sin offering and a burnt offering respectively, but it was not specified which womanโ€™s obligation they were to satisfy; and the second pair was unspecified as to which bird was to be which offering; and the third pair was specified as to both the type of offering of each bird and whose obligation each bird was to satisfy.

ืขืฉื” ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื—ืฆื™ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื™ืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืื™ื ื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืืœื ืกืชื•ืžื” ื•ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ

If the priest sacrificed all of them above the red line, half of the birds are fit, as in any event the burnt offerings have been sacrificed properly, and half are disqualified. Likewise, if he sacrificed all of them below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are disqualified. If he sacrificed half of every pair above the red line and half of it below, but it is unclear which bird he sacrificed above and which he sacrificed below, only the unspecified pair is fit, as by sacrificing one above and one below the priest has in effect designated them. And since the women brought the birds jointly, the fit pair is divided between them, one bird counting toward the obligation of each woman.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืžืคื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืขื•ืœื” ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืชื™ืžืฉื•ืš ื•ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

The mishna teaches that only the unspecified pair is fit, while the specified birds are not, as perhaps each bird was sacrificed on the wrong side of the red line and disqualified. But why should that be the halakha? According to Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle, even if the burnt offering was indeed sacrificed below the red line, it should be removed from its status as a burnt offering and become a bird sin offering.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื”ื›ื™

And if you would say that this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, how can you say that?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืงืŸ ืื ืืœื“ ื–ื›ืจ ื™ืœื“ื” ื–ื›ืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืฉืชื™ ืงื™ื ื™ื ืื—ืช ืœื ื“ืจื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœื—ื•ื‘ืชื”

The Gemara explains: Come and hear evidence that the mishnayot in tractate Kinnim are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua from another mishna in the same chapter (24b): The mishna discusses the case of a woman who said: It is incumbent upon me to bring one nest, i.e., one pair of bird offerings, if I give birth to a male child. Since all women who give birth must bring one pair of birds in any event, if she ultimately gave birth to a male, she must bring two nests, one for her vow and one for her obligation.

ื ืชื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืชืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื”

If she gave them to the priest without specifying which bird is to be which type of offering, the priest must sacrifice three above the red line and one below. This is because the obligatory pair must consist of a burnt offering and a sin offering, while a pair of birds brought to fulfill a vow must consist of two burnt offerings.

ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืืœื ืขืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืฉืชื™ื ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ื ืžืœืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืชื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืคืจื™ื“ื” ืื—ืช ื•ืชืงืจื™ื‘ื ื” ืœืžืขืœื”

If the priest did not do so, but rather, thinking that both pairs were obligatory, sacrificed two above and two below, and he did not consult the woman before sacrificing them, she must bring one more bird [perida] and sacrifice it above the red line to satisfy her remaining obligation.

ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ื

This is the halakha only if both pairs were of the same species of bird, either doves or pigeons; but if the two pairs were of two different species, and the priest does not remember which pair he sacrificed first, she must bring two more birds, one of each species. Whichever pair was sacrificed first is deemed the obligatory pair, and the woman must bring a bird of the other species to satisfy her remaining obligation of a burnt offering. But since it is not known which species of bird that is, she must bring one of each.

ืคืจืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” [ืฆืจื™ื›ื”] ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ

If the woman initially specified which species of bird she would bring for her vow but subsequently forgot what species she specified, and she then brought two pairs of a single species, and the priest mistakenly sacrificed two birds above the red line and two below, then she must bring three more birds, all as burnt offerings. One must be of the species she brought, to replace the bird mistakenly sacrificed below, and the other two must be of the other species, in case that was the species she specified in the first place.

ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ื ืืจื‘ืข

This is the halakha only if both pairs that she brought were of the same species. But if they were of two different species, and the priest does not remember which pair he sacrificed first, she must bring four, two of each species. This is because no matter which species she specified, the priest may have sacrificed the pair of that species first, leaving none of that species to satisfy even part of her vow. She therefore may still need to satisfy an entire vow of either species.

ืงื‘ืขื” ื ื“ืจื”

The mishna continues: If, besides forgetting which species of bird she specified to bring for her vow, the woman also committed to sacrificing the birds of her vow together with the burnt offering of the obligatory pair, but the priest mistakenly sacrificed two birds above the red line and two below,

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema 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 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 67

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืœืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ืืชื” ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืฉืžื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžืขื™ืœื” ืฉื™ืžืขืœื• ื‘ื”

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The case of offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove that the fact that one changed the offeringโ€™s designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse is not a relevant factor. As in this case, one changed their designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse and, nevertheless, one is liable for misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering, concerning which even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, the halakha is that one would be liable for misusing it.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืœืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืื™ืกื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ืชืจ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื›ื•ืœื• ื”ื™ืชืจ

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that is no proof, as if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is that one who slaughtered them changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. Would you say the halakha is the same in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation to an item that is permitted in its entirety, i.e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืฉื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืœืฉื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืืฃ ืืชื” ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ืฉื™ืžืขืœื• ื‘ื”

GEMARA: The discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is taught in a baraita, where it is recounted in greater detail: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The case of a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering will prove my point, as here the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, and yet one is liable for misusing it. And you too should not be puzzled about the bird burnt offering that was sacrificed as a sin offering, concerning which even though the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, the halakha is that one is liable for misusing it.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื ืฉืื ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ืœื ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื”

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say that this this is the halakha with regard to a guilt offering sacrificed as a peace offering, as although the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation, he still did not change its location but sacrificed it in the north of the Temple courtyard, which is the appropriate location for both guilt offerings and peace offerings, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, where the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืฉื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืœืฉื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืืฃ ืืชื” ืืœ ืชืชืžื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื” ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering will prove my point, as here the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location, and yet one is liable for misusing it. You too should not be puzzled about the bird burnt offering that was sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, concerning which even though the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and also changed its location, the halakha is that one is liable for misusing it.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื• ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื” ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื”

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say that this this is the halakha with regard to a guilt offering sacrificed as a peace offering, in which case the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and changed its location, but he did not change its procedure, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely according to the procedure of a sin offering, in which case the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and procedure and also changed its location?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืืฉื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืœืฉื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืฉืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืงื•ืžื• ื•ืฉื™ื ื” ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ื•

The baraita ends here, and it would appear that Rabbi Eliezer had no response to this claim. Rava said: Why? Let him say to Rabbi Yehoshua that a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard for the sake of a peace offering with a deviation with regard to the offeringโ€™s owner, i.e., he slaughtered it for the sake of someone other than the offeringโ€™s owner, will prove my opinion; as this is tantamount to a case where the one who performed the slaughter changed its designation and changed its location and also changed its procedure, yet one is liable for its misuse.

ืžื“ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื ื—ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื ืžืฉื›ืช ื•ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

Rava concluded: Since he did not say this to him, learn from it that at this stage Rabbi Eliezer grasped Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s line of reasoning; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rabbi Yehoshua would say the following reasoning: 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, once he pinched one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [siman], i.e., either the gullet or the windpipe, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžืขืœื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืžื›ื™ ืžืœื™ืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืชื™ืžืฉืš ื•ืชื”ื•ื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื ืื” ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ืžืฉื ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ื•ืชื• ืœื

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in the case of a bird sin offering that one sacrificed above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering, too, as soon as he pinches one siman it should be removed from its status as a sin offering and become a bird burnt offering. And if you would say that indeed that is so, this is difficult: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say in the name of Rabbi Benaโ€™a that this is the accurate presentation of the mishna? What, does he not mean that this is the accurate presentation in the sense that Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle applies specifically to the case stated in the mishna, namely, that of a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering, and to nothing more?

ืœื ื›ืš ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ื›ื•ืœื” ืžืฉื ื”

The Gemara answers: No, what Rabbi Benaโ€™a means is that this is the accurate presentation of the entire mishna. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely as a sin offering, he holds similarly that a bird sin offering sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering assumes the status of a burnt offering.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ื ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืœืžื˜ื” ืœื™ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื ืžืฉื›ืช ื•ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

Rav Ashi said: The two cases are different. Granted, Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle applies to 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. Since the method of preparing this bird sin offering is by pinching one siman, and the method of preparing that bird burnt offering is by pinching two simanim, and since there can be no bird burnt offering below the red line, therefore once he pinched one siman below the red line, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

ืืœื ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืžืœื™ืงื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืžื›ื™ ืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื™ืคืกืœื ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืžืœื™ืง ื‘ืื™ื“ืš ืกื™ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืžืฉื›ื” ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

But one cannot say this with regard to a bird sin offering that was sacrificed as a burnt offering. Since the Master said with regard to the bird sin offering: Pinching is valid everywhere on the altar, it follows that as soon as one pinched one siman for the sake of a burnt offering it was disqualified, like any other sin offering pinched for the sake of a different type of offering. Consequently, when he then pinched the other siman according to the procedure of a burnt offering, how could it then be removed from its status as a sin offering and become a bird burnt offering?

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืฉืขืฉืื” ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืžืœืง ื‘ื” ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื ืžืฉื›ืช ื•ื ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself, that Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rabbi Yehoshua would say: 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, once he pinched one siman, the offering is removed from its status as a burnt offering and becomes a bird sin offering.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื˜ืืช ืœื–ื• ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืœื–ื•

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to this principle from a mishna in tractate Kinnim (24a). A woman after childbirth must bring two bird offerings: A burnt offering and a sin offering. The mishna discusses a case where two women after childbirth, one of whom already brought her burnt offering and one of whom already brought her sin offering, bring their remaining offerings to the Temple, a sin offering for this one and a burnt offering for that one, but confusion has arisen as to which bird is which.

ืขืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื˜ืืช ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžื˜ื”

If the priest sacrificed both of them above the red line, half of the birds, i.e., one of them, is fit, as in any event the burnt offering has been sacrificed properly, and half of the birds, i.e., the other one, is disqualified. Likewise, if he sacrificed both of them below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offering was sacrificed properly, and half are disqualified. If he sacrificed one above the red line and one below, they are both disqualified, as I say that perhaps the sin offering was sacrificed above, and the burnt offering was sacrificed below.

ื ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืขื•ืœื” ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืชื™ืžืฉื•ืš ื•ืชื”ื•ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

But according to Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle, the sin offering should be deemed fit in any event; even though the burnt offering was indeed sacrificed below the red line, it should be removed from its status as a burnt offering and become a bird sin offering.

ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื—ื“ ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืชืจื™ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจ

The Gemara rejects this claim: It is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his principle with regard to one person, whose offering the priest sacrificed below the red line instead of above it; but did he state it with regard to two people, one of whose offering the priest sacrificed for the sake of the other person? In the case of the two women, the priest sacrificed the offering for the sake of a different person altogether, and Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that such an offering does not become a sin offering.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืกืชื•ืžื” ื•ืžืคื•ืจืฉืช

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge from a mishna in tractate Kinnim (24a). The mishna discusses a case of two women who jointly brought three pairs of birds, as follows: The birds of one pair were designated as a sin offering and a burnt offering respectively, but it was not specified which womanโ€™s obligation they were to satisfy; and the second pair was unspecified as to which bird was to be which offering; and the third pair was specified as to both the type of offering of each bird and whose obligation each bird was to satisfy.

ืขืฉื” ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื—ืฆื™ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื™ืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืื™ื ื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืืœื ืกืชื•ืžื” ื•ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ

If the priest sacrificed all of them above the red line, half of the birds are fit, as in any event the burnt offerings have been sacrificed properly, and half are disqualified. Likewise, if he sacrificed all of them below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are disqualified. If he sacrificed half of every pair above the red line and half of it below, but it is unclear which bird he sacrificed above and which he sacrificed below, only the unspecified pair is fit, as by sacrificing one above and one below the priest has in effect designated them. And since the women brought the birds jointly, the fit pair is divided between them, one bird counting toward the obligation of each woman.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืžืคื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื”ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืขื•ืœื” ืงืจื‘ื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืชื™ืžืฉื•ืš ื•ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

The mishna teaches that only the unspecified pair is fit, while the specified birds are not, as perhaps each bird was sacrificed on the wrong side of the red line and disqualified. But why should that be the halakha? According to Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle, even if the burnt offering was indeed sacrificed below the red line, it should be removed from its status as a burnt offering and become a bird sin offering.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื”ื›ื™

And if you would say that this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, how can you say that?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืงืŸ ืื ืืœื“ ื–ื›ืจ ื™ืœื“ื” ื–ื›ืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืฉืชื™ ืงื™ื ื™ื ืื—ืช ืœื ื“ืจื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœื—ื•ื‘ืชื”

The Gemara explains: Come and hear evidence that the mishnayot in tractate Kinnim are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua from another mishna in the same chapter (24b): The mishna discusses the case of a woman who said: It is incumbent upon me to bring one nest, i.e., one pair of bird offerings, if I give birth to a male child. Since all women who give birth must bring one pair of birds in any event, if she ultimately gave birth to a male, she must bring two nests, one for her vow and one for her obligation.

ื ืชื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืชืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื”

If she gave them to the priest without specifying which bird is to be which type of offering, the priest must sacrifice three above the red line and one below. This is because the obligatory pair must consist of a burnt offering and a sin offering, while a pair of birds brought to fulfill a vow must consist of two burnt offerings.

ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ืืœื ืขืฉื” ืฉืชื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืฉืชื™ื ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ื ืžืœืš ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืชื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืคืจื™ื“ื” ืื—ืช ื•ืชืงืจื™ื‘ื ื” ืœืžืขืœื”

If the priest did not do so, but rather, thinking that both pairs were obligatory, sacrificed two above and two below, and he did not consult the woman before sacrificing them, she must bring one more bird [perida] and sacrifice it above the red line to satisfy her remaining obligation.

ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ื ืฉืชื™ื

This is the halakha only if both pairs were of the same species of bird, either doves or pigeons; but if the two pairs were of two different species, and the priest does not remember which pair he sacrificed first, she must bring two more birds, one of each species. Whichever pair was sacrificed first is deemed the obligatory pair, and the woman must bring a bird of the other species to satisfy her remaining obligation of a burnt offering. But since it is not known which species of bird that is, she must bring one of each.

ืคืจืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” [ืฆืจื™ื›ื”] ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ

If the woman initially specified which species of bird she would bring for her vow but subsequently forgot what species she specified, and she then brought two pairs of a single species, and the priest mistakenly sacrificed two birds above the red line and two below, then she must bring three more birds, all as burnt offerings. One must be of the species she brought, to replace the bird mistakenly sacrificed below, and the other two must be of the other species, in case that was the species she specified in the first place.

ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ื ืืจื‘ืข

This is the halakha only if both pairs that she brought were of the same species. But if they were of two different species, and the priest does not remember which pair he sacrificed first, she must bring four, two of each species. This is because no matter which species she specified, the priest may have sacrificed the pair of that species first, leaving none of that species to satisfy even part of her vow. She therefore may still need to satisfy an entire vow of either species.

ืงื‘ืขื” ื ื“ืจื”

The mishna continues: If, besides forgetting which species of bird she specified to bring for her vow, the woman also committed to sacrificing the birds of her vow together with the burnt offering of the obligatory pair, but the priest mistakenly sacrificed two birds above the red line and two below,

Scroll To Top