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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 20, 2018 | ื–ืณ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื—

Zevachim 68

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Caroline Musin in honor of the Yeshivat Maharat graduates.

The gemara raises questions on Rav Ada bar Ahava’s understanding of Rabbi Yehoshua and in the end explains Rabbi Yehoshua in a different manner. Depending on how or where the melika is performed, affects whether or not is has the status of a neveilaย of a pure bird and can cause impurities while the person is eating it.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืชื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื“ ื—ืžืฉ ืคืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื”


she must bring another five birds and sacrifice them all above the red line as burnt offerings. Since her commitment was not satisfied, she has not fulfilled even part of her vow. She must therefore bring two burnt offerings of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and she must bring another bird to replace the initial obligatory burnt offering and fulfill her commitment to bring them together.


ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉ


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 he sacrificed first as the obligatory pair, she must bring six, two of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and one more of each species to ensure that she properly replaces the original burnt offering of the obligatory pair and fulfills her commitment.


ื ืชื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื ืชื ื” ื”ืœืš ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื” ืขืฉื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืคืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื“ืจื” ื•ืฉืชื™ื ืœื—ื•ื‘ืชื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืื—ืช


If the woman specified the species of bird for her vow but then forgot which species she specified, and she gave two pairs of birds to the priest but does not know now what species she gave, or even if she gave him one or two species of birds, and the priest went and sacrificed the birds but does not know now what he sacrificed where, in this case, she must bring seven birds, as follows: Four birds, two of each species, for her vow; and two more birds, one of each species, for her obligatory burnt offering, in case the priest sacrificed a sin offering of a certain species and the burnt offering must now match that species; and one sin offering of either species, in case the priest sacrificed them all as burnt offerings.


ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืชื™ ื—ื˜ืื•ืช


Ben Azzai says she must bring two sin offerings, one of each species, as he holds that if the priest sacrificed a bird of a certain species specifically as the obligatory burnt offering, the sin offering must now match that species.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื–ื”ื• ืฉืืžืจื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ืงื•ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืช ืงื•ืœื• ืฉื‘ืขื”


The mishna concludes: Rabbi Yehoshua said that there is a parable that explains this situation: This is what people say about a sheep: When it is alive it makes one sound, and when it is dead it makes seven sounds. Its two horns become trumpets, its two shinbones become flutes, its skin becomes a drumhead, its large intestines become harp strings, and its small intestines become lyre strings. Here too, because of the uncertainty as to what had occurred, the woman must bring seven extra birds. Since Rabbi Yehoshua summarizes the mishna, the mishnayot in this chapter must be in accordance with his opinion. According to Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle, burnt offerings of birds sacrificed as sin offerings become valid sin offerings. Why then, according to these mishnayot, are they disqualified?


ืื™ืžืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœืืคื•ืงื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืœืžื™ืกืง ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ ืืžืจ


The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation is not at odds with these mishnayot; while it is reasonable to say, i.e., to explain, that Rabbi Yehoshua said that the offering becomes a sin offering insofar as to exclude one who derives benefit from it from liability for misuse of consecrated property, did he say that it becomes a sin offering so expansively as to indicate that it would satisfy the ownerโ€™s obligation? In the cases in the mishnayot in Kinnim, all burnt offerings that were sacrificed as sin offerings are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, but the women must nevertheless bring replacement offerings.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืžืœืงื• ืžืœื™ืงืชืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืžืœืง ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืฉื—ื˜ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


MISHNA: With regard to any of those people disqualified from performing the Temple service who pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the offeringโ€™s meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered. If a priest pinched it with the thumbnail of his left hand, or if he pinched it at night, or if he slaughtered a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases, although it is prohibited to consume these birds, they do not render one ritually impure when they are in the throat, as the halakhic status of pinching is like that of slaughtering.


ืžืœืง ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžืœืง ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ


If he pinched with a knife and not with his thumbnail; or if he pinched a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard;


ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžื ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืฉืขื‘ืจ ื–ืžื ืŸ ืฉื™ื‘ืฉื” ื’ืคื” ืฉื ืกืžื™ืช ืขื™ื ื” ื•ืฉื ืงื˜ืขื” ืจื’ืœื” ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


or if he pinched doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not yet arrived, as they are too young to be sacrificed; or if he pinched pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are too old; or if he pinched the nape of a fledgling whose wing was withered, or whose eye was blinded, or whose leg was severed; in all these cases, although the birdโ€™s nape was pinched, it renders one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


This is the principle: The meat of any bird that was initially fit for sacrifice and whose disqualification occurred in the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred area, but rather was disqualified before the service began, renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžืืœ ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื–ืจ ื•ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


GEMARA: Rav says: Pinching with the thumbnail of the left hand and pinching at night do not cause the offeringโ€™s meat to render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat as would the carcass of an unslaughtered bird; but pinching by a non-priest and pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape of the neck, with a knife rather than the fingernail do cause the meat to render one ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืฉืžืืœ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืคื“ืจื™ื ื–ืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื


The Gemara challenges: What is different about the first two cases that prevents the bird from assuming the status of a carcass? Temple service with the left hand has an instance of validity during the service on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies holding the spoon of incense in his left hand. And Temple service at night has an instance of validity in the burning of limbs and fats of offerings on the altar, which may be burned throughout the night. But a non-priest also has an instance of validity in the slaughter of animal offerings. Why then does Rav rule that pinching by a non-priest renders the bird a carcass? The Gemara answers: Slaughter is not considered a full-fledged sacrificial rite, and therefore it cannot be compared to pinching.


ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืคืจื” ื‘ื–ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ืขืœื” ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ื—ื•ืงื”


The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Zeira say that the slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid, which indicates that it is a full-fledged rite? And Rav showed a source in the Torah for this halakha: The verses concerning the red heifer mention both Elazar the priest as performing the slaughter and the word โ€œstatute,โ€ which is mentioned in the verse: โ€œThis is the statute of the lawโ€ (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazarโ€™s involvement was halakhically required.


ืฉืื ื™ ืคืจื” ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื


The Gemara answers: The red heifer is different, as it has the halakhic status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance rather than for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, its slaughter cannot teach the halakha concerning an actual offering.


ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื


The Gemara asks: But can it not be inferred a fortiori that slaughter is a sacrificial rite? If animals that have the status of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are of lesser sanctity, require slaughter by the priesthood, is it necessary to say that the slaughter of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, which are of greater sanctity, is a sacrificial rite that should require a priest? Apparently, the fact that non-priests may slaughter offerings proves that certain sacrificial rites apply to them.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจืื•ืช ื ื’ืขื™ื ื“ืœืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื”ื•ื ื”


Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of a red heifer does not constitute Temple service at all, and therefore it cannot be compared to the slaughter of an offering. The halakha is just as it is with regard to the examination of the shades of leprous marks, which does not constitute Temple service but requires a declaration of purity or impurity by the priesthood.


ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื‘ืžื”


The Gemara asks: But let us derive from the halakha of a private altar, which was a valid medium for sacrificing offerings before the Temple was built, where non-priests were permitted to pinch the napes of bird offerings, that there is a circumstance in which pinching by non-priests is valid. Why then does the bird assume the status of a carcass when the pinching is performed by a non-priest?


ืžื‘ืžื” ืœื ื™ืœื™ืฃ


The Gemara answers: One cannot derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar, which was considered non-sacred by comparison.


ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ืฆื ืฉืื ืขืœื” ืœื ื™ืจื“ ืฉื”ืจื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื‘ืžื”


The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, which emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn from the halakhot of a private altar with regard to the Temple service.


ืชื ื ืื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื”


The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering [haโ€™ola]โ€ (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื–ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


Until this point the Gemara has discussed the opinion of Rav, who holds that the pinching of a non-priest renders the bird a carcass with regard to ritual impurity. But Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If a non-priest pinched the nape of a bird offering, the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; but if a priest pinched it, i.e., cut it from the nape of the neck, with a knife, the meat renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืžืœืงื• ืžืœื™ืงืชืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ื–ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™


The Gemara brings proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of those disqualified for Temple service pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?


(ืœืื•) ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืฉืžืืœ ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืฉืžืืœ ื•ืœื™ืœื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ืชื ื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžืคืจืฉ


The Gemara answers: It is written to add pinching with the left hand or pinching at night. The Gemara challenges: The word: Any, is unnecessary with regard to teaching the cases of pinching with the left hand and pinching at night, as they are taught in the mishna explicitly. The Gemara answers: According to Rav, the word: Any, is not meant to add a specific case. Rather the mishna teaches the principle and then explains using specific examples.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ื–ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: This is the principle: The meat of any bird whose disqualification occurred during the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?


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 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 68

ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืฉืชื‘ื™ื ืขื•ื“ ื—ืžืฉ ืคืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื”


she must bring another five birds and sacrifice them all above the red line as burnt offerings. Since her commitment was not satisfied, she has not fulfilled even part of her vow. She must therefore bring two burnt offerings of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and she must bring another bird to replace the initial obligatory burnt offering and fulfill her commitment to bring them together.


ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืชื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉ


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 he sacrificed first as the obligatory pair, she must bring six, two of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and one more of each species to ensure that she properly replaces the original burnt offering of the obligatory pair and fulfills her commitment.


ื ืชื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืžื” ื ืชื ื” ื”ืœืš ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžื” ืขืฉื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืคืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื“ืจื” ื•ืฉืชื™ื ืœื—ื•ื‘ืชื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืื—ืช


If the woman specified the species of bird for her vow but then forgot which species she specified, and she gave two pairs of birds to the priest but does not know now what species she gave, or even if she gave him one or two species of birds, and the priest went and sacrificed the birds but does not know now what he sacrificed where, in this case, she must bring seven birds, as follows: Four birds, two of each species, for her vow; and two more birds, one of each species, for her obligatory burnt offering, in case the priest sacrificed a sin offering of a certain species and the burnt offering must now match that species; and one sin offering of either species, in case the priest sacrificed them all as burnt offerings.


ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืชื™ ื—ื˜ืื•ืช


Ben Azzai says she must bring two sin offerings, one of each species, as he holds that if the priest sacrificed a bird of a certain species specifically as the obligatory burnt offering, the sin offering must now match that species.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื–ื”ื• ืฉืืžืจื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ืงื•ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืช ืงื•ืœื• ืฉื‘ืขื”


The mishna concludes: Rabbi Yehoshua said that there is a parable that explains this situation: This is what people say about a sheep: When it is alive it makes one sound, and when it is dead it makes seven sounds. Its two horns become trumpets, its two shinbones become flutes, its skin becomes a drumhead, its large intestines become harp strings, and its small intestines become lyre strings. Here too, because of the uncertainty as to what had occurred, the woman must bring seven extra birds. Since Rabbi Yehoshua summarizes the mishna, the mishnayot in this chapter must be in accordance with his opinion. According to Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s principle, burnt offerings of birds sacrificed as sin offerings become valid sin offerings. Why then, according to these mishnayot, are they disqualified?


ืื™ืžืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœืืคื•ืงื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืœืžื™ืกืง ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื•ื‘ื” ืžื™ ืืžืจ


The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahavaโ€™s explanation is not at odds with these mishnayot; while it is reasonable to say, i.e., to explain, that Rabbi Yehoshua said that the offering becomes a sin offering insofar as to exclude one who derives benefit from it from liability for misuse of consecrated property, did he say that it becomes a sin offering so expansively as to indicate that it would satisfy the ownerโ€™s obligation? In the cases in the mishnayot in Kinnim, all burnt offerings that were sacrificed as sin offerings are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, but the women must nevertheless bring replacement offerings.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืžืœืงื• ืžืœื™ืงืชืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืžืœืง ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืฉื—ื˜ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


MISHNA: With regard to any of those people disqualified from performing the Temple service who pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the offeringโ€™s meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered. If a priest pinched it with the thumbnail of his left hand, or if he pinched it at night, or if he slaughtered a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases, although it is prohibited to consume these birds, they do not render one ritually impure when they are in the throat, as the halakhic status of pinching is like that of slaughtering.


ืžืœืง ื‘ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžืœืง ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ


If he pinched with a knife and not with his thumbnail; or if he pinched a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard;


ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžื ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืฉืขื‘ืจ ื–ืžื ืŸ ืฉื™ื‘ืฉื” ื’ืคื” ืฉื ืกืžื™ืช ืขื™ื ื” ื•ืฉื ืงื˜ืขื” ืจื’ืœื” ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


or if he pinched doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not yet arrived, as they are too young to be sacrificed; or if he pinched pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are too old; or if he pinched the nape of a fledgling whose wing was withered, or whose eye was blinded, or whose leg was severed; in all these cases, although the birdโ€™s nape was pinched, it renders one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


This is the principle: The meat of any bird that was initially fit for sacrifice and whose disqualification occurred in the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred area, but rather was disqualified before the service began, renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžืืœ ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื–ืจ ื•ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


GEMARA: Rav says: Pinching with the thumbnail of the left hand and pinching at night do not cause the offeringโ€™s meat to render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat as would the carcass of an unslaughtered bird; but pinching by a non-priest and pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape of the neck, with a knife rather than the fingernail do cause the meat to render one ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืฉืžืืœ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืคื“ืจื™ื ื–ืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื


The Gemara challenges: What is different about the first two cases that prevents the bird from assuming the status of a carcass? Temple service with the left hand has an instance of validity during the service on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies holding the spoon of incense in his left hand. And Temple service at night has an instance of validity in the burning of limbs and fats of offerings on the altar, which may be burned throughout the night. But a non-priest also has an instance of validity in the slaughter of animal offerings. Why then does Rav rule that pinching by a non-priest renders the bird a carcass? The Gemara answers: Slaughter is not considered a full-fledged sacrificial rite, and therefore it cannot be compared to pinching.


ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืคืจื” ื‘ื–ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืžื—ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ืขืœื” ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ื—ื•ืงื”


The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Zeira say that the slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid, which indicates that it is a full-fledged rite? And Rav showed a source in the Torah for this halakha: The verses concerning the red heifer mention both Elazar the priest as performing the slaughter and the word โ€œstatute,โ€ which is mentioned in the verse: โ€œThis is the statute of the lawโ€ (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazarโ€™s involvement was halakhically required.


ืฉืื ื™ ืคืจื” ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื™ื


The Gemara answers: The red heifer is different, as it has the halakhic status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance rather than for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, its slaughter cannot teach the halakha concerning an actual offering.


ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื


The Gemara asks: But can it not be inferred a fortiori that slaughter is a sacrificial rite? If animals that have the status of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are of lesser sanctity, require slaughter by the priesthood, is it necessary to say that the slaughter of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, which are of greater sanctity, is a sacrificial rite that should require a priest? Apparently, the fact that non-priests may slaughter offerings proves that certain sacrificial rites apply to them.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจืื•ืช ื ื’ืขื™ื ื“ืœืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื”ื•ื ื”


Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of a red heifer does not constitute Temple service at all, and therefore it cannot be compared to the slaughter of an offering. The halakha is just as it is with regard to the examination of the shades of leprous marks, which does not constitute Temple service but requires a declaration of purity or impurity by the priesthood.


ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžื‘ืžื”


The Gemara asks: But let us derive from the halakha of a private altar, which was a valid medium for sacrificing offerings before the Temple was built, where non-priests were permitted to pinch the napes of bird offerings, that there is a circumstance in which pinching by non-priests is valid. Why then does the bird assume the status of a carcass when the pinching is performed by a non-priest?


ืžื‘ืžื” ืœื ื™ืœื™ืฃ


The Gemara answers: One cannot derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar, which was considered non-sacred by comparison.


ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ืฆื ืฉืื ืขืœื” ืœื ื™ืจื“ ืฉื”ืจื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื‘ืžื”


The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, which emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn from the halakhot of a private altar with regard to the Temple service.


ืชื ื ืื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืขื•ืœื” ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื”


The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering [haโ€™ola]โ€ (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื–ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”


Until this point the Gemara has discussed the opinion of Rav, who holds that the pinching of a non-priest renders the bird a carcass with regard to ritual impurity. But Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If a non-priest pinched the nape of a bird offering, the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; but if a priest pinched it, i.e., cut it from the nape of the neck, with a knife, the meat renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.


ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืžืœืงื• ืžืœื™ืงืชืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ื–ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™


The Gemara brings proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of those disqualified for Temple service pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?


(ืœืื•) ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืฉืžืืœ ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืฉืžืืœ ื•ืœื™ืœื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ืชื ื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืžืคืจืฉ


The Gemara answers: It is written to add pinching with the left hand or pinching at night. The Gemara challenges: The word: Any, is unnecessary with regard to teaching the cases of pinching with the left hand and pinching at night, as they are taught in the mishna explicitly. The Gemara answers: According to Rav, the word: Any, is not meant to add a specific case. Rather the mishna teaches the principle and then explains using specific examples.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ื–ืจ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: This is the principle: The meat of any bird whose disqualification occurred during the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?


Scroll To Top