זבחים סו

זבחים סו

אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת?!

It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav Aḥa, 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: “And if a man shall open a pit…and does not cover it” (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם״ – עִלָּוֵיהּ הוּא דִּרְמֵי לְכַסּוֹיֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – חָלַק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף;

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (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: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), the term “it” 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.

״לֹא יַבְדִּיל״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל.

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: “But shall not separate it” (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.

מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עוֹלָה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ. יָכוֹל מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוּא״.

§ 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: “It is a burnt offering” (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: “It is.”

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבִינָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּרוֹב דָּמִים בַּגּוּף שְׁכִיחִי.

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.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים

מַתְנִי’ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת, לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת — כְּשֵׁירָה.

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.

כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.

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.

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – כְּשֵׁירָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ.

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.

כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.

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.

גְּמָ׳ דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף?

GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offering 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?

וְלָא אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?!

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?

לָא; דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה.

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.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה, הָאָמַר מָר: מְלִיקָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה? וּמִדְּסֵיפָא בְּהַזָּאָה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בְּהַזָּאָה.

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’t 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.

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא!

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.

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כּוּ׳. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?

§ 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?

אִילֵּימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הָאָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין!

If we say that he changed the pinching of the bird’s 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’t 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?

וְאֶלָּא בְּמִיצּוּי?

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.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?

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?

אִילֵּימָא בְּמִיצּוּי, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; בְּמִיצּוּי מִי אָמַר?!

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.

וְאֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה? רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי?!

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?

אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן; חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

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.

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ; עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ?!

The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna’im. 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?

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה?!

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?