זבחים סח

זבחים סח

צְרִיכָה שֶׁתָּבִיא עוֹד חָמֵשׁ פְּרֵידִין לְמַעְלָה.

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.

מִמִּין אֶחָד. וּמִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין – תָּבִיא שֵׁשׁ.

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.

נְתָנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת מָה נָתְנָה; הָלַךְ הַכֹּהֵן וְעָשָׂה, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מָה עָשָׂה – צְרִיכָה אַרְבַּע פְּרִידִין לְנִדְרָהּ, וּשְׁתַּיִם לְחוֹבָתָהּ, וְחַטָּאת אַחַת.

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.

בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, זֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי – קוֹלוֹ אֶחָד, וּכְשֶׁהוּא מֵת – קוֹלוֹ שִׁבְעָה.

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 Ahava’s explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua’s principle, burnt offerings of birds sacrificed as sin offerings become valid sin offerings. Why then, according to these mishnayot, are they disqualified?

אֵימַר דַּאֲמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – לְאַפּוֹקַהּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה; לְמִיסַּק לֵיהּ לְחוֹבָה מִי אָמַר?!

The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava’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 owner’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.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁמָּלְקוּ – מְלִיקָתָן פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. מָלַק בִּשְׂמֹאל אוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, שָׁחַט חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ – אֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.

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 offering’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.

מָלַק בְּסַכִּין; מָלַק חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ;

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;

תּוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן; שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה גַּפָּהּ, שֶׁנִּסְמֵית עֵינָהּ וְשֶׁנִּקְטְעָה רַגְלָהּ – מְטַמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.

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 bird’s nape was pinched, it renders one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה; לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ – מְטַמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: שְׂמֹאל וְלַיְלָה – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, זָר וְסַכִּין – מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.

GEMARA: Rav says: Pinching with the thumbnail of the left hand and pinching at night do not cause the offering’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.

מַאי שְׁנָא שְׂמֹאל – דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְלַיְלָה – אִית לֵיהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָה בְּאֵיבָרִים וּפְדָרִים; זָר נָמֵי – אִית לֵיהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה! שְׁחִיטָה לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

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.

וְלָא?! וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: שְׁחִיטַת פָּרָה בְּזָר – פְּסוּלָה; וּמַחְוֵי רַב עֲלַהּ: אֶלְעָזָר וְ״חוּקָּה״!

The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesn’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 “statute,” which is mentioned in the verse: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazar’s involvement was halakhically required.

שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא.

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.

וְלָא כֹּל דְּכֵן הוּא: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת בָּעוּ כְּהוּנָּה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ מִיבַּעְיָא?!

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.

אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּרְאוֹת נְגָעִים – דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וּבָעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.

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.

וְנֵילַף מִבָּמָה!

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?

מִבָּמָה לָא יָלֵיף.

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.

וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַיּוֹצֵא שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד – שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.

The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar? But isn’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.

תָּנָא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה״ סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering [ha’ola]” (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.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: זָר אֵין מְטַמֵּא אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, סַכִּין מְטַמֵּא אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

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 Yoḥanan 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.

תְּנַן: כׇּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁמָּלְקוּ – מְלִיקָתָן פְּסוּלָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, ״כֹּל״ – לְאֵיתוֹיֵי זָר. אֶלָּא לְרַב, ״כׇּל״ – לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?

The Gemara brings proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan, 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?

(לָאו) לְאֵיתוֹיֵי שְׂמֹאל וְלַיְלָה. שְׂמֹאל וְלַיְלָה בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: זֶה הַכְּלָל – כֹּל שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, ״כֹּל״ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי זָר. אֶלָּא לְרַב, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?

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 Yoḥanan, 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?