Kommentar zu Zevachim 7:10

חטאת העוף שעשאה למטה – from the red line according to the Halakha that it is performed below, as we have stated in [Mishnah 4] in our chapter above (i.e., Chapter 6).

Introduction In chapter six, mishnayot five and six we learned how the bird hatat and bird olah were offered. There were a few differences between them. The first two mishnayot of this chapter discuss what happens if one mixes up between the two of them.

כמעשה חטאת – with sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] and draining [of the blood].

If a hatat of a bird is offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] for the sake of a hatat, it is fit. The blood of the hatat is supposed to be offered below the red line. In this case the bird hatat is offered in the correct manner, and is therefore fit. This line is only here in the mishnah to serve as a contrast with the following four sections.

ולשם חטאת – even though that he changed in the order/arrangement of the pinching of the head of the bird in such a manner that he pinched the bird’s neck with a finger nail and severed it, but with a sin-offering, it is stated (Leviticus 5:8): "לא יבדיל" / “[pinching its head at the nape] without severing it.”

[If it is offered] with the rites of a hatat, [but] in the name of a olah; If the rites followed are those for a hatat, but his intention was for it to be an olah, the sacrifice is unfit.

כשרה – because it was done below [the red line] and in the rest of the acts of Divine service it was performed in accordance with the Halakha (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2).

[Or] with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a hatat; If the intent of the priest is for it to be a hatat, but he sacrifices it using the rites for an olah, then it is unfit.

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה וכו' פסולה – for a sin-offering not performed for its own sake is invalidated.

Or with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of an olah, it is unfit. If the sacrifice is supposed to be a hatat, but the priest thinks and acts as if it is an olah, it is similarly unfit. Basically for the hatat to be fit, it must be offered for the sake of a hatat and with the rites of a hatat.

כמעשה כולם – that is to say, like the rites/actions of one of all of them that are mentioned here, and even according to the rite of the sin-offering for the sake of/for the name of the sin-offering, because it was performed above [the red line], it is invalid.

If he offers it above [the red line] [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit. If he sprinkles the blood above the red line, then it is invalid even if he offers it for the sake of a hatat, using the rites of a hatat. Sprinkling the blood below the red line is mandatory and without it the hatat is invalid.

עולת העוף שעשאה למעלה – in accordance with the Halakha that it was performed above [the red line].

If an olah of a bird is offered above [the red line], with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a olah, it is fit.
With the rites of an olah [but] in the name of a hatat, it is fit, but does not count for its owner’s obligation.
[If he offers it] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a olah;
[Or] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat, it is unfit.
If he offers it below, [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.
This mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah, but the topic here is the olah.
Section one: This olah is offered in the manner in which it is supposed to be offered and therefore it is valid.
Section two: If an olah is offered with the rites of an olah but for the sake of it being a hatat, it is still fit and can be burned on the altar. However, it doesn’t count for discharging the owner of his obligation, as we explained in chapter six, mishnah seven. The owners will need to bring another hatat.
Sections three and four: However, if he uses the rites of a hatat, it is invalid.
Section five: As with the hatat, if he sprinkles the blood in the wrong place, it is invalid, even if he uses the rites of the olah and does it for the sake of an olah.

כמעשה עולה לשם עולה – even though he changed in the arrangement of the pinching of its head, that it would not be severed (see Leviticus 1:12: “The priest shall tear it open by its wings, לא יבדיל/without severing it, and turn it into smoke on the altar, upon the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a gift, of pleasing odor to the LORD,” versus Leviticus 5:9 for the sin-offering: “He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the purification/sin-offering, pinching its head at the nape without severing it/ולא יבדיל), for according to the law, he should have severed it, even so, it is valid.

כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כשרה – for all of the animal offerings that were offered up not for their own sake but rather that they did not go to the credit of its owns, except for the Passover offering and the sin-offering.

עשאה למטה כמעשה כולן – according to the rites of one of all of them, and even like the rite of the burnt-offering for the sake of/in the name of a burnt-offering.

פסולה – [it is invalid] because he prepared it below [the red line].

וכולן אינן מטמאות בבית הבליעה (and all of them – which are invalid – do not impart uncleanness to the esophagus/gullet) – even though they were invalidated, their pinching of the bird’s head purifies them from having ritual impurity imparted by an un-slaughtered carcass, and they don’t become ritually impure in the gullet/esophagus according to the law of the un-slaughtered carcass of a pure bird for a person who consumes it, even though he did not touch it, as for example, that his fellow inserted it in his esophagus, it becomes ritually defiled in a more serious manner to defile the clothing that is upon him, but these, even though that their pinching of the bird’s head does not permit them for eating because of the defilement that occurred to them, nevertheless, it purifies them and removes them from being an un-slaughtered carcass.

Introduction This mishnah refers to the cases in the previous two mishnayot of bird hatats and olahs that were not offered correctly.

ומועלין בהן – he who derives a penny’s worth of benefit from them brings a sacrifice of sacrilege according to the law of all who derive benefit from that which is dedicated to the Temple. And even a sin-offering, because it was defiled and there was no time period of permissibility to the Kohanim, he did not depart from religious sacrilege.

And all of these do not defile in the gullet One who eats a bird that was not slaughtered properly becomes impure when the piece of meat he is swallowing reaches his gullet. However, these birds were slaughtered properly (the problem was in the sacrificial ritual) and therefore they do not cause impurity as do carrion birds.

חוץ מחטאת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת – which is fit/valid and there is a period of permissibility for the Kohanim, and furthermore, there is no religious sacrilege involved even for a non-Kohen (literally: “a foreigner”).

And they involve trespass, except the hatat of a bird which was offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat. Trespass refers to illegal use of Temple property. One who uses a bird hatat or olah that was sacrificed improperly has still trespassed and must bring an asham to atone for his sin. The exception is a bird hatat that was offered correctly. At this point a priest can eat from it, and once priests can eat it, non-priests can derive benefit from it, they have not trespassed Temple property. Note that an olah is not eaten by the priests and therefore no one is ever allowed to derive benefit from it.

ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בה – for it is a burnt-offering, and who removed it from its religious sacrilege? For there wasn’t any permitted time for it.

Introduction In this mishnah we find an extended argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua concerning whether or not one who derives benefit from a bird olah that was sacrificed as a hatat has “trespassed”. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, trespassing means making illegal use of Temple property. This topic is interesting (at least to the sages) because an olah does involve trespass, but a hatat does not. This mishnah is a bit complicated but I hope that you will appreciate the glimpse we get here of the types of logical arguments employed by the sages.

רבי יהושע אומר אין מועלים בה – for since he changed its name and its action and its place for the sake/name of the sin-offering, it became a sin-offering.

If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. This section lays out the two opinions. Rabbi Eliezer says that this olah, sacrificed in the name of a hatat with the rites of a hatat still involves trespass, as does every olah. Rabbi Joshua says that just as a bird hatat doesn’t involve trespass (because it is entirely edible for priests) so too this olah that was sacrificed as a hatat does not involve trespass.

ומה חטאת העוף שאין מועלים בה – when he slaughtered it for its sake/name, for it is consumed by the Kohanim.

Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Eliezer now begins to prove his opinion by comparing the wrongly sacrificed olah with a wrongly sacrificed hatat. When someone sacrifices a hatat in the right way, it does not involve trespass, because it can be eaten by priests. However, when he offers it as an olah it does involve trespass. All the more so, Rabbi Eliezer argues, with an olah. If it involves trespass when it is offered for its own sake, all the more so it should involve trespass when it is offered for the sake of something else.

שינה את שמה – it was disqualified and it does not come to be included in that which is permissible.

Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Joshua responds that a hatat that he offered for the sake of an olah involves trespass because he changed it to a sacrifice that involves trespass (the olah). However, in the case of our mishnah, when he offered the olah for the sake of a hatat, he changed it to something that doesn’t involve trespass (the hatat). Therefore, this olah offered as a hatat does not involve trespass. Digging a bit deeper into the meaning of this debate, we might say that Rabbi Joshua accords greater power to the intention of the sacrificer when he changes something into a hatat it is a hatat and the rules regarding an olah no longer apply. In contrast, according to Rabbi Eliezer, if it was supposed to be an olah it stays an olah, no matter what his intention.

מועלים בה – for Rabbi Yehoshua himself did not dispute this.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Eliezer responds by noting that there is a case where a person changes something from a type of sacrifice that does involve trespass to a type that does not involve trespass and yet the sacrifice still involves trespass. If one sacrifices a most holy sacrifice as if it were a less holy sacrifice which does not involve trespass, the sacrifice still involves trespass. This simply proves that what Rabbi Joshua said in section two was incorrect.

לדבר שיש בו מעילה – for the sake/name of a burnt-offering.

Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted? Rabbi Joshua responds that in the case of most holy sacrifices which were offered as if they were less holy sacrifices, he has changed it into something that has both prohibited and permitted parts. When it comes to less holy sacrifices, some parts can be eaten, whereas some of the inner parts of the animal cannot be eaten and do involve trespass. Therefore, in this case the sacrifice still involves trespass because he changed it into something that at least partially involves trespass. However, in the case of the bird olah sacrificed as a bird hatat, he changed the sacrifice into something that doesn’t involve trespass at all. This defends Rabbi Joshua’s opinion that a bird olah offered as a bird hatat doesn’t involve trespass.

ששחטן בדרום – for the name/sake of a peace-offering will prove it (see also Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1 - as this sacrifice is supposed to be offered in the north).

ששינה שמן ומעשיהן לדבר שאין בו מעילה – for the Lesser Holy Things do not have religious sacrilege other than with their portions of the offerings that are consumed on the altar.

ומועלים בהן – because they were disqualified with the change of their place and their sprinkling/tossing of the blood did not remove them from religious sacrilege.

איסור והיתר – the Lesser Holy Things there is religious sacrilege with the portions of their offerings that are consumed on the altar, but not with their flesh because of religious sacrilege.

בדבר שכולו היתר – with the sin-offering of birds which has no side of religious sacrilege. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

מלק בשמאל – that his pinching of the bird’s head is invalid. For every place where it states, “finger”/אצבע and “priesthood”/כהונה it is none other than the right [hand].

Introduction This mishnah deals with the subject of when a sacrificial bird that was nipped (this is how sacrificial birds are slaughtered) causes impurity if its flesh is swallowed. We began to discuss this subject in mishnah three.

או בלילה – for there is pinching of the bird’s head at night, for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 7:38): “[with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai,] when He commanded [by day] (not included in the new Jewish Publication Society translation but found explicitly in the Hebrew ) /ביום צותו [that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai].”

If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. As I stated in the commentary to mishnah three, one who eats a pure bird that was not slaughtered properly becomes impure when the flesh of the bird reaches his gullet. Our mishnah lists cases where an action was done improperly with the slaughtering of a bird sacrifice. A bird sacrifice must be nipped with the right hand, during the day, so if he nips it with the left hand or at night, it is invalid. If one brings a non-sacred bird into the Temple and slaughters it (not nips but slaughters by cutting its neck), it may not be eaten, and a sacrifice that was slaughtered (not nipped) outside of the Temple is invalid. In all of these cases, the slaughtering or nipping was done properly, but it was done at the wrong time, with the wrong hand, or in the wrong place. Since the slaughtering/nipping itself was done correctly, the flesh of the bird doesn’t cause impurity.

אינן מטמאין – for since they are disqualified in Holy Things and even their pinching of the bird’s head that if they went up, but did not descend (see also, Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 2, that the pinching of the bird’s head purifies them).

If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off, [all these] defile in the gullet. In contrast, in some these cases the slaughtering itself was performed incorrectly. Nipping must be done with one’s fingernail and not with a knife. If the bird was hullin (non-sacred), then nipping it is an improper means to slaughter it (it must have its neck sliced). If he nips a bird sacrifice outside of the Temple it is invalid. In all of these cases, the bird is considered carrion and it does cause impurity if swallowed. The mishnah now lists other problems that will cause the bird to defile when its flesh is swallowed. When it comes to turtle-doves, they are valid as sacrifices only when they are older (about three months) whereas pigeons are valid as sacrifices when they are younger (before three months). So if he sacrificed a bird either before or after it reached majority, it causes impurity. Furthermore, if the bird was missing a limb it cannot be used as a sacrifice. So if he nipped a bird that couldn’t be used as a sacrifice, it is completely invalid and does cause impurity.

שחט חולין בפנים וקדשים בחוץ אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה – and even though they are forbidden to be consumed.

This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. The mishnah now provides the general rule. If a bird was valid as a sacrifice and it was nipped in the Temple, using the correct method for nipping, but then became disqualified for some reason, the bird does not cause impurity when its flesh is swallowed. However, if the bird was disqualified before it arrived at the Temple courtyard, or was disqualified because its nipping was not performed correctly, the bird is considered carrion and one who eats it becomes impure when its flesh is swallowed.

מלק בסכין – it is not the [proper] pinching of the bird’s head (i.e., neck), and it is not [proper] ritual slaughter, for the pinching of the bird’s neck is with the fingernail by the Kohen himself.

And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet. If someone performs the nipping who is not allowed to do so (see mishnah 2:1), for instance a non-priest, or an impure priest, the nipping is invalid and the bird cannot be used as a sacrifice. However, it does not place the bird into the category of carrion because this is a case of unfitness that arose in sanctity.

מלק חולין בפנים – for the pinching of the bird’s head (i.e., neck) does not belong with unconsecrated [birds] but rather with [birds] that are sanctified inside [at the altar], and the person who pinches the bird’s neck with the fingernail for a profane purpose in any place, or Holy Things outside [the altar], it is as if he perforates (i.e., kills by stabbing) or mutilates it, and this pinching of the bird’s head does not remove it from being a carrion (i.e., an animal that has died a natural death, not slaughtered according to the ritual rules).

תורין שלא הגיעו זמנן – large turtle doves, which are kosher/fit, small ones are invalid. Pigeons – small ones are kosher/fit, large ones are invalid.

ושיבש גפה – that it is missing a limb, it is invalid, even with birds. For we hold that there is no unblemished condition or male sex with regard to birds, these words, as for example regarding a withered spot in the eye/cataract that their blemishes are not recognized, but that which is missing a limb, (Malachi 1:8): “Just offer it to your governor.”

מטמא בבית הבליעה – that their pinching of the head has no effect at all, for even if they went up, they descended.

כל שאין פסולן בקודש – that it became invalid before they came to the Temple courtyard. And everything where its becoming invalid did not happen in the Holy area, we state further on in the Chapter [Nine], “The altar sanctifies that which is appropriate to it”/"המזבח מקדש" (see Mishnah 5), “And what are those things which, if they have gone up, should go down.” But those things that were invalidated in the Holy Areas, as for example, the Holy Things that were appropriate but they were invalidated in their Divine Service, they don’t defile, for the pinching of the bird’s head was beneficial to them for if they went up, they would not come down (see Mishnah 2 of that chapter).

כל הפסולים – as for example, a “foreigner,” (i.e., non-Kohen), and someone prior to the burial of a kinsman, a person who immersed himself on that day and someone lacking atonement (i.e., a woman after childbirth, a person suffering a flux, a healed leper, etc.) – all of those that are taught at the beginning of chapter 2 [of Tractate Zevakhim].

ואינן מטמאות בבית הבליעה – for even though their pinching of the bird’s neck does not permit Holy Things to be eaten, nevertheless, it removes them from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

אינה מטמאה בבית הבליעה – that the pinching of the bird’s head purifies it from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a case where a priest did melikah (nipping the bird) and the bird turned out to be a terefah, an animal with some flaw which would have caused it to die. Such a bird cannot be sacrificed the question in our mishnah is does it defile in the gullet, like the nevelah (improperly slaughtered) bird.

ר' יהודה אומר מטמאה בבית הבליעה – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that the ritual slaughtering of an unconsecrated bird does not have any effect nor the pinching of the bird’s neck which is a Holy Thing that is deemed torn in a bird to remove it from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

If one performed melikah, and he found it [the bird] to be a terefah: Rabbi Meir said: it does not defile in the gullet; Rabbi Judah said: it does defile in the gullet. Rabbi Meir says that if a bird sacrifice has its head nipped (melikah) and it is found to be a terefah, it does not defile when swallowed. According to Rabbi Meir melikah purifies a terefah sacrificial bird from defiling as does a nevelah (carrion), just as slaughtering (shechitah) purifies a terefah beast from imparting carrion impurity. Rabbi Judah says that when a bird is slaughtered or nipped and it is found to be a terefah it still defiles in the gullet, as does a nevelah.

אינו דין שתהא שחיטה כו' – and since you derived that ritual slaughter purifies the bird with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months (i.e., an animal torn apart by a beast of prey or afflicted with a severe organic disease or congenital defect) with regard to an unconsecrated bird from an a fortiori inference, we derive the pinching of a bird’s head of Holy Things from it through an analogy based upon an induction (i.e., what do we find with regard to – with regard to similar cases…? Analogy based upon one verse or analogy based upon two verses), just as we found through proper slaughter, etc., even the pinching of a bird’s neck that makes it appropriate for eating, it will purify its being viewed as having a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months from its defilement.

Rabbi Meir said: if with regard to a beast, when it is carrion (a it defiles through contact or carrying, yet slaughtering it purifies its terefah from defiling, when it comes to carrion ( of a bird which does not defile through contact or carriage, is it not logical that slaughtering would cleanse its terefah? Now, just as we have found that slaughtering, which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah from its uncleanness; so melikah (, which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah. Rabbi Meir now proceeds to argue out his position. When it comes to a beast, its nevelah (carrion it died without having been slaughtered properly) defiles when it is touched or even when it is carried. Nevertheless, if one slaughters it and it turns out to be a terefah (an animal with some defect that would have caused it to die) it now does not defile through contact and carrying. The nevelah of a bird is less stringent for it never defiles through contact or carriage. Therefore, Rabbi Meir argues, it is logical that if one slaughters a hullin (non-sacred) bird and it turns out to be a terefah, it is purified from defiling in the way it would have had it been a nevelah (in the gullet). Rabbi Meir now proceeds with his argument. Slaughtering a hullin bird is parallel to nipping (melikah) a sacrificial bird. Both make the birds fit (for eating or sacrifice) and both cleanse the terefah from defiling in the gullet.

רבי יוסי אומר דיה כו' – since we don’t find explicitly that ritual slaughter removes it from being a bird with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months, other than through an a fortiori inference from the condition that will cause an animal to die within twelve months (i.e., an animal torn apart by a beast of prey or afflicted with a severe organic disease or congenital defect), it comes to learn, it is sufficient that it will be like an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months whose ritual slaughter will purify it from being considered as torn apart or afflicted with a congenital defect or a severe organic disease and not through the pinching of its neck, that it is sufficient that the law which is derived by conclusion ad majus to be as strict as the law from which it is derived (i.e., you cannot go beyond the latter). And there are three arguments in the manner: Rabbi Meir holds that both ritual slaughter and pinching the neck of the bird remove it from being considered having a condition that will cause the animal to die within twelve months. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that whether one performs ritual slaughter or the pinching of the neck of the bird, it will not affect the fact of the animal having a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months to remove it from being considered an un-slaughtered carcass. But Rabbi Yossi holds that ritual slaughtering is effective; pinching of the bird’s neck is not effective. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient for it to be like the nevelah of a beast, which is cleansed by slaughtering, but not by melikah (. Rabbi Yose says that the laws concerning carrion of a bird do not need to be any more lenient than the laws concerning the carrion of a beast. Just as slaughtering and not melikah (nipping) purifies a beast’s terefah from carrion impurity (because there is no such thing as melikah with a beast) so too when it comes to birds slaughtering purifies them from carrion impurity but not melikah. So if the bird was hullin (non-sacred) and one slaughtered it and it turned out to be a terefah it would not impart carrion impurity. But if it was a sacrificial bird and one nipped it and it turned out to be a terefah it would still impart carrion impurity. Again, the argumentation in this mishnah was classic mishnaic type of argumentation. While the mishnah was certainly not easy, if you want to see what type of logic the sages employed, this is a great example.