[In Bezug auf] die Olah eines Vogels, dessen Blut nach dem Verfahren eines Chattat und um eines Chattat willen unter [dem Mittelpunkt des Altars] aufgetragen wurde - Rabbi Eliezer sagt, dass es Me'ilah unterliegt . Rabbi Yehoshua sagt, dass es nicht Me'ilah unterliegt . Rabbi Eliezer sagte: Wenn ein Chattat, der einen nicht um seiner selbst willen Me'ilah unterwirft , [noch] einen Me'ilah unterwirft, wenn er um etwas anderes willen ausgeführt wird, ist es nicht logisch dass ein Olah , der Gegenstand ein bis tut Me'ilah [wenn ausgeführte Operationen] um ihrer selbst willen, sollten vorbehaltlich [sicher machen] Me'ilah aus Gründen der etwas anderes [wenn ausgeführt]? Rabbi Yehoshua sagte zu ihm: Nein, Sie beziehen sich auf ein Chattat, das für eine Olah [durchgeführt] wurde [und Me'ilah unterliegt ], weil er sein Ziel in etwas geändert hat, das Me'ilah unterliegt ; Wirst du [dasselbe] für einen Olah sagen, bei dem er sein Ziel in einen Chattat geändert hat, wenn man bedenkt, dass er das Ziel in etwas geändert hat, das nicht Me'ilah unterliegt ? Rabbi Eliezer sagte zu ihm: Betrachten Sie Kodshai Kodashim [Opfer von höchster Heiligkeit. Sie dürfen nur an der nordwestlichen Ecke des Altars geschlachtet und nur innerhalb des Tempelgeländes von männlichen Priestern verzehrt oder vollständig verbrannt werden, die auf der Südseite des Altars geschlachtet wurden und für die geschlachtet wurden Opfer von Kodashim Kalim [Opfer von geringerer Heiligkeit. Sie können von den meisten jedermann, überall in Jerusalem] im Tempel Hof und verbrauchen geschlachtet überall werden - diese den Punkt beweisen, weil er ihr Ziel etwas geändert , die nicht Gegenstand ist Me'ilah und noch ein unterliegt Me'ilah über Sie. Daher sollte man sich nicht über einen Chattat wundern, [obwohl] man sein Ziel in etwas geändert hat, das einen nicht Me'ilah unterwirft , kann man dennoch Me'ilah [darüber] unterworfen sein . Rabbi Yehoshua sagte zu ihm: Nein, Sie beziehen sich auf Kodshai Kodashim , die auf der Südseite [des Altars] geschlachtet und für Kodashim Kalim geschlachtet wurden , und dass er ihr Ziel in etwas geändert hat, das sowohl verbotene als auch erlaubte Dinge umfasst ;; Würden Sie dasselbe über eine Olah sagen, deren Ziel in etwas geändert wurde, das völlig erlaubt ist?
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
ומה חטאת העוף שאין מועלים בה – when he slaughtered it for its sake/name, for it is consumed by the Kohanim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
שינה את שמה – it was disqualified and it does not come to be included in that which is permissible.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
מועלים בה – for Rabbi Yehoshua himself did not dispute this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
לדבר שיש בו מעילה – for the sake/name of a burnt-offering.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
בדבר שכולו היתר – with the sin-offering of birds which has no side of religious sacrilege. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.
