פירוש על זבחים 6:7

חטאת העוף שמלקה שלא לשמה – pinching of the neck of the fowl in place of the slaughtering for cattle, and the draining of the blood of the fowl in place of the sprinkling of the blood of the cattle. For the intention that invalidates the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood in cattle invalidates the pinching of the neck of the bird and in the draining of the blood in a fowl/bird. But there is no receiving and bringing [of blood] in the fowl/bird.

Introduction This mishnah introduces the problem of a sacrifice not sacrificed with the correct intent in connection with bird sacrifices. Many of these same rules can be found in the first four chapters of the tractate in connection with the animal sacrifices.

עולת העוף כשרה – as it is taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of the first chapter [of Tractate Zevakhim, Mishnah 1]: “All of the animal offerings which were slaughtered not for their own sake are valid [so that the blood is tossed and the entrails burned, etc.] , but they do not go to the owner’s credit in fulfillment of an obligation, except for the Passover offering and the sin-offering.”

If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. In all of these cases the priest offering the bird hatat performed one of the actions with the intention that the offering be something other than a hatat. Such an intention invalidates the sacrifice, but only in the case of the hatat. In the case of the bird olah, the animal can still be burned on the altar. Nevertheless, it doesn’t count for its owners, so they will have to bring a replacement bird olah. This is the same rule we saw with regard to animal olahs (see 1:3).

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול – the sin-offering of the fowl/bird.

A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. If the priest nips off the head of either bird sacrifice or drains the blood with the intention of either eating something or burning something outside of the proper place (meaning outside of the Temple) then the sacrifice is invalid (see mishnayot 2:3-5). However, an intention concerning the wrong place does not make the sacrifice piggul, and the person who eats it is not liable for the punishment of karet. If he nips off the head or drains the blood with the intention of eating or burning it after the appropriate time, then the sacrifice is piggul and one who eats it liable for karet. The one caveat is that in order for the sacrifice to be piggul and for the one who eats it to be liable for karet the “mattir” has to be offered correctly. What this means, as we shall see, is that if both problematic intentions are involved with the sacrifice, then the sacrifice is not piggul, although it is still invalid. It is piggul only if the only type of wrong intention involved in the sacrifice was eating it after the appropriate time.

להקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר – the burnt-offering of the fowl/bird.

How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. The mishnah now illustrates what the previous line means. One of the actions was done in silence, meaning with correct intention, and the other of the actions was done with the intent of eating it after its appropriate time, or if both actions were done with the intent of eating at the wrong time, then the sacrifice is piggul, because the only wrong intention was with regard to time.

שלא לשמה – we don’t remove a burnt-offering from improper intention, because it is fit/acceptable when it is not for its own sake. And all of our Mishnah is explained above in chapter two, [Mishnah four].

How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. If, however, one of the actions done with the intention of eating it or burning it in the wrong place, and the other action was done with the intention of eating it or burning it after the appropriate time, then it is not piggul. It is also not piggul if both actions were done with the intention of eating it in the wrong place, as we learned in section two above.

[If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. In this section he performs one action (nipping the head or draining the blood) with the intention of eating at least one olive’s worth in the wrong place and one olive’s worth at the wrong time, or in the opposite order, or half an olive’s worth in the wrong place and half an olive’s worth at the wrong time, or in the opposite order. In these cases the sacrifice is invalid, but one who eats it is not liable for karet for two wrong intentions were involved in this sacrifice. The order of the wrong intentions, according to this opinion, doesn’t matter. As long as the two different improper intentions were mixed up in one sacrifice, the sacrifice is not piggul and the one who eats it is not liable for karet.

Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. According to Rabbi Judah, the order of the wrong intentions is significant. If the wrong intention of time comes first, then the sacrifice is piggul. It is determinative of the ultimate status of the sacrifice, because it came first. If, however, the wrong intention concerning place came first, then it is determinative, and as we learned in section two, the sacrifice is not piggul and one who eats it is not liable for karet. The sages, whose opinion was found in section five, restate their opinion that in neither case is the sacrifice piggul, and one who eats it would not be liable for karet.

[If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine. The situation described here is actually impossible when it comes to the bird hatat, none of it is burned on the altar and it when it comes to the bird olah, none of it is eaten. So with one sacrifice, one could never have a wrong intention to eat half an olive and a wrong intention to burn half an olive. The section is taught because this was possible with animal sacrifices. There and here we learn that wrong intents with regard to eating and burning half an olive’s worth do not join together to fill the requirement for their to be the wrong to intent with regard to an olive’s worth of the flesh.