Комментарий к Зебахим 6:8

קדשי קדשים כאילו נשחטו בצפון – as it is written (Exodus 20:21): “[Make for me an altar of earth] and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your sacrifices of well-being (i.e., peace-offerings),” all of it is fit/appropriate for a burnt offering and all of it is fit for peace-offerings/sacrifices of well-being, but even though the burnt-offering is required in the north.

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the top of the altar: Rabbi Yose says: it is as though they were slaughtered in the north. Rabbi Yose son of Rabb Judah says: from the middle of the altar southward is as south, from the middle of the altar northward is as the north. We already learned in the previous chapter that most-holy sacrifices (the olah, hatat and asham) are slaughtered north of the altar. Our mishnah discusses what happens if the priest slaughters one of these sacrifices on top of the altar. According to Rabbi Yose this is sufficient to validate the sacrifice, since the top of the altar counts as the north of the altar. Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Judah divides the altar in half if the sacrifice was slaughtered on the northern half, then it is valid, but if on the southern half it is not valid.

מחצי המזבח ולצפון כצפון (from the midpoint [above] the altar to the north is deemed equivalent to the north)- for it implies that one-half of it is for your burnt-offerings and one-half of it is for your sacrifices of well-being. But if you were to think that all of it is for the burnt-offering, it is fit/appropriate, now that all of it is for the burnt-offering you stated that it is fit/appropriate, [or] all of it for sacrifices of well-being/peace-offerings, it requires that their slaughtering is in every place. And the other one (i.e., the burnt-offering), requires, you might think, that regarding the burnt-offering its place is pressed, that it would not be acceptable in other directions, but sometimes when the burnt-offerings are many and the place [for offering] is narrow for them, therefore, the top of the altar was made fit but sacrifices of well-being/peace-offerings where the place [for offering] is not pressed, the top of the altar was not made fit [for these sacrifices], it comes to tell us that this is incorrect. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi.

The fistfuls of meal-offerings were taken in any part of the Temple court, and they [the minhah-offerings] were eaten within the curtains, by male priests, prepared in any manner, on the same day and night, until midnight. The mishnah has now completed the topic of animal sacrifices and is moving on to other things that are offered in the Temple. Out of minhah offerings (grain) are removed fistfuls of flour and they are burned on the altar (see Leviticus 2:1-3). The removal of the fistful from the minhah can be done anywhere in the Temple court, and not just on the northern side of the altar. The minhah itself (not the fistful) is eaten by male priests (and not their households) within the Temple confines. It can be cooked in any manner, but it must be eaten by midnight of the day it was brought.

היו נקמצות בכל מקום – and they don’t require being in the north, for Scripture did not establish a place for taking a fistful of the meal offering.

לפנים מן הקלעים לזכרי כהונה – as it is written (Numbers 18:9): “[This shall be yours from the most holy sacrifices, the gifts:] every such gift that they render to Me as most holy sacrifices, namely, every grain offering, [purification offering, and reparation offering of theirs, shall belong to you and your sons],” and adjoining it (verse 10): “You shall partake of them in as most sacred donations: only males may eat them.”

ליום ולילה עד חצות – we derive it from the meal-offering of the thanksgiving breads.

חטאת העוף היתה נעשית בקן מערבית דרומית 0 because that the meal-offering of a sinner is called a sin-offering, as it is written regarding the meal-offering of a sinner (Leviticus 5:11): “he shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a purification (i.e., sin) offering.” And it implies also that a sin-offering is called a meal-offering, for a sin-offering turns into a meal-offering for the poorest of the poor, and the meal-offering we found that it requires offering in the southwestern corner, as it is written (Leviticus 6:7): “[And this is the ritual of the grain offering:] Aaron’s sons shall present it before the LORD, in front of the altar,” which direction is it that is “before the LORD” and” in front of the altar?” It would say that this is the southwestern direction, for “before the LORD” is westward, and the “front of the altar” is the south, for there was the inclined plane leading to the altar, and just as the meal-offering requires bringing near in the southwestern corner, even the sin-offering of fowl, its Divine service is in the southwestern corner. And the sprinkling of its blood is the essence of its Divine service.

Introduction Our mishnah begins to deal with bird offerings. There are two types of bird offerings: the hatat and the olah.

מכל מקום היתה כשרה – for the pinching of the bird’s head.

The hatat of a bird was sacrificed by the southwest horn [of the altar]. The sacrifice of a bird consists of plucking off its head and then sprinkling its blood on the altar. These were both done on the southwest horn (or corner) of the altar.

אלא זה היה מקומה – for the sprinkling of its blood. And such is how they explain it in the Gemara (see Talmud Zevakhim 63b).

It is valid [if done] in any place, but this was its [particular] place. The mishnah notes that this is where the bird hatat was supposed to be done, but it didn’t have to be done there. If it was done elsewhere it is still valid.

מלמטה – below the red line (i.e., a line painted in red encircling the Temple altar at precisely half its height – because the blood of animal sin-offerings and birds brought as burnt-offerings were sprinkled on the upper portion of the altar, above the red line, whereas the blood of all other sacrifices was sprinkled on the lower portion, below the red line).

That horn served for three things below, and three things above: Below: for the hatat of the bird, For the presenting [of meal-offerings]. And for the residue of the blood. There were six sacrificial actions performed on this corner of the altar, three of which were performed above the crimson line in the middle of the altar and three below. The bird hatat, the main topic of our mishnah, was performed below the line. The minhah (meal) offerings were presented, meaning drawn near, to the altar, at this corner, below the line. Also, the residue of the blood from animal sacrifices was poured out on the southern base (yesod) at this corner (see above 5:3).

הגשות – [bring near] of meal offerings (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 5) prior to their taking a fistful of the meal offerings, as it is written (Leviticus 2:6): “[When you present to the LORD a grain offering that is made in any of these ways, it shall be brought to the priest] who shall take it up to the altar.”

Above: for the pouring out of wine and water, and for the olah of a bird when there was too much on the east. There were three actions above the line at this corner. The first two are the libations, liquids poured out onto the altar. There are two such libations. The water libation which occurs only on Sukkot (see Sukkah 4:9) and the wine libation, which was done frequently as an accompaniment to animal sacrifices. In addition, usually the bird olah was done on the southeastern corner of the altar. But if there were too many bird olahs and the southeastern corner became busy, they would offer the extra on the southwestern corner.

ושיירי הדם (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3) – of the outer sin offerings, he would pour [the remnants of the blood] to the southern foundation, as we derived in the chapter [five of Tractate Zevakhim, Mishnah 3 – Talmud Zevakhim 53a].

ניסוך המים – on the holiday of Sukkot (see Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 9).

והיין – on each day, for there were the pits by the side of the altar into which the remainder of the libations were poured (see also Tractate Meilah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3 and Talmud Meilah 11a) and it was not possible to offer libations other than there.

ועולת העוף כשהיא רבה במזרח – for he essence of its place was in the southeastern corner, because it was close to the place of the ashes to throw there its crop (of the bird) and its feathers, as it is written (Leviticus 1:16): “[He shall remove its crop with its contents,[ and cast it into the place of the ashes, [at the east side of the altar].” But when it is abundant there, that there are many Kohanim in that corner engaged with burnt-offerings, but there isn’t space for this to stand on the surrounding ledge (i.e., five cubits above the altar’s base, six cubits from the ground. It was one cubit wide on all sides surrounding the altar.) for the burnt-offering of fowl was done above, when he came to the southwestern corner, where even it was close to the place of the ashes more than the other two corners, for the place of the ashes was near the ramp in the eastern side of the ramp and to the south of the altar.

ומקיפים דרך שמאל – cause to go around the Altar for the needs of the Divine Service. Such as for example to bringing of the blood of the sin-offerings and for the arrangement of the pile of wood on the altar or to turn over the limbs with a hook/curved pin. And the descend on the western side of the ramp which is on the left of those who ascend to the altar in their coming up.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the three offerings mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah the water and wine libations and the extra bird olahs.

חוץ מן העולה לג' דברים אלו – that are done in the southwestern corner, which are libation of the water, and the wine and the burnt-offering of the fowl, and when he goes up to the altar, he turns to the surrounding ledge to the left in that corner and when he goes back the same way (see Tractate Zevahim 63b) on the path that he came up. With the libation of the water and wine, lest it be affected by smoke in the smoke of the altar while he is turning to the right and surrounding to the left and they will cause them to lose their taste and their fragrance, but we require (Numbers 28:31): “see that they are without blemish-with their libations,” that their libations will be pure. And the burnt-offering of the fowl also lest it be affected by the smoke and it dies.

All who ascended the altar, ascended by the right, then they went round [the altar] and descended by the left, except for these three, who ascended and descended by retracing their steps. The ramp was on the southern side of the altar. Usually a priest would ascend the southern side of the altar and then walk around to the right of the altar, its eastern side, and then turn towards the left, or western side of the altar and make his way back down. In other words, he would arrive at the southeastern corner first and the southwestern corner last. For things done on the southwestern corner, the priest did not have to circle the entire altar. Rather, he could just go up the left side, immediately arrive at the southwestern corner, and when done come right back. Perhaps this was a traffic-saving device, meant to prevent too many priests from having to circle the entire altar. The problem would be that priests would be walking in opposite directions, but I guess they somehow managed that problem.

היה מולק את ראשה (pinch the bird’s neck with the finger nail) – he would hold its two wings with his two fingers the span from the little finger to the thumb of a spread hand and a fistful of the meal-offering in his left hand, and the bird on the side of his hand and the face of the bird to the side of the back of his hand, that the neck would be above, and he stretches/extends its neck of the throat on the width of his two fingers, the index finger and the arm and he pinches with his finger nail. And this is one of the hardest forms of Divine service that is in the Temple.

How was the hatat of a bird sacrificed?
He pinches off its head behind its neck, but he did not sever it.
And he would sprinkle its blood on the wall of the altar.
The residue of the blood was drained out on the base.
Only the blood belonged to the altar, while the rest of it belonged to the priests.
Our mishnah continues to provide instructions as to how the bird hatat was sacrificed.
Section one: Birds are not slaughtered to be sacrifices in the same way that birds are slaughtered to be eaten. To make a bird kosher, the shochet slices its neck, the same way that he does for an animal. But for sacrificing, the priest pinches off its head off with his thumbnail from the back of the bird’s neck. See Leviticus 5:8-9. He does not sever the head entirely from the body, just separates it by pinching it off.
Sections two-three: After pinching off its head, he sprinkles the blood out of the bird onto the wall of the altar. Note that its blood is not received in a ministering vessel. The residue of the blood is squeezed out of the bird onto the base of the altar.
Section four: The rest of the bird was eaten by priests only the blood was put on the altar.

ואינו מבדיל – [and he doesn’t separate] the head from the body, but rather severs the spinal column and the nape and most of its flesh is with it until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe and takes one organ alone and pinches the bird’s neck with his finger nail, as it is written (Leviticus 5:8) “[He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the purification offering, pinching its head at the nape] without severing it.” (see Talmud Zevakhim 65b)

ומזה מדמה – he holds the bird/fowl and sprinkles. For he does not sprinkle neither with a utensil or with a finger, but with the body of the bird/fowl.

היה מתמצה (drains/empties out) – that he offers up the place in the bird’s neck to the altar and presses it on the wall and the blood drains out and goes down to the base [of the altar]. For regarding the sin-offering of the fowl/bird, it is written (Leviticus 5:9): “He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the purification offering on the side of the altar and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar,” Which wall do the remnants belong to and he drains out the blood to the base of the altar? I would say that this is the lowest wall, that is from the red line and below, for if it was the upper wall, that is from the red line and above, sometimes it (i.e., the blood) would drain out to the surrounding ledge, for since he would make it above the surrounding ledge that the red line is below the surrounding ledge by a cubit.

עלה בכבש – since the burnt-offering of the fowl is done above, for it is not written [in Scripture] regarding the burnt-offering of the fowl/bird is in the base of the altar, but rather, only the sin-offering of the fowl/bird. But with the cattle it is the opposite, for the sin-offering of cattle is performed above [the red line] as it is written regarding it (Leviticus 4:18): “[Some of the blood he shall put] on the horns of the altar [which is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting],” and the burnt offering of the cattle is below [the red line], as it is written (Leviticus 4:18): “ [and all the rest of the blood he shall pour out] at the base of the altar of burnt offering, [which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” [Scripture] assigned the base [of the altar] to the burnt-offering.

How was the olah of a bird sacrificed?
He [the priest] ascended the ramp, and turned to the surrounding walkway, and made his way to the southeast horn.
There he pinched its head at the back of the neck, and severed it, and drained out its blood on the wall of the altar.
He took the head, turned the part where it was nipped to the altar, saturated it with salt, and threw it on to the fires [of the altar].
Then he came to the body, and removed the crop, the feathers, and the entrails that came out of it, and threw them on to the burning place. He tore [the body], but did not sever it in half, but if he did sever it, it is still valid. Then he saturated it [the body] with salt, and threw it on to the fires of the altar.
This mishnah provides instructions as to how the bird olah was sacrificed. Some of this mishnah does not need explanation, so I have commented only upon the sections that I felt require it.
Section three: After having slaughtered the bird by pinching its head off at the back of the neck, the priest severs the head off of the body (see Leviticus 1:15-17).
Section four: The first thing he takes care of is the head. He drains its blood by turning the point at which it was pinched toward the altar. Then he salts it very well until it is saturated (see Leviticus 2:13). After it has been salted, he can throw the head onto the altar so it can be burned.
Section five: Now he must take care of the body. He removes the parts that are not to be offered on the altar (Leviticus 1:16), the crop, the feathers and the entrails and then he throws them on the “Bet Hamoked”, the burning place where parts of animals that are not burned on the altar are burned. This was on the southern side of the altar.
He then tears the body at its wings, but he tries not to sever it in half (Leviticus 1:17). Finally, he salts the body and burns it on the altar.

בא לו לקרן דרומית מזרחית – because it is close to the place of the ashes where they cast the crop of the birds and the down-covered skin [with the entrails that go along with it].

ממול ערפה – opposite one who sees its neck. And it is the back of the neck. But even though it doesn’t say regarding a burnt-offering, “opposite the neck,” we learned from it, opposite the neck from the sin-offering.

ומבדיל – he severs two organs, from what is written in the sin-offering of the fowl/bird (Leviticus 1:17): “[The priest shall tear it open by its wings,] without severing it, [and turn it into smoke on the altar,” we learned that with the burnt-offering of a fowl/bird, he severs it.

והקיף בית מליקתו למזבח – he offers it up and presses the place in the bird’s neck to the wall of the altar in order that the blood will drain out.

ספגו במלח – the language of drawn water and taking, like absorbing/receiving the forty [i.e., thirty-nine] lashes. Even here, he places upon it salt in order that the head will stretch and receive the salt. Another explanation: the word "ספגו" with a letter ג' is like סופק with a letter ק' (i.e., to supply an opportunity, to be sufficient) , the language of (Numbers 24:10): “[Engraged at Balaam,] Balak struck his hands together.”

מוראה – the bird’s crop.

נוצה – he cuts through it like a sort of aperture and takes all the skin and the feathers/down (i.e., plumage) that is opposite the bird’s crop with the crop and casts it off.

שסע – [tears open] the bird between the wings but he does not sever it.

הבדיל בחטאת – that he pinched the bird’s neck with his finger nail two organs with the sin-offering.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that if the priest deviates from some of the above instructions regarding the bird sacrifices, the sacrifice might still be valid. But if he deviates from others, they invalidate the sacrifice.

או לא הבדיל בעולה – that he pinched with it one organ.

If he did not remove the crop or the feathers or the entrails which came out of it, or did not dry it with salt, or made any other deviation after he had drained the blood out, it is still valid. The general rule here is quite clear if he makes any changes from the prescribed way of acting after he has drained out the blood, then the sacrifice is still valid.

פסול – for every kind of difference prior to the [Divine] service with the blood is invalid.

If he severed the [head of the] hatat or did not sever the olah, it is unfit. However, if he makes some changes before the blood is drained, such as severing the head of the hatar, or not severing the head of the olah, the sacrifice is invalid. It seems that the sacrifice is validated by the blood being drained out, and therefore deviations that occur before that moment can invalidate the sacrifice whereas those that occur after cannot.

ולא מיצה דם הגוף פסולה – for the essence of the blood is in the body, where it is found.

If he drained out the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body, it is unfit; The blood of the body, but not the blood of the head, it is fit. As far as the blood is concerned, the rule is that he must drain the blood out of the body, for that is where most of the blood is. If he does not do so, the sacrifice is invalid. He should also drain the blood out of the head, but if he does not, the sacrifice is still valid.

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.