Chullin 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Just as below, he holds the head and the body and sprinkles

from the blood of the bird sin-offering on the altar,

so too here,

in the bird burnt-offering,

he holds the head and the body and sprinkles.

And the Gemara analyzes this:

What is

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, saying? For it sounds as though he is saying that he must hold both the head and the body in his hand, and it is not sufficient for him to hold only one of them. And from where do we know this with regard to the bird sin-offering?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: Just as below, when he holds the head with the body,

while the head is still attached to the body,

he sprinkles

the blood of the bird sin-offering on the altar, since in its melika he cut only one of the two signs, as it is written: “He shall not divide it.”

So too here,

in the bird burnt-offering,

when he holds the head with the body, he sprinkles.

That is, he should not cut through both signs completely, but only through most of them.

And the beraita continues:

If

it were to be learned entirely from the bird sin-offering, one could say further:

Just as below,

the melika is performed

through one sign, so too here, through one sign? The verse states

with regard to the bird burnt-offering:

“And he shall bring it,”

teaching that it should not be entirely like the bird sin-offering, which requires no separation at all; rather, the bird burnt-offering requires partial separation, by performing melika through most of both signs.

And the Gemara analyzes this:

But the first tanna

of the beraita, who learns that “and he shall bring it” comes to reveal that “according to the law” is stated with regard to an animal sin-offering—and without “and he shall bring it,” I would have said that “according to the law” is stated with regard to a bird sin-offering, meaning that the melika of the bird burnt-offering should be like the melika of the bird sin-offering, through only one sign—can be challenged:

But once we derive it from

what is stated with regard to the bird burnt-offering,

“And he shall perform melika and burn,”

that the verse juxtaposes them, teaching that melika is treated like burning, with the head by itself and the body by itself—that is, in the bird burnt-offering one must cut through both signs completely and not merely through most of them—it follows by kal va-chomer that cutting through only one sign is insufficient. If so, necessarily “according to the law” is not stated with regard to the bird sin-offering but with regard to an animal sin-offering; and if so,

why do I need “and he shall bring it”?

And we answer:

Had the verse not stated “and he shall bring it,” I would have said

that, in fact,

what is the meaning of “according to the law”? According to the law of the bird sin-offering.

For it is logical that the Torah was referring to it, since it is written immediately before the bird burnt-offering.

And if it is because of

the juxtaposition of

“and he shall perform melika and burn,” I would have said

that it is required for another matter, namely:

Just as the burning

is performed

at the top of the altar, so too the melika

is performed

at the top of the altar.

That is, above the midpoint line. And since the juxtaposition is not superfluous, we cannot expound it as well with regard to this matter, that the melika of the bird burnt-offering should be performed through both signs, in order that we could uphold the juxtaposition of “according to the law” in the manner that is more logical, namely, “according to the law of the bird sin-offering,” from which we would derive by contrast that the melika of the bird burnt-offering is performed through only one sign.

Now that the Merciful One has written, “and he shall bring it,”

teaching that the bird burnt-offering differs from the bird sin-offering and that its melika is performed through both signs, it necessarily follows that “according to the law” means according to the law of an animal sin-offering. If so,

expound from it

“and he shall perform melika and burn”

this as well,

that melika and burning are entirely juxtaposed, including with regard to the fact that the melika must be performed through both signs and not merely through most of them.

The Gemara further analyzes the opinion of the first tanna:

With regard to an animal sin-offering, which may come only from non-sacred funds,

and not from second-tithe money,

from where do we derive

this?

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said: For the verse states: “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin-offering that is his.”

And we expound the words “that is his” as teaching that Aaron must bring his bull as the Yom Kippur sin-offering

from his own funds and not from communal funds,

that is, he may not bring it from the funds of the Chamber. And since the phrase “the bull of the sin-offering that is his” is written a second time in the passage, we expound that he must bring the bull from his own funds,

and not from

money of

second-tithe

funds.

The Gemara now analyzes what the first tanna said, that it is learned from an animal sin-offering that the bird burnt-offering may be sacrificed only

by day

and not at night: This law

is derived from “on the day that He commanded”

the children of Israel to sacrifice, which is stated with regard to all offerings, including the bird burnt-offering as well;

it follows

that it may be sacrificed only by day. Why, then, does the first tanna need to learn the law of the bird burnt-offering from an animal sin-offering?

And we answer:

It was mentioned incidentally!

The first tanna mentioned it unnecessarily, along with the other laws, for indeed there is no need to learn this law of “by day” from an animal sin-offering.

And concerning what the first tanna said, that we learn from an animal sin-offering with regard to the fact that the koen may sacrifice the bird burnt-offering only with

his right hand,

we raise the following question: Surely

it follows from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana! For Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Wherever it is stated

in the Temple service

“finger,” or

wherever the verse states

“priesthood,”

meaning that the koen performs the service,

it is only

with the

right hand!

But with regard to the voluntary bird burnt-offering it is stated, “And the koen shall bring it,” from which we know that its service is performed with the right hand. Why, then, does the first tanna need to learn this from an animal sin-offering?

And we answer:

As for the other one,

the first tanna maintains:

“Priesthood” requires “finger”;

wherever “koen” is written, the right hand is required only if “finger” is written there as well. But

“finger” does not require “priesthood”;

wherever only “finger” is written, even if “koen” is not written, the right hand is required for that service. With regard to the bird burnt-offering, only “koen” is stated; therefore, the requirement of the right hand must be learned from an animal sin-offering, where “finger” is also written.

And we challenge this:

But the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

of the beraita, who do not expound in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael that “according to the law” comes to teach that the melika of the bird burnt-offering is performed opposite the nape, if so,

opposite the nape

with regard to the bird burnt-offering,

from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They derive melika from melika.

The melika of the bird burnt-offering is learned through a “what do we find” inference from the melika of the bird sin-offering. Just as the melika of the bird sin-offering is performed opposite the nape, so too, the same law applies to every melika: it is performed only opposite the nape.

Mishna:

Bird offerings come only in two types: a. turtledoves; b. young pigeons. Turtledoves are fit for sacrifice only when they are mature, whereas young pigeons are fit only when they are immature.

It follows that that which is

fit with turtledoves is unfit with young pigeons.

And that which is

fit with young pigeons is unfit with turtledoves.

At the beginning of yellowing,

when the feathers around the neck begin to turn yellow,

in both this and that,

both in turtledoves and in young pigeons,

it is unfit

for sacrifice, because at that point they are in an intermediate stage: they have left the category of immature birds but have not yet reached the category of mature birds. Therefore, turtledoves are unfit because they are not yet mature, and young pigeons are unfit because they are no longer immature.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

The

turtledoves

when they are

mature are fit,

but when they are

immature they are unfit.

The

young pigeons

when they are

immature are fit,

but when they are

mature they are unfit.

It follows

that that which is

fit with turtledoves is unfit with young pigeons,

and that which is

fit with young pigeons is unfit with turtledoves.

The Sages taught: “Turtledoves”

stated by the Torah means only

mature ones and not immature ones.

And below it will be explained how this is indicated.

One might have thought

that if “turtledoves” had not been written in the Torah, from which we learn that only mature turtledoves are fit, I could have said that immature turtledoves are fit as well, by means of a kal va-chomer:

Is this not an a fortiori inference: