Chullin 22a — the Talmud in English

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

from the blood of the bird hatat on the altar,

so too here,

in the bird olah,

he holds the head and the body and sprinkles.

And the Gemara asks:

What is he saying

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon? For it sounds as though he says that he should hold the head and the body, both of them, within his handful, and it is not sufficient that he hold one of them. And from where did we know this concerning the bird hatat?

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 hatat on the altar, for in its melika he cut only one sign, as it is written, “He shall not divide it.”

So too here,

in the bird olah,

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

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

And the beraita continues:

If

it were to be learned entirely from the bird hatat, one could say further:

Just as below,

the melika

is performed on one sign, so too here, on one sign? The verse says

in the bird olah,

“And he shall bring it,”

to teach that it should not be entirely like the bird hatat, which requires no division at all; rather, the bird olah requires a partial division, by performing melika on the majority of both signs.

And the Gemara asks:

And the first tanna

of the beraita, who learns that “and he shall bring it” comes to reveal concerning “according to the law” that it is stated with regard to the animal hatat—and without “and he shall bring it,” I would have said that “according to the law” is stated with regard to the bird hatat, meaning that the melika of the bird olah should be like the melika of the bird hatat, with only one sign—there is a difficulty:

But since we derive it from

what is stated concerning the bird olah,

“And he shall perform melika and burn it,”

for Scripture compares them, to say that the law of melika is like that of burning, with the head by itself and the body by itself—that is, one must cut through both signs of the bird olah completely and not merely their majority—all the more so, one sign alone is insufficient. If so, necessarily “according to the law” was not stated with regard to the bird hatat but with regard to the animal hatat; and if so,

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

And we answer:

Were it not for “and he shall bring it,” I would have said

always,

what is “according to the law”? According to the law of the bird hatat.

For it is reasonable that the Torah intended it with regard to it, since it is written immediately before the bird olah.

And if it is because of

the comparison of

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

that it is required for another matter, to say:

Just as burning

is performed

at the top of the altar, so too melika

shall be performed

at the top of the altar.

That is, above the sikra line. And since the comparison is not superfluous, we cannot expound it also with regard to this matter—that the melika of the bird olah should be on two signs—in order that through this we could uphold the comparison of “according to the law” in the manner that is more reasonable, namely, “according to the law of the bird hatat,” from which we would learn by inversion that the melika of the bird olah is on only one sign.

Now that the Merciful One wrote, “And he shall bring it,”

to say that the bird olah differs from the bird hatat and its melika is on two signs, necessarily “according to the law” means according to the law of the animal hatat. If so,

expound from it

from “and he shall perform melika and burn it”

also this,

that melika and burning were compared entirely, including with regard to this: melika must be performed on both signs completely and not merely on their majority.

The Gemara further asks according to the first tanna:

An animal hatat, which comes only from unconsecrated funds,

and not from money of maaser sheni,

from where do we know

this?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said: For the verse says, “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the hatat that is his.”

And we expound from “that is his”: Scripture teaches that Aaron should bring his hatat bull on Yom Kippur

from his own, and not from that of the public,

that is, he should not bring it from the contribution to the chamber. And since it is written a second time in the passage, “the bull of the hatat that is his,” we expound that he should bring the bull from his own,

and not from

money of

second tithe

money.

And now the Gemara discusses what the first tanna said, that we learn concerning the bird olah that it is sacrificed only

during the day

from an animal hatat: Surely this law

is derived from “On the day He commanded”

the Children of Israel to bring offerings,” which is stated with regard to all offerings, including the bird olah as well,

it is derived,

this law that it is sacrificed only during the day; and why does the first tanna need to learn the bird olah from the animal hatat?

And we answer:

It was brought incidentally!

The first tanna mentioned it gratuitously, along with the other laws, for indeed there is no need to learn this law of “during the day” from the animal hatat.

And concerning that which the first tanna said, that we learn the bird olah from the animal hatat with regard to the fact that the priest sacrifices it only with

his right hand,

we inquire: Surely

it is derived from Rabba bar bar Hana! For Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Wherever it is stated

in the service of the offerings

“finger,” or

where it is stated in Scripture

“priesthood,”

that the priest should perform the service

is only

with the

right

hand! And surely concerning a voluntary bird olah it is stated, “And the priest shall bring it,” and from this we know that its service is performed with the right hand; why does the first tanna need to learn it from the animal hatat?

And we answer:

But the other one,

the first tanna, maintains:

“Priesthood” requires “finger”;

where “priest” is written, the right hand is required only if “finger” is also written there. But

“finger” does not require “priesthood”;

where “finger” alone is written, even if “priest” is not written, the right hand is required for its service. And concerning the bird olah only “priest” is stated, therefore the right hand must be learned for it from the animal hatat, concerning which “finger” is also written.

And we object:

And the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

of the beraita, who do not expound like Rabbi Yishmael that “according to the law” comes to teach that the melika of the bird olah is performed opposite the nape—if so,

opposite the nape

in the bird olah,

from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They derive melika from melika.

The melika of the bird olah is learned through “what do we find” from the melika of the bird hatat. Just as in the bird hatat the melika is opposite the nape, so too the law applies to every melika: it is performed only opposite the nape.

Mishna:

Bird offerings come only from two types: a. turtledoves; b. young pigeons. Turtledoves are fit for offering only when they are large, whereas young pigeons are fit only when they are small.

It follows that that which is

fit among turtledoves is unfit among young pigeons.

And that which is

fit among young pigeons is unfit among turtledoves.

The beginning of yellowing,

when the feathers around the neck begin to turn yellow, is

in both this and that,

both in turtledoves and in young pigeons,

unfit

for offering, because at that time they are in an intermediate stage: they have left the category of small ones but have not reached the category of large ones. Therefore the turtledoves are unfit, because they are not yet large; and the young pigeons are unfit, because they are no longer small.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

The

turtledoves

when they are

large are fit,

and when they are

small they are unfit.

The

young pigeons

when they are

small are fit,

and when they are

large they are unfit.

It follows:

that which is

fit among turtledoves is unfit among young pigeons,

and that which is

fit among young pigeons is unfit among turtledoves.

The Sages taught: “Turtledoves”

stated by the Torah means only

large ones and not small ones.

And below it will be explained how this is indicated.

One might have thought,

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

Is this not a logical inference: