Zevachim 64b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

The circuit

that the High Priest would make

on foot

he would make, and the libations were not in his hand until he came to the place where one pours the libations, because they were concerned lest they spoil there; and the High Priest is different who has a mitzva to make the circuit because he came to the altar to burn the burnt-offering as well, which is not so with an ordinary priest who was allotted by the lottery only the pouring of the wine: he immediately goes up to the place of the pouring with the libations in his hand and returns on his tracks.

Rava said: It is also precise

that the Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that the priest—the High Priest—did not make the circuit while the wine was in his hand,

as it teaches

in the Mishna:

“They gave him wine to pour,” and it does not teach: “He says to him: Pour!” Infer from this

that it is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that they give him the wine only when he reaches the place of the pouring, which is at the southwestern corner.

The Sages taught: All those who ascend to the altar ascend by way of the right and descend by way of the left; they ascend by way of the east

of the ramp, which is close to the right side, because they were destined to turn to the right, and why should they lengthen their walk on the ramp? For if they were to walk on the western side of the ramp, then, when they needed to turn to the right of the altar, they would need to cross the entire width of the ramp, and this is not proper;

and

when they

descend

on the ramp from the altar, they descend

by way of the west, except for those who ascend for these three matters, who ascend by way of the west and descend by way of the west; they ascend by way of the right and descend by way of the right.

And we challenge: Why is it written in the baraita that they ascend

by way of the right,

when

it is the left way

by which he ascends, since when the man faces the altar, the west of the ramp is on his left?

Rava said: Teach

that you should indeed read in the baraita: When they ascend, they ascend by way of the

left.

Ravina said:

Do not read in the baraita that they ascend by way of the left. And what is difficult for you—after all, when they ascend it is by way of the left—we shall answer as follows:

What is “right”

that the baraita stated? Its meaning is:

the right of the altar,

and since the face of the altar is toward the south, the right of the altar is toward the west.

And what is “left”

that the baraita stated at the beginning, that all those who descend descend by way of the left? We shall explain: It is

the left of the person.

The person's left, and the west of the ramp is on the person's left.

And we challenge the explanation of Rava:

And let it teach

in the baraita

either both this and that

at the beginning and at the end, right and left

of the altar, or

let it say

both this and that

at the beginning and at the end, right and left

of the person,

and why did the tan[n]ay state one manner in two different expressions?

It is difficult!

Mishna:

The bird sin-offering—how was it performed?

He pinched its head

of the sin-offering

opposite its nape

the back side of the head is called the “nape,” and below it, lower down toward the body, is called “opposite the nape,”

and he does not sever

the head from the body; rather, he cuts the spine and the neck-bone and most of the flesh until he reaches the esophagus or the windpipe, and pinches only one of the two organs This is Rashi's view that severing in a bird sin-offering means pinching two organs. And in tractate Hullin [21a, s.v. “and he does not sever”] he explained his method well: Everything that he pinches beyond what is needed for the offering's fitness is called severing. And since the slaughtering of a bird is with one organ, consequently the pinching of the second organ, since it is not needed for the offering's fitness, is called severing. And Rashi asked: Is not most of one organ sufficient for the slaughtering of a bird? If so, even one complete organ should also be considered severing [since most is sufficient]. Rashi answered that initially a complete organ is required, and therefore completing the pinching of the first organ is not severing. But the second organ is not needed even initially, and therefore its pinching is called severing. But the view of Maimonides is that the slaughtering of a bird is initially with two organs. Indeed, Maimonides explains that severing in a bird sin-offering does not depend on the organs, but on separating the head from the body. And the Shita Mekubetzet here also asked Rashi's question: Since the fitness of a bird is achieved with most of one organ, how is it permitted to complete the organ? He answered that initially a complete organ is required. He then asked again: Is not two organs likewise required initially [as Maimonides holds], and why are two organs called severing? Therefore he retracted and answered that it is permitted to complete one organ, for it is logical that once he has begun it, he may complete it.

And he holds the bird,

and dashes it against the wall of the altar

below the red line, and after the sprinkling he brings and presses the place of its pinching against the altar, and then

the remainder of the blood was squeezed out

was pressed out and descends

onto the base.

A bird sin-offering,

only

does

its blood ascend to the altar, and all of it 93 ,

all its flesh apart from the blood, was

for the priests.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

From the verse

“And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering”

we learn that the sprinkling is performed

from the body of the sin-offering

itself and not with a vessel or with a finger.

How then

is this sprinkling performed?

He holds the head and the body, and sprinkles on the wall of the altar, and not on the wall of the ramp, and not on the wall of the Sanctuary, and not on the wall of the Entrance Hall. And which

wall of the altar on which did he sprinkle?

This is the lower wall

below the red line of the altar.

You say the lower wall, or is it only

that he sprinkled on

the upper wall

of the altar?

And it is a logical inference,

for it can be learned by a kal va-chomer that the sprinkling of a bird sin-offering is performed on the upper wall:

And what of an animal, whose burnt-offering

has its blood thrown

below,

even so the blood of

its sin-offering

of an animal is thrown

above;

if so,

a bird, whose burnt-offering

is performed

above, is it not logical that its sin-offering

should be performed

above?

And why did you say that a bird sin-offering is performed below?

The verse teaches

from what is written concerning a bird sin-offering in the verse

“And what remains of the blood shall be squeezed out onto the base of the altar,”

we learn that the sprinkling of a bird sin-offering is on

a wall whose remainder is squeezed out onto the base, and which is that?

The wall whose remainder is squeezed out onto the base—surely this is

the lower wall.

For if he sprinkles on the upper wall, sometimes the blood reaches the surrounding ledge that separates the upper half of the altar wall from the lower half, and it does not reach the base.

It is still difficult: From where do we learn from this verse that the first sprinkling was performed on the lower wall?

And

perhaps

we shall perform it from above

the first sprinkling above, and the verse's statement that the blood will be squeezed out onto the base would be fulfilled by

then we shall perform

the squeezing

from below

on the lower wall.

Rava said: Is it written

in the verse

“he shall squeeze out”

when, surely,

“it shall be squeezed out” is written

in the verse? If “he shall squeeze out” had been written, it would have implied that the priest was instructed to return and perform an act of squeezing after the sprinkling, and it would have been possible to say that the sprinkling is in one place and the squeezing in another place. But since

“it shall be squeezed out” is written, it implies

that he sprinkles in the place where

automatically

the blood will be squeezed out onto the base, and this is the lower wall.

Rav Zutra bar Tovia said that Rav said: How does one pinch a bird sin-offering?

He holds

the

two wings

of the bird

with two fingers

between the middle finger and the index finger,

and

the

two

legs

of the bird he holds

with two fingers

between the little finger and the ring finger,

and stretches its neck across the width of

a

thumb [his thumb] ,

его большого пальца] ,

and pinches it.

In a baraita it was taught:

When he would pinch the bird sin-offering, he held it when

the bird

was

outside—

outside his hand, on the back of the hand—and he turned the face of the bird toward the back of the hand, so that the nape would be above;

he holds

its

wings

of the bird

with two fingers

of the priest,

and the two legs

of the bird

with two fingers

of the priest,

and stretches its neck across the width of his two fingers and pinches it.

And this

pinching

is a difficult service in the Temple.

And we challenge:

This is

a service that is difficult in the Temple,

and nothing else

that is difficult in the Temple?

But there is

the service of

taking the handful

of the meal-offering, which was a difficult service, since one had to take care that the handful not be heaped, because an excess handful is invalid; and likewise one had to take care that the handful not be deficient, because a deficient handful is invalid, and he would remove the remainder from the handful with his thumb above and little finger below,

and

there is also the service of

taking a handful

of the fine incense of Yom Kippur, which was a difficult service, since he needed precisely the full handfuls.

And we answer: In truth, pinching alone was not the only difficult service in the Temple;

rather, say

in the baraita:

This

pinching was

a service

most

difficult of the services

the other

difficult services that

were

in the Temple.

Mishna:

The bird burnt-offering—how was it performed? He ascended

the serving priest

to the ramp

because the bird burnt-offering is performed above on the altar,

and turned

the priest

to the surrounding ledge; he came to the southeastern corner

for although pinching is valid also at another corner of the altar, nevertheless, initially he would pinch at the southeastern corner because it was near the ash heap, to which he would throw its crop and feathers.

He would pinch its head opposite its nape and sever

cutting the two organs

he squeezed out

its blood on the wall of the altar

above.

He took the head and made the circuit

of

the place of its pinching around the altar

bringing it close and pressing it against the wall of the altar so that the blood would be squeezed out,

and absorbed it

the head; he wiped it

with salt

found at the top of the altar,

and threw it

onto

the burning pieces.

He came to the body and removed the crop and the feathers and the entrails that came out with them, and threw them to the ash heap

a place that was on the east of the ramp, where each morning they placed the removal of the ashes; and there he threw the crop, the feathers, and the entrails.

He split

the bird with his hand between its wings

but did not sever

completely between the parts of the body of the burnt-offering, so that the body still remained connected.

And if he severed it

it is valid

since the change was performed after the blood services, and therefore it does not invalidate.

He absorbed

the body

with salt, and threw it

onto the burning pieces.

If

he did not remove

the

crop, and

likewise if

he did not

remove the

feathers, and

likewise if

he did not

remove

the entrails that come out with them, and

likewise if

he did not absorb them in salt,

it is valid, because

everything that he changed in it

and the change was

after he had squeezed out its blood is valid.

But a change in the service performed before the squeezing invalidates it. Therefore, if he

severed

the two organs

in the sin-offering

of the bird,

and did not

]

sever

the two organs

in

the pinching of the

burnt-offering, it is invalid.

If he squeezed out the blood of the head but did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is invalid 101 ,

but if he squeezed out

the blood of the body but did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid.

The bird sin-offering that he pinched

and the priest who pinched it thought, at the time of the pinching, an intention

not for its sake,

or that he

drained its blood

and at the time of the draining thought an intention

not for its sake, or

that he thought an intention

for its sake and

an intention

not for its sake

together,

or

that he thought an intention

not for its sake and

an intention

for its sake

together,

it is invalid,

for we learned in the Mishna [at the beginning of the tractate] that an intention not for its sake disqualifies a sin-offering, and there is no distinction in this between an animal sin-offering and a bird sin-offering.

But if he thought an intention not for its sake during the services of the

bird burnt-offering, it is valid, provided that it did not count for its owners as their obligation

according to the law of an animal burnt-offering, in which an intention not for its sake does not disqualify it.

Whether a bird sin-offering or a bird burnt-offering, when he pinched them and drained their

blood

with the intention

of eating something whose way is to be eaten —

this is a sin-offering.

And of burning

or he thought with the intention of burning

something whose way is to be burned

— this is a burnt-offering.

Outside its place, it is invalid, but there is no karet for it,

and if he thought to eat or burn

outside its time, it is piggul and one is liable to karet for it, provided that he offers

the

permitting act

of the offering

according to its mitzva.

How was the permitting act performed according to its mitzva?

If

he pinched silently,

without thinking an improper intention during the service of pinching,

and drained the blood

with the intention

outside its time, or he pinched

with the intention

outside its time and drained

the

blood silently, or he pinched and drained the blood

with the intention

outside its time —

this is how the permitting act was performed according to its mitzva!

How was the permitting act not performed according to its mitzva? He pinched

with the intention

outside its place and drained the blood

with the intention

outside its time, or he pinched

with the intention

outside its time and drained the blood

with the intention

outside its place, or he pinched and drained the blood

with the intention

outside its place,