Zevachim 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The circuit

that the High Priest would make

on foot

he would make without the libations in his hand until he reached the place where the libations were poured, because they were concerned lest they become spoiled there. The High Priest differs from an ordinary priest who has a mitzva to make the circuit because he came to the altar to burn the burnt-offering as well. This is not so with an ordinary priest who won the lottery only for pouring the wine: he immediately proceeds to the place of the libation with the libations in his hand, and then retraces his steps.

Rava said: It is also precise

that the Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that 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 gave him the wine only when he reached the place of the libation, which was at the southwestern corner.

The Sages taught: All those who ascend to the altar ascend on the right and descend on the left; they ascend on the eastern side

of the ramp, which is nearer the right side, because they were going to turn toward the right, and why should they lengthen their route on the ramp? If they were to walk on the western side of the ramp, then, when they needed to turn right at the altar, they would have to cross the entire width of the ramp, and this is not proper.

And

when

they descend

the ramp from the altar, they descend

on the western side. Except for those who ascend for these three matters: They ascend on the western side and descend on the western side; they ascend on the right and descend on the right.

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

on the right

? Is it not the case that

it is the left side

on which one ascends? For when a person faces the altar, the western side of the ramp is on his left.

Rava said: Teach

that the beraita should indeed read: When they ascend, they ascend on the

left.

Ravina said:

Do not teach in the beraita that they ascend on the left. As for your difficulty—when they ascend, is it not the left side?—we can answer as follows:

What is “right”

that the beraita stated? It means:

the right of the altar.

Since the front of the altar faces south, the right of the altar is toward the west.

And what is “left”

that the beraita stated at the beginning, that all those who descend descend on the left? We shall explain that it means

the person’s left.

The western side of the ramp is on the person’s left.

And we challenge Rava’s interpretation:

And let it teach

in the beraita

either both

at the beginning and at the end in terms of the right and left

of the altar, or

let it say

both

at the beginning and at the end in terms of the right and left

of the person.

Why did the tanna state one matter in two different formulations?

The difficulty remains unresolved!

Mishna:

How was the bird sin-offering performed?

He would sever its head

of the sin-offering

opposite its nape.

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

but he would not sever

the head from the body. Rather, he would cut through the spine and the neck and most of the flesh until he reached the esophagus or the trachea, and he would sever only one of the bird’s two simanim.

He holds the bird,

and presses it against the wall of the altar

below the red line. After the sprinkling, he would bring and press the place of its severing against the altar, and then

the remainder of the blood would be drained

and squeezed out, and it would descend

onto the base.

As for the bird sin-offering,

nothing

ascends

to the altar except its blood, 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 from a vessel or with a finger.

How

is this sprinkling performed?

He holds the head and the body and sprinkles on the wall of the altar, but not on the wall of the ramp, nor on the wall of the Sanctuary, nor on the wall of the Entrance Hall. And which

wall of the altar was the one on which he sprinkled?

This is the lower wall,

below the red line of the altar.

You say that it is the lower wall; or perhaps it is only

that he sprinkled on

the upper wall

of the altar?

And it follows logically,

for by means of a kal va-chomer we can learn that the sprinkling of a bird sin-offering is performed on the upper wall:

Just as with an animal, whose burnt-offering

has its blood sprinkled

below,

nevertheless the blood of

its sin-offering

is sprinkled

above,

so

with a bird, whose burnt-offering

is performed

above, is it not all the more so that its sin-offering

should be performed

above?

Why, then, did you say that a bird sin-offering is performed below?

The verse states

with regard to a bird sin-offering:

“And the remainder of the blood shall be drained onto the base of the altar.”

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

a wall whose remainder is drained onto the base; and which is that?

The wall whose remainder is drained onto the base is none other than

the lower wall.

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

But 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 should perform it from above,

the first sprinkling above, and the verse’s statement that the blood would be drained onto the base could be fulfilled by

then performing

the draining

from below,

on the lower wall.

Rava said: Is it written

in the verse

“he shall drain”?

But

“it shall be drained” is written.

Had it been written “he shall drain,” it would have indicated that the priest was instructed to perform a separate act of draining after the sprinkling, and one could have said that the sprinkling was performed in one place and the draining in another. But since the verse says

“it shall be drained,” it indicates

that he sprinkles in a place where

automatically

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

Rav Zutra bar Tuvya said that Rav said: How does one sever a bird sin-offering?

He holds

its

two wings

between

two fingers,

between the middle finger and the index finger,

and

he holds

the two

legs

of the bird

between two fingers,

between the little finger and the ring finger,

and stretches its neck across the width of

a

thumb [his thumb] ,

and severs it.

In a baraita it was taught:

When he severed the bird sin-offering, he held it with

the bird

situated

outside

—outside his hand, on the back of the hand—and he turned the bird’s face toward the back of the hand so that its nape would be uppermost.

He holds

its

wings

of the bird

between two fingers

of the priest,

and the two legs

of the bird

between two fingers

of the priest,

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

And this

severing

is the most difficult service in the Temple.

And we challenge this:

This is

the service that is difficult in the Temple,

and no other?

Is there nothing else

for there is

the service of

kemitza

of the meal-offering, which was a difficult service, since one had to take care that the kemitza not be heaped, because an excessive kemitza is invalid, and likewise one had to take care that the kemitza not be deficient, because a deficient kemitza is invalid. He would level the excess from the kemitza with his thumb above and his little finger below.

And

there is also the service of

chafina

of the finely ground incense of Yom Kippur, which was a difficult service, since he had to fill his two handfuls precisely.

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

rather, say

that the beraita means:

This

severing was

the

most

difficult of the services

among the other

difficult services that

were

in the Temple.

Mishna:

How was the bird burnt-offering performed? He ascended

the priest performing the service

to the ramp,

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

and turned

the priest

toward the surrounding ledge and proceeded to the southeastern corner,

for although severing is valid at any other corner of the altar, nevertheless, at the outset he would sever it at the southeastern corner, because it was near the ash heap, where he would cast its crop and feathers.

He would sever its head opposite its nape and sever

cutting both simanim,

drain

its blood on the wall of the altar

above.

He took the head and circled

the

place of its severing to the altar,

pressing it against the altar wall so that the blood would be drained,

and absorbed it,

wiping the head

with salt

that was found on top of the altar,

and cast it

onto

the pyre.

He proceeded to the body and removed the crop, the feathers, and the entrails that emerge with them, and cast them to the ash heap.

This was a place on the eastern side of the ramp, where each morning they placed the removal of the ashes. He cast the crop, the feathers, and the entrails there.

He split

the bird with his hand between its wings

but did not sever

the parts of the body completely, so that the body remained attached.

And if he severed it,

it is valid,

since the change was made after the blood services; therefore, it does not invalidate the offering.

He absorbed

the body

with salt, and cast it

onto the pyre.

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 emerge with them, and

likewise if he

did not absorb them with salt,

it is valid, because

anything in which he deviated

and the deviation occurred

after he drained its blood is valid.

But a deviation in the service that was performed before the draining invalidates the offering. Therefore, if he

severed

both simanim

in the

bird sin-offering,

and did not

or if he did not

sever

both simanim

in

the severing of the

burnt-offering, it is invalid.

If he drained the blood of the head but did not drain the blood of the body, it is invalid 101 ,

but if he drained

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

The bird sin offering that he pinched

and the priest who pinched it entertained, during the pinching, the thought

that it was not for its sake,

or that he

squeezed its blood

and, during the squeezing, entertained the thought

that it was not for its sake, or

that he entertained the thought

that it was for its sake and

the thought

that it was not for its sake

simultaneously,

or

that he entertained the thought

that it was not for its sake and

the thought

that it was for its sake

simultaneously—

it is disqualified,

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

But if he entertained the thought that it was not for its sake during the services of

a bird burnt offering, it is valid, provided that it does not count for the owners as fulfillment of their obligation,

as is the law with regard to an animal burnt offering, in which the thought that it was not for its sake does not disqualify it.

Both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, when he pinched them and squeezed

their blood

with the thought intending

to eat something whose usual manner is to be eaten—

this is a sin offering.

And to burn [

or he entertained the thought intending to burn]

something whose usual manner is to be burned—

this is a burnt offering.

If it is outside its designated place, it is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet;

and if he entertained the thought of eating or burning

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

the

permitting element

of the offering

in accordance with its mitzva.

How was the permitting element offered in accordance with its mitzva?

If he

pinched it in silence,

without entertaining an improper thought during the service of pinching,

and squeezed the blood

with the thought

that it was outside its designated time, or if he pinched it

with the thought

that it was outside its designated time and squeezed

the

blood in silence, or if he pinched it and squeezed the blood

with the thought

that it was outside its designated time—

this is an offering in which the permitting element was offered in accordance with its mitzva!

How was the permitting element not offered in accordance with its mitzva? He pinched it

with the thought

that it was outside its designated place and squeezed the blood

with the thought

that it was outside its designated time, or if he pinched it

with the thought

that it was outside its designated time and squeezed the blood

with the thought

that it was outside its designated place, or if he pinched it and squeezed the blood

with the thought

that it was outside its designated place,