Zevachim 65a (סה.) — the Talmud in English

Or

if he pinched the bird sin-offering

with the intention

that it was not for its sake, and expressed its blood

with the intention

that it be eaten outside its designated time, or if he pinched it

with the intention

that it be eaten outside its designated time and expressed its blood

with the intention

that it was not for its sake, or if he pinched it and expressed its blood

with the intention

that it was not for its sake—

this is the case: the permitting act was not performed as prescribed.

If, during the sacrificial service, he entertained the intention

to eat an olive-bulk outside its designated place

and also intended to eat

an olive-bulk on the following day,

or he intended

an olive-bulk on the following day

and also intended to eat

an olive-bulk outside its designated place,

or he intended to eat

half an olive-bulk outside its designated place

and also intended to eat

half an olive-bulk on the following day,

or he intended to eat

half an olive-bulk on the following day

and also intended to eat

half an olive-bulk outside its designated place—

in all these cases it is

invalid, and there is no liability for karet

because these are mixed intentions [as explained above, on page 29b].

Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the general principle: If the intention concerning the time preceded the intention concerning the place,

it is

piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for it; but if the intention concerning the place preceded the intention concerning the time,

it is

invalid, and there is no liability for karet.

And the Sages say: Both this and that are invalid, and there is no liability for karet.

If he intended

to eat half an olive-bulk

outside its designated time or outside its designated place

and to burn half an olive-bulk

outside its designated time or outside its designated place, it is

valid,

for an olive-bulk is required for an intention that renders a sacrifice invalid, and the halakha is

that eating

and burning do not combine

to form an olive-bulk.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written with regard to the bird burnt-offering:

“And the kohen shall bring it”

to the altar. And we considered this matter:

What does

the verse

teach?

Since

in this verse, “and he shall bring,”

“and he shall bring from the turtledoves or from the young of the doves”

is stated in the plural,

one might

think

that one who vows to bring a bird-offering may not bring fewer than two birds 104,

young birds;

the verse therefore says, “and he shall bring it,”

which is in the singular, and from this we learn that

even one bird

young bird

he may bring to the altar.

And we considered this matter:

What does “the kohen”

written in this verse teach? It teaches you

to establish

that he is required

to have a kohen,

as the service of pinching may be performed only by a kohen.

One might

think that the service of pinching does not require a kohen.

But is it not derived by logical inference?

We could learn by a kal va-chomer that it does not require a kohen:

Just as

the animal burnt-offering brought from

a sheep, which established

the need

for it

for its slaughter to take place in the

north,

and nevertheless

it did not establish for it

that its slaughter must be performed by a

kohen—

for even a non-kohen may slaughter an animal from the flock—if so, the bird

burnt-offering, for which it did not establish

that pinching must be performed in the

north

but is valid on all sides, does it not follow by a kal va-chomer

that

it did not establish for it

that the Torah requires a

kohen

for its pinching?

The verse therefore says

that concerning the bird burnt-offering the Torah wrote

“the kohen,”

to teach us

to establish for it a kohen

for its pinching, which is not valid when performed by a non-kohen.

One might

think that it is necessary to

pinch it with a knife

specifically.

But this too is derived by logical inference,

and we could learn it by a kal va-chomer, as follows:

Just as slaughter,

which is stated with regard to an animal-offering,

for which a kohen was not established

—since a non-kohen is valid for slaughter—and even so,

it established for it

that it be performed by

an implement,

a knife; if so,

pinching, for which a kohen was established, should certainly have an implement established for it

The verse therefore says:

from the verse

“the kohen shall pinch”

we learn that it is not performed by means of an implement, as

Rabbi Akiva said

in expounding: Why does it say, “the kohen shall pinch”?

Would it enter your mind that a non-kohen could approach the altar?

Since pinching is performed on the altar, which a non-kohen is forbidden to approach, we would know automatically that it is performed by a kohen and not by a non-kohen.

Rather, what does “the kohen” teach?

It teaches you

that pinching

is performed

by the kohen himself,

with his fingernail and not with a knife.

One might

think that he may

pinch it

on the altar

either above

the scarlet line or

below

the line.

The verse therefore says

that from the verse

“and he shall pinch and burn”

we learn:

Just as burning

is performed

at the top of the altar, so too pinching

must be performed

at the top of the altar,

above.

And from the verse

“and he shall pinch”

we learn

that

the

pinching is performed opposite

the underside of the

nape; you say opposite the nape, or perhaps it is performed

from

the neck

on the side of the face?

Rather, this is learned from the fact that

it is stated here

with regard to the bird burnt-offering,

“and he shall pinch,” and it is stated elsewhere

with regard to the bird sin-offering,

“and he shall pinch,”

and one is learned from the other:

Just as there

on the side of the

nape, so too here, opposite the nape.

And we raise an objection: If the laws of the bird burnt-offering are learned from the laws of the bird sin-offering, then let the laws of the slaughtering also be learned:

Just as there

with regard to the bird sin-offering,

he pinches but does not sever

the two identifying organs,

so too here,

with regard to the bird burnt-offering, he should

pinch but not sever. The verse therefore says

that from the verse

“and he shall pinch and burn”

we learn that the bird burnt-offering requires severing the two identifying organs, as the act of pinching is learned from the act of burning:

Just as in burning, the head

is by itself

burned

and the body by itself

is burned,

so too pinching:

its form is that the two identifying organs are severed, so that

the head

is

by itself and the body by itself. And from where do we know that the head is burned by itself and the body by itself?

As it is stated: “And he shall burn it,” which refers to the burning of the body; what, then, do I make of

the verse in which it is

stated, “and he shall burn it on the altar”?

The burning has already been stated. Rather, it must be said that

it speaks of burning the head—

the verse is speaking,

and from the fact that the two burnings are stated separately in the verses, we learn that each burning is performed separately.

And from the verse

“and he shall drain its blood”

we derive from the word “its blood” that we require

all

the blood—both the blood of the body and the blood of the head—to be drained

onto the wall of the altar.”

We also learn that the draining must take place specifically on the wall of the altar

and not on the wall of the ramp, nor on the wall of the Sanctuary, nor on the wall of the Entrance Hall.

And which is this?

The wall of the altar upon which the blood of the burnt-offering was drained. You must say that

this is the upper wall

of the altar, above the scarlet line.

And lest you say:

Or perhaps

the draining is performed on

the lower wall,

and we may state a kal va-chomer,

for it is a logical inference

that it should be performed specifically on the lower wall:

Just as, in the case of an animal whose sin-offering’s blood

is sprinkled

above,

even so

its burnt-offering’s

blood is sprinkled

below;

if so,

in the case of a bird whose sin-offering

has its blood sprinkled

below—

is it not logical that its burnt-offering

should have its blood drained

below?

The verse therefore says:

This is not so; rather, the blood of the bird burnt-offering was drained above on the altar. This is learned from the verse

“and he shall pinch and burn, and he shall drain its blood.” Would it enter your mind

to interpret the verse according to its plain meaning? It is impossible to interpret it this way, since

once he has burned

how can he

return and drain it?

It has already been burned. And if you wish to say that the verse “and he shall burn and he shall drain” refers to burning the head, and the verse teaches that he burns the head and afterward drains the body, and we interpret the verse according to its plain meaning—burning and afterward draining—that is not correct, for initially he must drain all its blood, including the blood of the head, and if he burns the head first, he will no longer be able to drain the blood of the head.

Rather,

the verse comes

to tell you: Just as

burning

is performed

at the top of the altar,—

so too draining

takes place

at the top

of the altar.

How so? He would ascend the ramp, turn toward the surrounding ledge, and proceed to the southeastern corner. He would pinch its head opposite its nape, sever the two identifying organs, and drain its blood onto the upper wall of the altar.

If

he performed it

the draining of the blood

below his feet

of the kohen,

even one cubit, it is valid,

because the kohen stood on the surrounding ledge, and the scarlet line was one cubit below the ledge; anything above the scarlet line is valid for draining the blood.

Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: It itself

the mitzva of burning it

may be performed only at the top of the altar,

and not on the surrounding ledge. Since the draining must take place in the place of burning, it follows that only the top of the altar is valid for draining, and not the entire cubit above the scarlet line. And we raise an objection:

What is the practical difference

between them

between the first tanna, Rabbi Neḥemya, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov? Do they not all derive that draining must take place specifically in the place of burning, from the verse “and he shall burn and he shall drain”? If so, what is the reason for their dispute?

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both say:

The tannaim disagree concerning the law governing the place of burning, and

whether one may arrange the pyre on top of the surrounding ledge is the difference between them.

The first tanna maintains that it is possible to arrange a stack of wood on top of the surrounding ledge and burn the offering there, and for this reason he maintains that draining is also valid when performed adjacent to the surrounding ledge, since it is adjacent to the place of burning. Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintain that only the top of the altar is valid for burning; consequently, the area near the surrounding ledge is not adjacent to the place of burning on the altar and is not suitable for draining the blood.

We learned in our Mishna:

he came

the kohen

to the body and removed the crop and the feathers.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the verse concerning the bird burnt offering,

“And he shall remove its crop,”

and this is interpreted: The crop

is the crop; one might think that he may cut it out with a knife and remove it

alone, without the skin and without the feathers,

the verse states

from the verse

“with its feathers,”

we learn that

he removes it and removes the feathers with it.

Abba Yosei ben Hanan says: He removes it

the crop

and removes its gizzard with it,

as “its feathers,” stated in the verse, refers to the repulsive part of the bird. And the gizzard is a repulsive part.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

This that is written in the verse,

“with its feathers,”

is interpreted:

with its own feather,

so that he should not remove more than what is opposite the crop. Rather, how does he do it?

He cuts it out,

cutting down to the crop

with a knife in the form of an opening

narrow,

and when he cuts with a knife in this manner, no more of the skin is drawn away than what is opposite the crop.