Zevachim 65a — the Talmud in English

Or

the bird sin-offering which he pinched

with the thought of

not for its sake and extracted its blood

with the thought of

outside its time, or he pinched it

with the thought of

outside its time and extracted its blood

with the thought of

not for its sake, or he pinched it and extracted its blood

with the thought of

not for its sake—

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

During the performance of the service, he thought with the intention of

eating an olive-sized portion outside

and he also thought of eating

an olive-sized portion tomorrow,

or he thought of

an olive-sized portion tomorrow

and he also thought of eating

an olive-sized portion outside,

or he thought of eating

half an olive-sized portion outside

and he also thought of eating

half an olive-sized portion tomorrow,

or he thought of eating

half an olive-sized portion tomorrow

and he also thought of eating

half an olive-sized portion outside—

in all these cases

it is invalid, and there is no excision on its account,

because they are mixed thoughts [as explained above, page 29b].

Rabbi Judah said: This is the rule: if the thought of the time preceded the thought of the place,

it is

piggul, and one is liable to excision for it; but if the thought of the place preceded the thought of the time,

it is

invalid, and there is no excision on its account.

And the Sages say: Both this and that are invalid, and there is no excision on its account.

He thought

of eating half an olive-sized portion

outside its time or outside its place

and of burning half an olive-sized portion

outside its time or outside its place—

it is valid,

for a measure of an olive-sized portion is required for a disqualifying thought in an offering, and the law is

that eating

and burning do not combine

to make a measure of an olive-sized portion.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the bird burnt-offering:

“And he shall bring it”

the koen to the altar; and we considered it:

What does

it teach? Is it not already written in the verse, “And he shall bring from the turtledoves or from the sons of the dove”?

Rather, the verse comes to teach you

since

in this verse of “And he shall bring”

it says, “And he shall bring from the turtledoves or from the sons of the dove”

in the plural,

one might

think

that one who vows a bird may not bring fewer than two fledglings 104 ,

young birds;

the verse therefore says, “And he shall bring them,”

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

even one fledgling

young bird

he shall bring to the altar.

And we considered it:

What does “the koen”

written in this verse teach? It teaches you

to establish

to require

a koen for it,

for the service of melika is performed only by a koen.

One might

think that the service of melika does not require a koen;

is it not a logical inference?

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

Just as

an animal burnt-offering that comes from

a sheep, which the verse established

and required

for it

the place of its slaughter, which is performed only in

the north,

and nevertheless

the verse did not establish for it

with regard to its slaughter

a koen,

for even a non-koen slaughters an offering of a sheep; if so, a bird burnt-offering

for which it did not establish

that its melika be performed in

the north

specifically, but it is valid on all sides—is it not a

kal va-chomer

that the verse should not establish for it

the

koen

for its melika?

The verse therefore says

the Torah wrote concerning the bird burnt-offering

“the koen”

to teach us

to establish a koen for it

for its melika, which is not valid when performed by a non-koen.

One might

think that it is necessary to

pinch it with a knife

specifically;

and it is a law

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

If slaughtering

which is stated concerning an animal offering,

for which it did not establish a koen,

for a non-koen is valid for slaughtering, and even so

it established for it

that it be performed by means of a

vessel,

a knife, if so,

is it not a law that melika, for which it established a koen, should establish for it

a vessel? The verse therefore says:

from the verse

“the koen shall pinch”

we learn that it is not performed by means of a vessel, for thus

Rabbi Akiva said

to expound: Why does it say “the koen shall pinch”?

Would it enter your mind that a non-koen approaches the altar,

when, since melika is performed on the altar, which a non-koen is forbidden to approach, we will automatically know that it is performed by a koen and not by a non-koen?

Rather, what does “the koen” teach?

It teaches you

that the melika

be performed

by the koen himself

with his fingernail and not with a knife.

One might

think that he should

pinch it

on the altar

both above

the line of the sikra and

both below

the line;

the verse therefore says

from what is written

“and he shall pinch and burn,”

we learn:

Just as burning

is performed

at the top of the altar, so too melika

has the law that it be performed

at the top of the altar,

above.

And from the verse

“and he shall pinch”

we learn

that

the

pinching shall be opposite

below the

nape; you say opposite the nape, or is it rather

that it be performed

from the neck

on the side of the face?

Rather, we learn this from that which

is said here

concerning the bird burnt-offering,

“and he shall pinch,” and it is said below

concerning the bird sin-offering,

“and he shall pinch,”

and one is learned from the other:

Just as below it is opposite

the side of the

nape, so here too it is opposite the nape.

And we challenge: If so, since the laws of the bird burnt-offering are learned from the laws of the bird sin-offering, let us also learn the laws of slaughtering:

Just as below

in the bird sin-offering,

he pinches but does not sever

the two identifying organs,

so here too

in the bird burnt-offering it should be

he pinches but does not sever; the verse therefore says

from the verse

“and he shall pinch and burn”

we learn that a bird burnt-offering requires severing the two identifying organs, for melika is learned from burning:

Just as in burning the head

is by itself

burned

and the body by itself

is burned,

so too melika

its manner of performance is that the two identifying organs be severed, so that

the head

be

by itself and the body by itself. And from where is it derived that the burning of the head is by itself and the body by itself?

For it is said: “And he shall burn it”; the burning of the body is stated. What, then, do I establish

the verse in which it is said

“and he shall burn it on the altar”?

But burning has already been stated. Rather, one must say that

concerning the burning of the head—

the verse speaks,

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

And from the verse

“and he shall drain its blood”

they expound “its blood,” for it is required that

all of it,

all the blood, both the blood of the body and the blood of the head, be drained

on the wall of the altar.”

And likewise we learn that the draining is performed 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 hall.

And which is this

wall of the altar on which he drained the blood of the burnt-offering? You must say that

this is the upper wall

of the altar, above the line of the sikra.

And perhaps you will say:

Or is it not rather

that the draining is performed on

the lower wall,

and let us say a kal va-chomer:

and it is a law

that we should perform it specifically on the lower wall, for

just as with an animal whose sin-offering’s blood

is sprinkled

above,

even so

its burnt-offering

of an animal has its blood sprinkled

below;

if so,

a bird whose sin-offering

has its blood sprinkled

below—

is it not a law that its burnt-offering should

be drained

below?

The verse therefore says:

This is not so; rather, the blood of the bird burnt-offering was drained above on the altar, and we learn this from the verse

“and he shall pinch and burn, and he shall drain its blood”; and would it enter your mind

to interpret the verse according to its plain meaning? It is impossible to interpret it so, for

once he has burned,

how does he

return and drain?

It has already been burned. And if you wish to say that the verse “and he shall burn and drain” speaks of the burning of the head, and the verse comes to say 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 ideally 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

как

burning

is performed

at the top of the altar, so too

draining—

its place of performance is

at the top

of the altar.

How is this so? He would ascend the ramp, turn toward the surrounding ledge, and come to the southeastern corner; he would pinch its head opposite its nape, sever it, and drain some of its blood on the upper wall of the altar

above.

If he performed it

the draining of the blood

below his feet

of the koen

even one cubit, it is valid,

because the koen stood on the surrounding ledge, and the line of the sikra was one cubit lower than the surrounding ledge, and anything above the line of the sikra is valid for draining the blood.

Rabbi Neḥemiah and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: It itself

the mitzva of its burning

is performed only at the top of the altar,

and not on the surrounding ledge. Since draining must be performed 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 line of the sikra.

And we challenge:

What is the difference between them

between the first tan-nay and Rabbi Neḥemiah and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov? After all, they all learn that draining is performed specifically in the place of burning, from the verse “and he shall burn and he shall drain.” If so, the difficulty is: What is the reason for their dispute?

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both say:

The tan-nayim disputed the law concerning the place of burning, and

whether one may arrange the wood-pile on top of the surrounding ledge is the difference between them

among these tan-nayim. The first tan-nay holds that it is possible to arrange a wood arrangement on top of the surrounding ledge and burn upon it, and for this reason he holds that draining is also valid when performed adjacent to the surrounding ledge, since it is adjacent to the place of burning. Rabbi Neḥemiah and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov hold that specifically the top of the altar is valid for burning; it follows that what is close to the surrounding ledge is not adjacent to the place of burning on the altar and is not fit for draining the blood.

We stated in the Mishna:

He came

the priest

to the body and removed the crop and the feather.

The Sages taught:

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

“And he shall remove its crop”

and they interpret: the crop

this is the craw; one might [say that] he cuts with a knife and removes it

the craw alone, without the skin and without the feather,

the verse teaches

from the verse

“with its feather”

we learn that

he takes it and takes the feather with it.

Abba Yosei ben Hanan says: He takes

the crop,

and takes its gizzard with it,

for “with its feather,” stated in the verse, means the repulsive thing of the bird. And the gizzard is a repulsive thing.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

That which is written in the verse

“with its feather”

is interpreted:

with “its” feather

so that he does not take more than what is opposite the crop; but how does he do it?

He cuts an opening

he cuts up to the crop

with a knife in the form of an opening

narrow,

and when he cuts with a knife in this manner, more of the skin than what is opposite the crop is not pulled along.