Zevachim 68b — the Talmud in English

ג. Pinching the nape of birds that are unfit for sacrifice:

If he pinched

young turtledoves

—

whose time had not yet arrived,

and they are unfit for sacrifice and are considered like pinching a non-sacred bird, since one must bring large turtledoves and not young ones,

and young pigeons

large ones

whose time had passed.

Since one must bring young pigeons and not large ones, as it is written “a son of a dove” and not “of the dove,” and likewise it is written “turtledoves” and not “sons of turtledoves,” to teach that one must specifically bring large turtledoves and young pigeons.

If he pinched

a bird whose wing had dried up,

meaning that the bird’s wing had dried up,

or whose eye had been destroyed,

meaning that its eye was missing,

or whose leg had been cut off,

for it is lacking a limb. For although not all blemishes disqualify birds, a bird lacking a limb is disqualifying in the bird-offering.

In all these cases

it imparts ritual impurity in the throat,

for their pinching accomplished nothing, and even if they went up onto the altar, they must be taken down, because they were not disqualified in the Temple courtyard. Since the pinching does not permit the prohibition, it likewise did not accomplish anything in removing them from the impurity of carrion.

This is the principle: anything whose disqualification is in the sacred domain,

sacred offerings that were fit and came to the Temple courtyard in a valid manner, but were disqualified through their procedures,

does not impart ritual impurity in the throat.

For the pinching is effective in removing the impurity of carrion, because their pinching was effective to the extent that if they went up onto the altar, they would not be taken down; thus this pinching permits the prohibition.

But if

its disqualification was not in the sacred domain,

meaning that the bird was disqualified before it came to the Temple courtyard, such as when it was lacking a limb and unfit as an offering, or when it was disqualified because its pinching was not pinching,

it imparts ritual impurity in the throat

since it is fit for nothing, and if it went up onto the altar, it must be taken down; and it permits no prohibition, but imparts impurity like the carrion of a bird.

Gemara:

Rav said: [Pinching with] the left hand and [pinching at] night do not impart ritual impurity in the throat.

If he pinched with his left hand or at night, the offering is thereby disqualified, but the pinching is effective in removing it from the impurity of carrion. But pinching by

a non-kohein or with a knife,

or when it was pinched with a knife and not with a fingernail,

imparts ritual impurity in the throat,

since it was disqualified and the pinching is not effective in removing it from the status of carrion.

The Gemara asks:

What is different,

what is the difference between the left hand and night, which are considered pinching that permits the prohibition, so that if they went up they are not taken down, and a non-kohein and a knife, which are not considered pinching that permits the prohibition and do not remove it from the status of carrion?

Lest you say: Pinching with the

left

hand is considered pinching because we find

that it has validity on Yom Kippur,

for the High Priest takes the coal-pan in his right hand and the censer in his left hand, and thus there is a service that is valid even with the left hand. And likewise,

night has validity with the limbs and fats,

for night is valid ab initio for burning the limbs and fats, whose law is that they are burned at night. Therefore, you might say that specifically these disqualifications are effective in removing it from the impurity of carrion.

This can be refuted:

a non-kohein also has validity in slaughter,

for the slaughter of a non-kohein is valid [since a kohein is required only from receiving onward]. If so, what is different about a non-kohein, that his pinching is not effective in removing it from the status of carrion?

And we answer:

Slaughter

is not a service!

The slaughter of the sacrifice is not considered a service, for it is practiced also with non-sacred animals. And we object:

Is it not

the case that slaughter is a service?

For Rabbi Zeira said: The slaughter of

a red

heifer by a non-kohein is invalid. And Rav indicated concerning it

in explanation of the disqualification of a non-kohein’s slaughter of a red heifer: What is the reason that the slaughter of a non-kohein disqualifies? Because

“Elazar”

[in the passage concerning the heifer it says, “And Elazar shall slaughter it,”] who is a kohein,

and “a statute” is written concerning it,

and wherever “a statute” is written, it is definitive, meaning that it must be performed specifically according to what is stated in the passage, namely, by a kohein and not by a non-kohein.

And if you say that slaughter is not called a service, and therefore even a non-kohein is valid for slaughter, how can it be that the slaughter of a red heifer is invalid when performed by a non-kohein [for it entered your mind that the slaughter of a heifer is governed by the law of sacred offerings, and since in sacred offerings it is not called a service, in the heifer too it is not called a service; if so, for what reason does a non-kohein disqualify it]?

And we answer:

The heifer

red heifer is different, for it is not like other sacred offerings,

as it is sacred for Temple maintenance,

and it does not possess altar sanctity. The fact that a kohein is required for its slaughter is not because it is called a service; rather, it is a scriptural decree that its slaughter is invalid when performed by a non-kohein, even though it is not included among the services of sacred offerings. One cannot derive from it concerning the slaughter of an offering.

And we refute:

Is it not a kal va-chomer

that slaughter is called a service?

And just as a red heifer, which is

sacred for Temple maintenance, requires priesthood

and is invalid when performed by a non-kohein, even though the service of the heifer is not considered a service,

sacred offerings of the altar,

which are more stringent than it,

is it not obvious!?

All the more so, their slaughter is a service and should require a kohein!?

And we answer:

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said,

we can say that the slaughter of a heifer, which is sacred for Temple maintenance, was required by Scripture to be performed by a kohein despite not being a service,

just as the examination of afflictions,

the seeing of an affliction,

is not a service,

and nevertheless

requires priesthood,

for only a kohein can declare the affliction impure or pure. The same applies to the slaughter of a red heifer: Scripture made only a kohein valid for it, even though it is not included among the services of sacred offerings. But one cannot derive from it that the slaughter of sacrifices is a service.

And we object:

Let us derive

that the pinching of a non-kohein should be effective, so that if it went up it would not be taken down,

from a private altar,

for a non-kohein is valid to pinch birds on a private altar ab initio, since there is no law of priesthood on a private altar. Since we find generally that he is valid ab initio for the services of a private altar, then the non-kohein should be purified through pinching from the impurity of carrion.

And we answer:

It cannot be derived from a private altar.

We do not learn from a private altar, since it is considered like the non-sacred in relation to the Temple.

And we object:

Is that so?

Is it not the case that the service of the Temple is learned from the service of a private altar?

For it was taught in a beraita: From where do we know concerning an offering that went outside, that if it went up it is not taken down?

That is, from where do we know that if the portions of a sin-offering or burnt-offering went outside the curtains and were disqualified as “an offering that went outside,” if they went up onto the altar they are not taken down?

For an offering that went outside is valid on a private altar!

Since a private altar may be even in the fields, upon rocks, in a place where there are no curtains.

And we answer:

The tanna relied on “This is the law of the burnt-offering.”

The law stated concerning an offering that went outside, that if it went up it is not taken down, is not learned from a private altar. Rather, the tanna relied on the verse “This is the law of the burnt-offering,” from which we expound: one law for all that go up, that if they went up they are not taken down. From “the law of the burnt-offering” we include everything whose disqualification is in the sacred domain, that if it went up it is not taken down; and from the exclusion “this” we exclude everything whose disqualification was not in the sacred domain, that if it went up it is taken down. Therefore, the disqualification of “an offering that went outside,” whose disqualification is in the sacred domain—for this disqualification exists only once it has come to the sacred domain, after a service has already been performed with it—has the law that if it went up it is not taken down. The same is true of the left hand and night: since we find that they are valid for other services, they are likewise considered disqualifications in the sacred domain. But the pinching of a non-kohein, which we have not found to be valid for an interior service, is not a disqualification in the sacred domain; therefore, it imparts ritual impurity in the throat, and if it went up, it is taken down.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagrees with Rav’s words and

said: A non-kohein does not impart ritual impurity in the throat.

A non-kohein who pinched does not impart impurity, for we derive it from a private altar, where it is valid when performed by a non-kohein; therefore, his pinching is effective in removing it from the impurity of carrion. But the pinching with a

knife,

since it is neither pinching nor slaughter, we have not found its like to be valid in another context, and therefore it

imparts ritual impurity in the throat.

Now the Gemara discusses the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yohanan concerning the pinching of a non-kohein on the basis of our Mishna:

We learned

in our Mishna:

All the disqualified persons who pinched, their pinching is invalid.

And we pondered it:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, “all” comes to include a non-kohein,

the expression “all the disqualified persons” in the Mishna is understandable according to Rabbi Yohanan, for he comes to include a non-kohein, whose pinching removes the impurity of carrion.

But according to Rav,

who holds that the pinching of a non-kohein imparts impurity,

what does “all” come to include?

What is included by the expression “all”?

And we explain:

Is it not to include the left hand and night,

to include pinching with the left hand or at night, which is effective in purifying from the impurity of carrion?

And we reject this:

The left hand and night are explicitly taught,

for pinching with the left hand and at night are already written explicitly in the Mishna, and the meaning of “all” apparently comes to include something not yet mentioned in the Mishna!?

And we answer:

It teaches a general rule, and afterward explains it,

the Mishna initially stated a general rule, and afterward the Mishna returned and explained the matter.

There is another matter to consider on the basis of our Mishna:

Come and hear

from that which we learned:

This is the principle: anything whose disqualification is in the sacred domain does not impart impurity to garments

that is, the impurity of carrion

in the throat.

And we pondered it:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, “all” comes to include a non-kohein

who comes to include the pinching of a non-kohein, which does not impart impurity,

but according to Rav, what does it come to include,

since he holds that the pinching of a non-kohein imparts impurity—what does the general rule come to include?