Zevachim 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenged this:

And according to your reasoning,

that our Mishna is readily understood according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what about that which it teaches at the end: “Anyone

whose disqualification was not in the sacred domain

renders garments impure in the throat,”

what does this serve to include?

And we answer:

Rather, the first clause

which teaches: Anyone whose disqualification was in the sacred domain does not render garments impure—

this serves to include the slaughter of sacrificial birds inside

since sacrificial birds that were slaughtered in the Temple became disqualified because their valid preparation is only through melika, but they do not render garments impure in the throat. This law is not stated explicitly in the Mishna; rather, it is derived from the first clause, from the word “anyone,” whose disqualification was in the sacred domain. Whereas

the latter clause

which teaches: Anyone whose disqualification was not in the sacred domain renders garments impure in the throat—

this serves to include the melika of non-sacred birds outside

since their valid preparation is only through slaughter, and melika is not considered sufficient to remove them from the status of an unslaughtered animal.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan: If a non-priest performs melika

or

if a

priest performs melika, it is

disqualified,

and likewise

piggul, notar, and an impure offering

among sacrificial birds, even though they are prohibited for consumption and offering—

they do not render garments impure in the throat.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: I heard two

traditions:

one

concerning

the taking of the kometz

of a meal-offering by

a non-priest,

and one concerning

the melika

of a bird by

a non-priest. In both of these traditions, two laws were stated. In

one

of them, it was said that even if it went up upon the altar, it should

be

removed

from it; and in

one

of them, it was said that if it went up,

it should not be removed!

And I do not know

which of them should be removed and which should not be removed.

Ḥizkiyya said: It stands to reason

that

the taking of the kometz

performed by a non-priest

should be removed, whereas

the

melika

performed by a non-priest

should not be removed.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is different

about melika performed by a non-priest from the taking of the kometz performed by a non-priest?

And if you would say:

Melika

is preferable because

the

melika of a non-priest

is practiced on a private altar,

where the melika of a non-priest is valid, and therefore it is likewise considered valid in the Temple, so that if it went up, it should not be removed—and yet

the taking of the kometz is also practiced on a private altar

by a non-priest, so why, if it went up, should it be removed?

And if you would say: No, there is no

sacrifice of a

meal-offering on a private altar,

and consequently there is no taking of the kometz there either—if so,

there are no birds on a private altar either,

and there is no melika there.

For Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says that there is a meal-offering on a private altar,

there are birds on a private altar.

But

according to the one who says that there is no meal-offering

on a private altar,

there are no birds

on a private altar!

And we explain:

What is the reason

of the one who says that there are neither meal-offerings nor birds on a private altar?

It is because, concerning the sacrifices offered on a private altar at Mount Sinai, it is stated: “And they offered peace-offerings,” and we expound:

“Sacrifices”—

but not meal-offerings! “Sacrifices”—

but not birds!

Thus, meal-offerings and birds were excluded from a private altar.

And we return to our difficulty: What is different about melika performed by a non-priest, such that if it went up it should not be removed, from the taking of the kometz performed by a non-priest, such that if it went up it should be removed?

And we answer:

Rather, say

that for this reason melika performed by a non-priest is preferable, so that if it went up it should not be removed, whereas the taking of the kometz should be removed:

there is no sanctification by a service vessel for a meal-offering on a private altar,

and therefore we do not derive the taking of the kometz by a non-priest in the Temple from the taking of the kometz by a non-priest on a private altar. The taking of the kometz on a private altar differs from the taking of the kometz in the Temple in that on a private altar it is possible to take the kometz even from a meal-offering that was not sanctified in a service vessel, and therefore a non-priest is valid for it; whereas in the Temple, the meal-offering is sanctified in a service vessel and is invalid when performed by a non-priest. With regard to melika, however, there is no distinction between the Temple and a private altar, since in both places it is the same act of melika. Once we find that a non-priest is valid to perform melika on a private altar, we derive from it with regard to a non-priest who performs melika in the Temple that if it went up upon the altar, it should not be removed.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he performed melika with the left hand, or at night, etc.”

The melika is effective in purifying the bird from the impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird.

The Sages taught in a beraita: Could it be that melika

of sacrificial birds,

which is

performed

inside

the Temple courtyard,

renders garments impure in the throat? The verse states

with regard to the impurity of a kosher bird:

“Carcass,”

indicating that only the carcass of a kosher bird renders garments impure, but not a sacrificial bird upon which melika was performed. And we raise a difficulty: From where do we derive that the sacrificial bird upon which melika was performed is excluded by this verse? Perhaps

this too is a carcass,

but the melika of a bird-offering is permitted for consumption by priests by virtue of a decree of the verse; whereas perhaps a bird burnt-offering upon which melika was performed, whose consumption was not permitted, since it is entirely burned upon the altar, also renders garments impure, according to the law of the carcass of a kosher bird?

And we answer:

Rather,

we derive it from here:

The verse states

in the passage concerning eating the carcass of a kosher bird: “And any person who eats a carcass or

a torn animal—

he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and remain impure until evening, and then become pure.”

The word “torn animal” is superfluous, for either way: If a torn animal is considered alive, it does not render impurity; and if it is considered dead, it is included in the category of carcass. Rather, the verse comes to compare the carcass of a kosher bird to a torn animal, teaching that the carcass of a kosher bird renders impurity in the throat only when it became a carcass in a manner analogous to the way a “torn animal” was torn—

just as a torn animal, whose

act of being torn

does not permit the prohibition, so too every

carcass of a kosher bird under discussion is one

whose becoming a carcass does not permit

the prohibition;

this excludes

becoming a carcass through

melika

of a sacrificial bird,

which is

performed

inside

the courtyard,

since it

[the melika that renders it a carcass]

permits the prohibition: For even the melika of a bird burnt-offering, which does not permit consumption for priests, permits it to be offered upon the altar, since while alive it is not fit to be offered. Therefore,

the bird burnt-offering that underwent melika inside

does not

render garments impure in the throat.

”

And the beraita concludes:

I would include a sacrificial bird upon which melika was performed outside,

since melika outside does not permit the prohibition,

and

one who performs melika on

a non-sacred bird, whether inside or outside, since its melika does not permit

the prohibition,

they

therefore

render garments impure in the throat.

Another beraita was taught: Could it be that the slaughter of

non-sacred

birds inside,

and likewise the slaughter of

sacrificial birds, whether inside or outside, renders impurity in the throat?

The verse states

“carcass.”

A carcass renders impurity, but not the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside, nor the slaughter of sacrificial birds whether inside or outside! And we raise a difficulty: Who says that it is not a carcass? Why not say the opposite—

this too is a carcass!

For there is no slaughter of non-sacred birds inside, and there is no slaughter of sacrificial birds either inside or outside; let it therefore be a carcass?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is how the tanna of the beraita expounds:

The verse states

“torn animal”—

just as a torn animal

whose prohibition

is the same inside as outside, so too every

impurity of carcasses of kosher birds applies only where they are

the same inside as outside. This excludes the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside,

whose prohibition applies inside but not outside,

and

excludes the slaughter of

sacrificial birds, whether inside or outside—

since they are not the same inside as outside,

therefore

they do not render garments impure in the throat.

And we ask:

Granted

with regard to the slaughter of

non-sacred birds, they are not the same: The slaughter of non-sacred birds

the slaughter of non-sacred birds

inside,

which is prohibited, is not the same as the slaughter of non-sacred birds

outside,

which is permitted.

But

with regard to the slaughter of

sacrificial birds, why are they not the same inside and outside? After all,

why are the inside and outside cases not the same? After all,

both are disqualified, since only melika permits sacrificial birds as offerings, not slaughter?

since only pinching permits consecrated birds as offerings, not slaughter.

And we answer:

Rava said: The derivation establishes only that the slaughter of non-sacred birds inside does not render impurity; but with regard to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, we do not need this derivation to teach that it does not render impurity, because

if

the slaughter outside

of the bird

was effective in making him liable for karet

for slaughtering offerings outside, as the Gemara will derive below from the verse “or that he slaughter,” which comes to include the slaughter of a bird as grounds for karet, then we see that the slaughter of a bird is also called slaughter. And if so,

will this slaughter not be effective

for him

to purify him from the impurity of a carcass? [In other words, whenever slaughter is effective in its capacity as slaughter, it cannot be called a “carcass.”]

[That is: whenever slaughter is effective as an act of slaughter, it cannot be called a carcass.]

And we challenge this:

We find

the slaughter of

sacrificial birds outside

that purifies from impurity [because

the slaughter outside was effective in making him liable for karet], but with regard to the slaughter of sacrificial birds

But concerning the slaughter of consecrated birds

inside, from where do we know

that it purifies from the impurity of a carcass?

And we answer: It follows from the derivation that we expounded above from “torn animal”: Although both are prohibited for consumption, with regard to impurity,

since they are not the same,

slaughter

inside,

for which one is not liable for karet, is not the same

as

slaughter

outside,

for which one is liable for karet; therefore, it does not involve the impurity of a carcass.

And we challenge this:

If so, a sacrificial bird upon which melika was performed outside,

which the beraita taught above renders impurity—why does it render impurity? There too,

they are also not the same:

Their melika

inside,

which is performed validly, is not the same

as

their melika

outside,

which is not performed validly!?

And we answer:

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We derive

the slaughter of sacrificial birds, which is

an act not performed in its valid manner, from the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside, which is also

an act not performed in its valid manner. Just as there, the slaughter purifies from the impurity of a carcass because the slaughter outside was effective in making him liable for karet, so too inside, the slaughter of the bird purifies from the impurity of a carcass.

an act not performed in its valid manner.

Just as there the slaughter removes the impurity of a carcass because slaughter outside was effective in making him liable to karet, so too inside, the slaughter of the bird removes the impurity of a carcass.

But

we do not derive

the melika of sacrificial birds outside, which is

an act not performed in its valid manner, from

the melika of sacrificial birds inside, which is

an act performed in its valid manner.

And we challenge this:

And

if

not, do we not derive an act not performed in its valid manner from an act performed in its valid manner?

we do not derive an act not performed in its valid manner from an act performed in its valid manner?

But it was taught in a beraita: From where do we derive for

the sacrificial parts or the flesh of a burnt-offering that left the courtyard and became disqualified through

leaving, that if it went up

upon the altar

it should not be removed—

for

“that which left”

is valid on a private altar.

This proves that we derive, with regard to the disqualification of leaving, which is an act not performed in its valid manner, that it should not be removed from the altar, from “that which left” on a private altar, which is an act performed in its valid manner, since on a private altar there are no curtains!?

And we answer: The

tanna

who says that a disqualification of leaving, if it went up, should not be removed, does not derive it primarily from the fact that that which left is valid on a private altar. Rather, it is derived from

“This is the law of the burnt-offering,”

which

verse

includes

disqualified offerings that, if they went up, should not be removed,

as it is adjacent to it.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses a sacrificial bird upon which melika was performed properly, but the bird itself was found to be disqualified as a tereifa:

If one performed melika on a sacrificial bird

and it was found to be a tereifa—

Rabbi Meir says: It does not render garments impure in the throat,

since the melika removed it from the impurity of the carcass of a bird, as will be explained below, where this is derived by means of a kal va-chomer.