Zevachim 129

חטאת העוף שמלקו שלא לשמה ומיצה הדם חוץ לזמנו או שמלק חוץ לזמנו ומיצה דמו שלא לשמה או שמלק ומיצה הדם שלא לשמה זהו שלא קרב המתיר כמצותו

IF HE NIPPED A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME; OR IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION; OR IF HE NIPPED IT AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION: IN THESE CASES HE DID NOT OFFER THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATION. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.

לאכול כזית בחוץ כזית למחר כזית למחר כזית בחוץ כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת

SAID R'JUDAH: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHERE THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDES THAT OF PLACE, [THE SACRIFICE] IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH; BUT IF THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF PLACE PRECEDES THAT OF TIME, IT IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES [THE SACRIFICE IS] UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.

א"ר יהודה זה הכלל אם מחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת ואם מחשבת המקום קדמה למחשבת הזמן פסול ואין בו כרת [וחכ"א זה וזה פסול ואין בו כרת]

[IF ONE INTENDS] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [WITHOUT BOUNDS OR AFTER TIME] [AND] TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [SIMILARLY]. IT IS FIT, FOR EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹</span>

לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: And [the priest] shall bring it [unto the altar]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 15. This refers to a bird burnt-offering, and is apparently superfluous, since the preceding verse states, Then he shall bring his offering etc. Hence Scripture should continue: 'And the priest shall pinch off its head by the altar.'');">²</span> Why is this stated?

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר (ויקרא א, טו) והקריבו מה ת"ל

Because it is said, Then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 14.');">³</span> you might think that when he vows a bird [as a burnt-offering], he must give not less than two birds; therefore it states, 'And [the pries shall bring it:' he can bring even one bird to the altar, Why is 'the priest' stated?

לפי שנאמר (ויקרא א, יד) והקריב מן התורים או מן בני היונה יכול המתנדב עוף לא יפחות משני פרידין ת"ל והקריבו אפילו פרידה אחת יביא אל המזבח

To prescribe a priest for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a priest, and not a zar, must nip off its head.');">⁴</span> For you might argue, is not [the reverse] logical?

מה ת"ל (ויקרא א, טו) הכהן לקבוע לו כהן שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה בן צאן שקבע לו צפון לא קבע לו כהן עוף שלא קבע לו צפון אינו דין שלא יקבע לו כהן ת"ל אל הכהן לקבוע לו כהן

If a priest was not prescribed for a sheep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sheep can be slaughtered by a zar, and the slaughtering of a sheep corresponds to the nipping of a bird.');">⁵</span> though north was prescribed for it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be slaughtered at the north side of the altar.');">⁶</span>

יכול ימלקנו בסכין ודין הוא ומה אם שחיטה שלא קבע לה כהן קבע לה כלי מליקה שקבע לה כהן אינו דין שיקבע לה כלי

is it not logical that a priest is not prescribed for a bird, seeing that [Scripture] di prescribe north for it? Therefore 'the priest' is stated, in order to prescribe a priest for it.

ת"ל (ויקרא א, טו) כהן ומלק אמר רבי עקיבא וכי תעלה על דעתך שזר קרב לגבי מזבח אלא מה ת"ל כהן שתהא מליקה בעצמו של כהן

You might think he must nip it with a knife, and that is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed a utensil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a knife.');">⁷</span> for shechitah, though it did not prescribe a priest for it; is it not logical that it prescribed a utensil for nipping, seeing it prescribed a priest for it?

יכול ימלקנה בין מלמעלה בין מלמטה ת"ל ומלק והקטיר מה הקטרה בראש המזבח אף מליקה בראש המזבח

Therefore it states, [And] the priest. shall pinch off [its head].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Priest himself, without the assistance of a utensil, as R. Akiba explains.');">⁸</span>

ומלק ממול עורף אתה אומר ממול עורף או אינו אלא מן הצואר ודין הוא נאמר כאן ומלק ונאמר להלן (ויקרא ה, ח) ומלק מה להלן ממול עורף אף כאן ממול עורף

Said R'Akiba: Would you then think that a zar might approach the altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the bird-offering one had actually to ascend the slope of the altar and walk round the terrace (supra 64b) ; that would obviously not be permitted to a zar. An animal-offering, however, which could be slaughtered by a zar, was killed on the ground, and even at some distance from the altar.');">⁹</span> Why then is 'the priest' stated?

אי מה להלן מולק ואינו מבדיל אף כאן מולק ואינו מבדיל ת"ל ומלק והקטיר מה הקטרה הראש לעצמו והגוף לעצמו אף מליקה הראש לעצמו והגוף לעצמו

To teach that the pinching must be done by the very priest himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not with a knife.');">¹⁰</span> You might think that he can pinch it off either above [the red line] or below [it]; therefore it states, 'and pinch off [its head], and make it smoke [on the altar]:' haktarah [making it smoke] is [done] on the top of the altar, so is pinching [done] on the top of the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'top' here means the upper half, above the red line.');">¹¹</span>

ומנין שהקטרת הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו שנאמר (ויקרא א, יז) והקטיר אותו הרי הקטרת הגוף אמורה הא מה אני מקיים (ויקרא א, טו) והקטיר המזבחה בהקטרת הראש הכתוב מדבר

'And shall pinch off': Close by the nape [of the neck]. You say, close by the nape; yet perhaps it is not so, bu rather by the throat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The front part of the neck.');">¹²</span>

(ויקרא א, טו) ונמצה דמו כולו אל קיר המזבח ולא על קיר הכבש ולא על קיר ההיכל ואיזה זה זה קיר העליון

It follows by logic: 'and shall pinch off' is stated here, and 'and shall pinch off' is stated elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, V, 8: and shall pinch off its head close by its neck, but shall not divide it asunder.');">¹³</span> as there it is close by its neck, so here it is close by its neck.

או אינו אלא קיר התחתון ודין הוא מה בהמה שחטאתה למעלה עולתה למטה עוף שחטאתו למטה אינו דין שעולתו למטה

If so, just as there he but does not sever it, so here too he pinches but does not sever it? Therefore it states, 'and shall pinch off [ head], and make it smoke': as [in] haktarah, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so [after] pinchin the head is by itself and the body is by itself.

ת"ל ומלק והקטיר ונמצה דמו וכי תעלה על דעתך לאחר שהקטיר חוזר וממצה אלא לומר לך מה הקטרה בראש המזבח אף מיצוי בראש המזבח הא כיצד היה עולה בכבש ופונה לסובב ובא לו לקרן דרומית מזרחית היה מולק את ראשה ממול ערפה ומבדיל וממצה מדמה על קיר המזבח אם עשאה למטה מרגליו אפילו אמה כשירה

And how do we know that the haktarah of the head is separate and that of the body is separate? Because it is said, 'And make it smoke': thus the burning of the body is ordered.

רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומרים כל עצמה אין נעשית אלא בראש המזבח מאי בינייהו

How then do I interpret, [and the priest] shall make it smoke upon the altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, I, 17. This apparently a repetition of v. 15.');">¹⁴</span> Scripture [here] treats of the burning of the head.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence each was separate.');">¹⁵</span>

אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו עושה מערכה ע"ג סובב איכא בינייהו:

And the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 15.');">¹⁶</span> but not on the wall of the ascent, nor on the wall of the hekal.

בא לו לגוף כו': ת"ר (ויקרא א, טז) והסיר את מוראתו בנוצתה זו זפק

And which is it? The upper wall.

יכול יקדיר בסכין ויטלנו ת"ל בנוצתה נוטל את הנוצה עמה אבא יוסי בן חנן אומר נוטלה ונוטל קורקבנה עמה

Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather the lower wall; and that is indeed logical: if [the blood of] an animal burnt-offering is [sprinkled] below, though [that of] an animal sin-offering is [sprinkled] above; surely [the blood of] a burnt-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below, seeing that [that of] a sin-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below? Therefore it states, 'and shall pinch off.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא בנוצתה בנוצה שלה קודרה בסכין כמין ארובה:

shall burn. and the blood thereof shall be drained out': now, can you really think that after he has burnt he returns and drains it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is obviously impossible!');">¹⁷</span> Rather it is to tell you: as haktarah is [done] on the top of the altar, so is the draining out on the top of the altar. How did he do this? He ascended the ascent and turned to the terrace, whence he proceeded to the south-east horn. Then he pinched off its head close by the neck, severed it, and drained [some] of its blood on the wall of the altar. If he did it below his feet<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stooping down,');">¹⁸</span> even a cubit, it is fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the red line, which demarcated the upper part of the altar from the lower, was a cubit below the terrace.');">¹⁹</span> R'Nehemiah and R'Eliezer B'Jacob maintained: It must essentially be done nought elsewhere but on the top of the altar. Wherein do they differ? - Abaye and Raba both said: They differ in respect of building a pyre on the terrace.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna holds that this can be done, therefore the blood can be drained out even below the terrace. But R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob hold that the haktarah must be done on the top of the altar itself; therefore the draining too must be done near there.');">²⁰</span> THEN HE TOOK THE BODY etc. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 16.');">²¹</span> that is the crop.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud translates the less familiar mur'ah by the more familiar zefek.');">²²</span> You might think that he cuts through with a knife and takes it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the crop alone, without the skin and the feathers.');">²³</span> therefore it states, 'with the feathers thereof': [hence] he takes the plumage together with it. R'Abba Jose B'Hanan said: He takes it [the crop] together with the craw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thick muscular stomach of birds.');">²⁴</span> The school of R'Ishmael taught: 'With the feathers thereof' [means] with its [very] own feathers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not more than the feathers opposite the crop.');">²⁵</span> [hence] he cuts it [round] with a knife like a skylight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cuts the skin exactly opposite the crop, and then removes the crop, skin and feathers.');">²⁶</span>