Zevachim 132

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> דשני במאי אילימא דשני במליקה נימא דלא כר' אלעזר בר' שמעון דאמר שמעתי שמבדילין בחטאת העוף

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Wherein does he deviate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he offers a sin-offering with the rites of a burnt-offering.');">¹</span>

ולא אוקימנא דלא כר' אלעזר בר' שמעון

If we say that he deviates in melikah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nipping both organs, and thus severing it.');">²</span>

לא דשני בהזאה

Shall we then say that it does not agree with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, who said: I have heard that one severs a bird sin-offering? - But have we not explained that it does not agree with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 65b. The same obviously applies here: What then is your difficulty?');">³</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני סיפא עשאה למעלה כמעשה כולן פסולה ואפילו כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת דשני במאי אילימא דשני במליקה האמר מר מליקה בכל מקום במזבח כשירה אלא לאו דשני בהזאה ומדסיפא בהזאה רישא נמי בהזאה

- No:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Mishnah can be explained as agreeing even with him.');">⁴</span>

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא:

[it means] that he deviates in the sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of first sprinkling some of the blood (v. Lev. V, 9) , he drains out the whole of it, thus treating it like a burnt-offering (I, 15) .');">⁵</span>

עולת העוף כו' דשני במאי

That too is logical, since the sequel teaches, IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE, EVEN WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, IT IS UNFIT, [which means] even with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering.

אילימא דשני במליקה מדקתני סיפא כולן אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה ומועלין בהן נימא דלא כרבי יהושע דאי כר' יהושע האמר אין מועלין

Now, wherein does he deviate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which rite does he perform above?');">⁶</span>

ואלא במיצוי

If you say that he deviates in melikah, surely a master said: If he performed its melikah on any part of the altar, it is fit?

אימא סיפא עולת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת ר"א אומר מועלין בה ר' יהושע אומר אין מועלין בה דשני במאי

Hence it must surely mean that h deviates in sprinkling, and since the second clause means in sprinkling, the first clause too means in sprinkling! - Why interpret it thus?

אילימא במיצוי אימר דאמר ר' יהושע דשני במליקה במיצוי מי אמר

Each is governed by its own circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sequel, it is true, can only refer to a deviation in sprinkling, yet the first clause can still refer to a deviation in melikah.');">⁷</span>

ואלא במליקה רישא וסיפא במליקה ומציעתא במיצוי

IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD etc. Wherein does he deviate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he performs the rites of a sin-offering.');">⁸</span>

אין רישא וסיפא במליקה ומציעתא במיצוי:

If we say, that he deviates in melikah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not sever it.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> וכולן אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה ומועלים בהן חוץ מחטאת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת

then when he [the Tanna] teaches in the sequel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The next Mishnah, which is the sequel to this.');">¹⁰</span>

עולת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת ר"א אומר מועלים בה ר' יהושע אומר אין מועלים בה

'All of these do not defile in the gullet,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 176. n. 10.');">¹¹</span>

א"ר אליעזר ומה אם חטאת שאין מועלים בה לשמה כששינה את שמה מועלים בה עולה שמועלים בה לשמה כששינה את שמה אינו דין שימעלו בה

and involve trespass';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 257. n. 1 and note on next MISHNAH:');">¹²</span>

א"ל ר' יהושע לא אם אמרת בחטאת ששינה את שמה לשם עולה שכן שינה את שמה לדבר שיש בו מעילה תאמר בעולה ששינה את שמה לשם חטאת שכן שינה את שמה לדבר שאין בו מעילה

shall we say that this does not agree with R'Joshua; for if it agreed with R'Joshua, surely he ruled [that] they do not involve trespass?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the melikah is not done properly.');">¹³</span> - Rather, [he deviated] in draining [the blood].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There R. Joshua agrees. For R. Joshua's reason, as stated infra, will not apply. (11) He did not, as already stated.');">¹⁴</span> Then consider the subsequent clause: If one offered a burnt-offering of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. R'Eliezer maintains: It involves trespass; R'Joshua said: does not involve trespass. Now, wherein did he deviate? If we say, in draining; granted that R'Joshua ruled [thus] where he deviated in melikah, did he rule [thus] in reference to draining?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of first sprinkling some of the blood (v. Lev. V, 9) , he drains out the whole of it, thus treating it like a burnt-offering (I, 15) .');">⁵</span> , Hence it must mean, in melikah: then the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining? - Yes: the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>AND ALL OF THESE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in the preceding MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span> DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 257. no. 1. Though they are unfit, the melikah frees them from the uncleanness of nebelah.');">¹⁶</span> AND INVOLVE TRESPASS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 176, n. 10. If their rites were properly performed, they would no longer involve trespass, since they would be permitted to the priests, which is secular benefit. Since, however, they became unfit, and so were not permitted at any time, they retain the trespass, involving status which they possessed before they were offered. This applies even to a sin-offering, save for the exception which follows.');">¹⁷</span> EXCEPT THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHICH WAS OFFERED BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since that is fit, and there is a time when it is permitted to the priests; hence even a zar is not liable to trespass.');">¹⁸</span> IF ONE OFFERED THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD BELOW WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, R'ELIEZER MAINTAINED: IT INVOLVES TRESPASS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is a burnt-offering, and at no time was it permitted to the priests.');">¹⁹</span> R'JOSHUA RULED: IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it has become a sin-offering through all these deviations, and is permitted.');">²⁰</span> SAID R'ELIEZER: IF A SIN-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS WHEN [THE PRIEST], DEVIATED IN ITS NAME,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is then unfit and not permitted to the priests.');">²¹</span> THOUGH IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS WHEN [IT IS OFFERED] IN ITS OWN NAME, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT A BURNT-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS IF HE DEVIATED IN ITS NAME, SEEING THAT IT INVOLVES TRESPASS [WHEN HE OFFERED IT] IN ITS OWN NAME?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a burnt-offering must be altogether burnt, and is not permitted at any time.');">²²</span> NO, ANSWERED R'JOSHUA: WHEN YOU SPEAK OF A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE ALTERED TO THAT OF A BURNT-OFFERING, [IT INVOLVES TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES TRESPASS; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A BURNT-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE CHANGED TO THAT OF A SIN-OFFERING, SEEING THAT HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">²³</span>