🐑 Mishnah Zevachim 7

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּשֵׁרָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כֻלָּם, פְּסוּלָה:

If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio. If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּשֵׁרָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כֻלָּן, פְּסוּלָה:

A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner. If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.

וְכֻלָּן אֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת:

And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲרֵי קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָן לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הָעוֹלָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁשְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָן בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ הֶתֵּר:

In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard. The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The case of offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove that the fact that one changed the offering’s designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse is not a relevant factor. As in this case, one changed their designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse and, nevertheless, one is liable for misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering, concerning which even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, the halakha is that one would be liable for misusing it. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that is no proof, as if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is that one who slaughtered them changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. Would you say the halakha is the same in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation to an item that is permitted in its entirety, i.e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?

מָלַק בִּשְׂמֹאל, אוֹ בַלַּיְלָה, שָׁחַט חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. מָלַק בְּסַכִּין, מָלַק חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, תּוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן, שֶׁיָּבַשׁ גַּפָּה, וְשֶׁנִּסְמֵת עֵינָהּ, וְשֶׁנִּקְטְעָה רַגְלָהּ, מְטַמֵּא בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁהָיָה פְסוּלָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. לֹא הָיָה פְסוּלָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. וְכָל הַפְּסוּלִים שֶׁמָּלְקוּ, מְלִיקָתָן פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה:

If a priest pinched it with the thumbnail of his left hand, or if he pinched it at night, or if he slaughtered a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases, although it is prohibited to consume these birds, they do not render one ritually impure when they are in the throat, as the halakhic status of pinching is like that of slaughtering. If he pinched with a knife and not with his thumbnail; or if he pinched a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard; or if he pinched doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not yet arrived, as they are too young to be sacrificed; or if he pinched pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are too old; or if he pinched the nape of a fledgling whose wing was withered, or whose eye was blinded, or whose leg was severed; in all these cases, although the bird’s nape was pinched, it renders one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. This is the principle: The meat of any bird that was initially fit for sacrifice and whose disqualification occurred in the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred area, but rather was disqualified before the service began, renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat. With regard to any of those people disqualified from performing the Temple service who pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the offering’s meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered.

מָלַק וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מָה אִם נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ, נִבְלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ. מַה מָּצִינוּ בִשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה, וּמְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ, אַף מְלִיקָתָהּ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה, תְּטַהֵר אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ:

If the priest pinched the nape of the bird’s neck properly and then it was found to be a tereifa, and it was therefore disqualified from being sacrificed and forbidden for consumption by a priest, Rabbi Meir says: An olive-bulk of its meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as the pinching prevents it from assuming the status of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda says: Its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and its meat renders one who swallows it ritually impure. Rabbi Meir said: My opinion can be inferred a fortiori. If an animal carcass transmits impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, and nevertheless the slaughter of an animal purifies it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, i.e., its slaughter prevents it from assuming the impurity status of a carcass, then with regard to a bird carcass, which possesses a lesser degree of impurity, as it does not transmit impurity to a person through touching it and through carrying it, but only through swallowing it, is it not logical that its slaughter should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity? And once it is established that slaughter renders a bird that is a tereifa pure, it can be inferred that just as we found with regard to its slaughter that it renders a bird fit for consumption and purifies a bird, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity, so too its pinching, which renders a bird offering fit with regard to consumption, should purify it, even if it is a tereifa, from its impurity. Rabbi Yosei says: Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter renders even a bird that is a tereifa pure, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every a fortiori inference, namely, that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: It is sufficient for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a tereifa to be like that of the carcass of an animal that is a tereifa; its slaughter renders it pure, but its pinching does not.