Torah Community Connections

Week 143 - Thursday - 22 August 2002

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 4

If he offered the burnt-offering of a bird below in the manner of a sin-offering under the name of a sin-offering - R. Eliezer says, It is susceptible to me'ilah. R. Yehoshua says, It is not susceptible to me'ilah. Said R. Eliezer: If a sin-offering which when under its own name is not susceptible to me'ilah, if he changed the name it is susceptible to me'ilah, then a burnt-offering which when under its own name is susceptible to me'ilah must certainly be susceptible to me'ilah if he changed its name! Said R. Yehoshua to him: No! If you say so of a sin-offering whose name he changed to that of a burnt-offering, because he changed its name to something that is susceptible to me'ilah, will you say so of a burnt-offering whose name he changed to that of a sin-offering, seeing that he changed it to something which is not susceptible to me'ilah?! Said R. Eliezer to him: Let the most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered on the south side but he slaughtered them under the name of sacrifices of a lesser sanctity provide proof since he changed their name to something that is not susceptible to me'ilah, yet they are susceptible to me'ilah; therefore do not wonder that the burnt-offering, though he changed its name to something that is not susceptible to me'ilah, is susceptible to me'ilah. Said R. Yehoshua to him, No! If you say so of most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered on the south side and slaughtered them under the name of sacrifices of a lesser sanctity, because he changed their name to something which involves something forbidden and something permitted, will you say so of a burnt-offering whose name he changed to something that is altogether permitted?!

Kehati

The preceding mishnah taught that the burnt-offering of a bird is susceptible to me'ilah whether offered correctly or it became disqualified. Our mishnah presents a controversy concerning the liability to me'ilah of a bird which the priest, instead of offering correctly above the hut hasikra (see 6:5 above), offered below it, as with a sin-offering, and under the name of a sin-offering.

If he offered the burnt-offering of a bird incorrectly below the hut hasikra in the manner of a sin-offering - the melikah was performed without severing the bird's head, the blood was sprinkled on the side of the altar and its remainder drained below the hut hasikra, under the name of a sin-offering - he also intended it as a sin-offering –

R. Eliezer says, It is susceptible to me’ilah -once dedicated to a burnt-offering, which may not be consumed by the priests, it cannot be exempted from the liability to me'ilah, even when offered up as a sin-offering.

R.Yehoshua says, It is not susceptible to me’ilah - he holds that in view of the change of designation, procedure and place it is treated as a sin-offering. Adducing a kal vahomer (see glossary) argument,

Said R. Eliezer: If a sin-offering of a bird which when the priest offered it under its own name is not, once rendered fit for the priests, susceptible to me’ilah, if he changed the name - i.e., instead of performing melikah under its own name, he did so under that of a burnt-offering, it is susceptible to me’ilah, since it became invalid and unfit for the priests, then a burnt-offering which when under its own name is susceptible to me’ilah, - since all of it is offered up on the altar - must certainly be susceptible to me’ilah if he changed its name and offered it in the manner and under the name of a sin-offering!

Said R. Yehoshua to him: No! Your argument is faulty for If you say so of a sin-offering whose name he changed to that of a burnt-offering - that it is susceptible to me’ilah, this is because he changed its name - that of the sin-offering of a bird to something - the burnt-offering of a bird that is susceptible to me’ilah - as explained above - will you say so also of a burnt-offering whose name he changed to that of a sin-offering, - that it is susceptible to me'ilah, seeing that he changed it to something - i.e., a sin-offering, which is not susceptible to me’ilah?!

Said R. Eliezer to him: Let the most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered incorrectly on the south side - of the Temple Court, whereas "The kodshei kodashim - their shehitah is at the north" (see 5: 1 above), but he slaughtered them under the name of sacrifices of a lesser sanctity - kodashim kalim, e.g., a peace-offering which he may slaughter in any part of the Temple Court - provide proof, i.e., for my own view, since he changed their name to something that is not susceptible to me’ilah - i.e., in the case of kodashim kalim only the eimurim parts offered up are susceptible to me'ilah after the blood sprinkling but not the flesh - yet they - the sprinkling of the blood of such kodshei kodashim slaughtered on the south side under the name of kodashim kalim does not exempt them from me'ilah - and he who benefits from them must bring a me'ilah offering - because the change of place disqualifies them - yet they are susceptible to me’ilah;

therefore do not wonder that the burnt-offering though he changed its name to something that is not susceptible to me’ilah - i.e., to that of a sin-offering is susceptible to me’ilah, as I argued on the basis of a kal vahomer as explained above.

Said R. Yehoshua to him to R. Eliezer, No! - this is not valid. If you say so of most holy sacrifices - kodshei kodashim -which he slaughtered on the south side and slaughtered them under the name of sacrifices of a lesser sanctity, that they are susceptible to me'ilah, this is because he changed their name - that of the kodshei kodashim – to something - to that of kodashim kalim - which involves something forbidden and something permitted - after the blood sprinkling the eimurim are susceptible to me'ilah whereas the flesh is not,

will you say so of a burnt-offering whose name he changed to something that is altogether permitted? - since the sin-offering of a bird has no eimurim, and once fit for the priests it cannot be susceptible to me'ilah, will you say that a burnt-offering whose name was changed to that of sin-offering is susceptible to me'ilah?! The halakhah follows R.Yehoshua.

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 5

If he performed the melikah with the left hand, or at night, if he slaughtered hullin inside, or holy things outside - these do not render unclean in the gullet, If he performed the melikah with a knife, performed the melikah on hullin inside, or holy things outside, under-age turtle-doves or over-age young pigeons, whose wing was withered, whose eye was blinded, whose foot was cut off - they render unclean in the gullet. This is the general rule: Whatever became unfit in the Sanctuary, does not render unclean in the gullet. If it did not become unfit in the Sanctuary, it renders unclean in the gullet. And all the unfit who performed melikah, their melikah is invalid, but they do not render unclean in the gullet.

Kehati

As taught in mishnah 3, disqualified bird sacrifices do not render unclean in the gullet, since the melikah exempts them from the state of nevelah. We now learn that even if the melikah was invalid, if this occurred in the kodesh, i.e., Temple Court, the bird is not considered nevelah, But if a bird became unfit before reaching the Temple Court, or if the melikah was invalid, as will be explained, they render unclean in the gullet, as does any nevelah of a kasher bird.

If he - the priest - performed the melikah with the thumb nail of the left hand, thus rendering the melikah invalid, since in the Torah "finger" and "thumb" always refer to those of the right, or at night, - the sacrificial service may only be performed by day, thus, (Lev. 7:38): "On the day He commanded the children of Israel to offer their sacrifices", which excludes the night –

If he slaughtered a hullin bird inside the Temple Court, and thus renders it unfit for consumption, or he slaughtered holy things - a bird to be sacrificed outside the Temple Court and thus disqualifies it - these - any of the above listed birds do not render unclean in the gullet - even if the melikah was performed with the left hand or at night and was thus invalidated, such birds once placed on the altar are not removed, as will be pointed out (see mishnah 9:2); hence the melikah extricates them from the state of nevelah; likewise hullin slaughtered inside or a sacrifice outside the Temple Court though unfit for consumption, are nevertheless, as a consequence of the shehitah, not accounted nevelah and do not render unclean in the gullet.

If he performed the melikah with a knife, then it is regarded neither as melikah, which must be performed with the nail, nor as shehitah, or if he performed the melikah on hullin inside, whereas melikah is confined to sacrifices, or he performed the melikah on holy things outside, whereas this is permitted for sacrifices only, inside the Temple Court, or he performed the melikah on under-age turtle-doves not yet fit for sacrifice, or on over-age young pigeons, - only grown turtle-doves and ungrown pigeons are fit; the maximum age for pigeons and the minimum for turtle-doves is specified in the Gemara (Hul. 22b); if for the purpose of an offering he performed melikah on a bird

whose wing was withered, or whose eye was blinded, or whose foot was cut off - though blemished birds remain fit for sacrifice, since the Torah's "without blemish" requirement is confined to animals, this does not include birds lacking an organ - "whose eye was blinded" here means that it was gouged out - which renders unfit for the altar; in all these cases they - the birds -render unclean in the gullet, i.e., assume the status of the nevelah of a kasher bird, because the melikah is invalid, and even when already placed on the altar, they must be removed.

This is the general rule: Whatever bird fit to be sacrificed that underwent melikah performed with the nail inside the Temple Court, but became unfit in the Sanctuary for some other reason, e.g., ·if the melikah was performed with the left hand or at night, does not render unclean in the gullet, since the melikah exempts the bird from the state of nevelah.

If it did not become unfit in the Sanctuary, but before it reached the Temple Court, e.g., it lacked an organ etc. and was unfit for a sacrifice, or became unfit owing to an invalid melikah, e.g., it was performed with a knife, it renders unclean in the gullet as does the nevelah of a kasher bird. According to Tiferet Yisrael, this rule does not include "if he slaughtered hullin inside, or holy things outside" (see the first section of this mishnah), which does not render unclean in the gullet since evidently the slaughtering cancels the state of nevelah. According to the Gemara "this is the general rule" includes in the first section kodashim slaughtered inside (i.e., the slaughtering of a bird sacrifice in the Temple Court cancels the state of nevelah although it requires melikah); in the second section of the mishnah it includes hullin on which melikah was performed outside the Temple Court (since melikah is irrelevant to hullin it does not eliminate the state of nevelah).

And all the unfit people, e.g., a non-priest, an onen, a tevul yom and all those enumerated at the beginning of chapter 2 - who performed melikah, their melikah is invalid, since it may only be performed by a fit priest but they do not render unclean in the gullet - since they became unfit in the Sanctuary, and owing to the melikah such birds are not removed from the altar once they are placed on it, the melikah also cancels the state of nevelah.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives