Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 6: MISHNAH 7

If he performed the melikah of a bird sin-offering not under its own name, if he drained its blood not under its own name, or under its own name and not under its own name, or not under its own name and under its own name - it is invalid. The burnt-offering of a bird is valid, but the owners did not fulfill their obligation. Both the sin-offering of a bird and the burnt-offering of a bird on which he performed melikah or whose blood he drained, to eat that which it is usual to eat, to burn that which it is usual to burn, outside its place - are invalid, but karet is not thereby incurred; after its time - it is pigul, and karet is thereby incurred, but only if what renders permitted is offered in accordance with its law. How is 'what renders permitted' offered in accordance with its law? If he performed melikah in silence and drained the blood after its time, or he performed melikah after its time and drained the blood in silence, or he performed melikah and drained the blood after its time, this is meant by 'what renders permitted' was offered in accordance with its law. How is 'what renders permitted' not offered in accordance with its law? If he performed melikah outside its place and drained the blood after its time, or he performed melikah after its time and drained the blood outside its place, or performed melikah and drained the blood outside its place. A sin-offering of a bird on which he performed melikah not under its own name and drained its blood after its time, or performed melikah after its time and drained its blood not under its own name, or he performed melikah and drained its blood not under its own name, this is meant by he did not offer what renders permitted in accordance with its law. To eat an olive's bulk outside and an olive's bulk on the next day, an olive's bulk on the next day and an olive's bulk outside, half an olive's bulk outside and half an olive's bulk on the next day, half an olive's bulk on the next day and half an olive’s bulk outside - it is invalid but no karet is thereby incurred. R. Yehudah said, This is the general rule: if the intention regarding the time preceded the intention regarding the place, it is pigul, and karet is thereby incurred, but if the intention regarding the place preceded the intention regarding the time, it is invalid but no karet is thereby incurred. But the Sages say, This and that is invalid and no karet is thereby incurred. To eat half an olive's bulk and burn half an olive's bulk it is valid, because eating and burning do not combine.

Kehati

This mishnah teaches that any intention during slaughtering or blood sprinkling that disqualifies an animal sacrifice also renders invalid a bird sacrifice if present while performing melikah or draining the blood.

If be performed the melikah of a bird sin-offering not under its own name but for the sake of another sacrifice, or if he drained its blood not under its own name, or under its own name and not under its own name - if he performed one of the sacrificial acts - melikah or draining the blood at first for its own sake and then under another name or first not under its own name and then under its own name - it - the sin-offering of a bird - is invalid - as is an animal sin-offering if the intention during the slaughtering or sprinkling of the blood was not under its own name. But

the burnt-offering of a bird on which melikah was performed or its blood drained not under its own name etc. is valid, but - like in the case of an animal burnt-offering that was slaughtered or whose blood was sprinkled with the intention of another name (see mishnah 1:1) - the owners did not fulfill their obligation - only in this regard is it different from other burnt-offerings of birds.

Both the sin-offering of a bird and the burnt-offering of a bird on which he performed melikah or whose blood he drained with the intention to eat that which it is usual to eat - i.e., a sin-offering of a bird, or to burn that which it is usual to burn - i.e., a bird's burnt-offering, outside its place - outside the Temple Court - are invalid, but - as with an 'outside-its-place' intention concerning an animal sacrifice –

karet is not thereby incurred But if he performed melikah or drained the blood intending to eat or bum it on the altar

after its time - it is pigul, and karet is thereby incurred - even if he ate it within the prescribed time, but only if what renders permitted is offered in accordance with its law - i.e., that the draining of the blood, i.e., the act that renders the flesh of the bird permitted for consumption or for burning on the altar, is performed as prescribed

How is 'what renders permitted' offered in accordance with its law? If he performed melikah in silence without any invalidating intention and then drained the blood with the intention to eat the meat or burn on the altar after its time, or he performed melikah with an after-its-time intention and drained the blood in silence without any invalidating intention, or he performed melikah and drained the blood - he performed both acts with an after-its-time intention - this is meant by 'what renders permitted' was offered in accordance with its law - whereby the sacrifice is affected by the pigul intention.

How is 'What renders permitted' not offered in accordance with its law? If he performed melikah with the intention to eat or burn on the altar an olive's bulk of it outside its place - outside the Temple Court - and drained the blood with the intention to eat or burn it after its time, or he performed melikah with an after-its-time intention and drained the blood with an outside-its-place intention or performed melikah and drained the blood outside its place - some versions omit "or performed melikah etc.", which appears to be out of context here. So also

a sin-offering of a bird on which he performed melikah not under its own name and drained its blood with the intention of eating of it after its time, or performed melikah with an after-its-time intention and drained its blood not under its own name, or he performed melikah and drained its blood not under its own name, - some versions omit this clause ("or he performed melikah etc." - see above observation regarding "or performed melikah and drained the blood outside its place"),

this is meant by he did not offer what renders permitted in accordance with its law - since apart from the pigul intention there is another invalidating factor, which latter annuls the pigul. If during one of the sacrificial acts, e.g., while performing melikah, he intended

to eat an olive's bulk outside and an olive's bulk on the next day, or an olive's bulk on the next day and an olive's bulk outside, - i.e., the intention regarding the time preceded that regarding the place, or half an olive's bulk outside and half an olive's bulk on the next day, or half an olive's bulk on the next day and half an olive's bulk outside - it is invalid but no karet is thereby incurred because an additional invalidating factor is involved.

R. Yehudah said, This is the general rule: If in both sacrificial acts or even in one the intention regarding the time preceded the intention regarding the place, it is pigul and karet is thereby incurred - once a pigul intention is present, no additional intention can affect the sacrifice –

but if the intention regarding the place preceded the intention regarding the time, it is invalid but no karet is thereby incurred - since according to R. Yehudah it is the primary expression which counts.

But the Sages say, This and that - whether the time intention preceded that regarding the place or vice versa the pigul thought does not affect the sacrifice; rather it is invalid but no karet is thereby incurred. To eat half an olive's bulk and burn half an olive's bulk, it is valid, because eating and burning do not combine - this clause is redundant here since a bird sin-offering is not burnt on the altar, and a bird burnt-offering is not eaten; furthermore, if he intended to eat and burn either of them then this would involve half an olive's bulk which is either not eaten or not burnt, which intention evidently does not render invalid. However, since our mishnah recapitulates the last two mishnahs of chapter 2, it incorporated the above even though it is here out of context (see Tiferet Yisrael).

ZEVAHIM:CHAPTER 7:MISHNAH 1

If a sin-offering of a bird was offered below in the manner of a sin-offering, under the name of a sin-offering, it is valid; in the manner of a sin-offering under the name of a burnt-offering, in the manner of a burnt-offering under the name of a sin-offering, in the manner of a burnt-offering under the name of a burnt-offering, it is invalid. If he offered in the manner of any of them, above, it is invalid.

Kehati

If the melikah - the cutting of any of the two organs (gullet or windpipe) - and the sprinkling and draining of the blood of

a sin-offering of a bird was offered, as prescribed, below the hut hasikra in the manner of a sin-offering, having performed all the sacrificial acts under the name of a sin-offering, it is valid; since such is the correct procedure; the above appears here incidental to the second section (Tosafot). Others explain it as teaching that even a deviation from the prescribed melikah procedure, e.g., severing the head from the body, does not invalidate when performed below the hut hasikra if the other acts are performed correctly (Bartenura). This contradicts mishnah 6 in the preceding chapter, "if he severed the sin-offering, he rendered it invalid" (see Tosefot Yom Tov). But if he prepared it duly below the hut hasikra and performed the sprinkling and draining of the blood

in the manner of a sin-offering but under the name of a burnt-offering, or if he prepared it

in the manner of a burnt-offering - if he separated the head from the body in the course of the melikah (see Tosefot in the first section of the mishnah) or drained the blood without sprinkling it, however, under the name of a sin-offering, or he proceeded in the manner of a burnt-offering under the name of a burnt-offering, this redundant instance follows here merely in the wake of the others; in all these cases it - the sin-offering of a bird is invalid - as are all sin-offerings not rendered under their own name.

If he offered the sin-offering of a bird in the manner of any of them - of those mentioned in our mishnah, even if he did so as prescribed, and for the sake of a sin-offering, but above - the hut hasikra it - the sin-offering is invalid - this applies only to its consumption, however the owners attain their atonement thereby, since the blood has been applied to the altar.

Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives