Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

זבחים ו׳:ז׳ - ז׳:א׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Wednesday, April 30, 2031 is זבחים ו׳:ז׳ - ז׳:א׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 6 Mishnah 7

זבחים פרק ו׳ משנה ז׳

7
In the case of a bird sin offering that the priest pinched not for its sake, or if he squeezed out its blood not for its sake, or if he did so for its sake and then not for its sake, or not for its sake and then for its sake, it is disqualified, like all other sin offerings that are disqualified when performed not for their sake (see 2a). A bird burnt offering sacrificed not for its sake is valid; it is just that it did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering where the priest pinched its nape or squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified. But there is no liability to receive karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. How is the permitting factor sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one pinched the nape in silence, i.e., with no disqualifying intent, and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of the parts typically eaten or to burn the portions that are to be burned on the altar, beyond its designated time; or in the case of one who pinched with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar beyond its designated time, and squeezed out its blood in silence; or in the case of one who pinched and squeezed out the blood with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar beyond its designated time, that is the case of a bird offering where the permitting factor is sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If the priest pinched the nape of the bird with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it beyond its designated time, or he pinched with the intent to partake of it or burn it beyond its designated time and squeezed out its blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area, or if the priest pinched and squeezed out the blood with the intent to partake of it or burn it outside its designated area, or in the case of a bird sin offering where one pinched its nape not for its sake and squeezed out its blood with the intent of consuming it or burning it beyond its designated time, or in a case where he pinched its nape with the intent to consume it or burn it beyond its designated time and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, or in a case where he pinched its nape and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, that is a case of a bird offering whose permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If one pinched the nape of the bird and squeezed out its blood with the intent to eat an olive-bulk of the offering outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said that this is the principle: If the improper intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. And if the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case where the intent with regard to time came first and that case where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is disqualified and it does not include liability to receive karet. If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is valid, because eating and burning do not join together.
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, מִצָּה דָמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ וְלִשְׁמָהּ, פְּסוּלָה. עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. אֶחָד חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָן וְשֶׁמִּצָּה דָמָן לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּקְרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. מָלַק בִּשְׁתִיקָה וּמִצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וּמִצָּה הַדָּם בִּשְׁתִיקָה, אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, זֶה הוּא שֶׁקָּרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. מָלַק חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ וּמִצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁמָלַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וּמִצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק וּמִצָּה הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ וּמִצָּה דָמָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, אוֹ שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וּמִצָּה דָמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ וּמִצָּה דָמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, זֶה הוּא שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַזַּיִת לְמָחָר, כַּזַּיִת לְמָחָר וְכַזַּיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ, פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל, אִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וְאִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן, פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה פָסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין:
ז׳
ברטנורא

חטאת העוף שמלקה שלא לשמה – pinching of the neck of the fowl in place of the slaughtering for cattle, and the draining of the blood of the fowl in place of the sprinkling of the blood of the cattle. For the intention that invalidates the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood in cattle invalidates the pinching of the neck of the bird and in the draining of the blood in a fowl/bird. But there is no receiving and bringing [of blood] in the fowl/bird.

עולת העוף כשרה – as it is taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of the first chapter [of Tractate Zevakhim, Mishnah 1]: “All of the animal offerings which were slaughtered not for their own sake are valid [so that the blood is tossed and the entrails burned, etc.] , but they do not go to the owner’s credit in fulfillment of an obligation, except for the Passover offering and the sin-offering.”

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול – the sin-offering of the fowl/bird.

להקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר – the burnt-offering of the fowl/bird.

שלא לשמה – we don’t remove a burnt-offering from improper intention, because it is fit/acceptable when it is not for its own sake. And all of our Mishnah is explained above in chapter two, [Mishnah four].

חטאת העוף שמלקה שלא לשמה. מליקה בעוף במקום שחיטה בבהמה. ומיצוי בעוף במקום זריקת הדם בבהמה. והמחשבה הפוסלת בשחיטה וזריקת דם בבהמה, פוסלת במליקה ובמיצוי הדם בעוף. אבל קבלה והלוך אין בעוף:

עולת העוף כשרה. כדתנן בריש פרק קמא גבי בהמה, כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרים אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה, חוץ מן הפסח ומן החטאת:

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול. חטאת העוף:

להקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר. עולת העוף:

שלא לשמה. אין מוציא עולה מידי פגול, לפי שהיא כשרה שלא לשמה. וכולה מתניתין מפורשת לעיל פרק ב׳:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 7 Mishnah 1

זבחים פרק ז׳ משנה א׳

1
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.
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:
א׳
ברטנורא

חטאת העוף שעשאה למטה – from the red line according to the Halakha that it is performed below, as we have stated in [Mishnah 4] in our chapter above (i.e., Chapter 6).

כמעשה חטאת – with sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] and draining [of the blood].

ולשם חטאת – even though that he changed in the order/arrangement of the pinching of the head of the bird in such a manner that he pinched the bird’s neck with a finger nail and severed it, but with a sin-offering, it is stated (Leviticus 5:8): "לא יבדיל" / “[pinching its head at the nape] without severing it.”

כשרה – because it was done below [the red line] and in the rest of the acts of Divine service it was performed in accordance with the Halakha (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2).

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה וכו' פסולה – for a sin-offering not performed for its own sake is invalidated.

כמעשה כולם – that is to say, like the rites/actions of one of all of them that are mentioned here, and even according to the rite of the sin-offering for the sake of/for the name of the sin-offering, because it was performed above [the red line], it is invalid.

חטאת העוף שעשאה למטה. מחוט הסקרא, כהלכתה שהיא נעשית למטה, כדאמרן בפרקין דלעיל:

כמעשה חטאת. בהזאה ומיצוי:

לשם חטאת. אף על פי ששינה בסדר מליקה כגון שמלק והבדיל, ובחטאת נאמר ולא יבדיל:

כשרה. הואיל ונעשית למטה ובשאר עבודות כהלכתה:

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה וכו׳ פסולה. דחטאת שלא לשמה פסולה:

כמעשה כולם. כלומר כמעשה אחד מכולם האמורים כאן, ואפילו כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת, הואיל ועשאה למעלה פסולה:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר