Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Zevachim 7:4 - 7:5

The Mishnah Yomi for Tuesday, August 5, 2025 is Zevachim 7:4 - 7:5

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 7 Mishnah 4

זבחים פרק ז׳ משנה ד׳

4
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? 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.
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:
ד׳

ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בה – for it is a burnt-offering, and who removed it from its religious sacrilege? For there wasn’t any permitted time for it.

רבי יהושע אומר אין מועלים בה – for since he changed its name and its action and its place for the sake/name of the sin-offering, it became a sin-offering.

ומה חטאת העוף שאין מועלים בה – when he slaughtered it for its sake/name, for it is consumed by the Kohanim.

שינה את שמה – it was disqualified and it does not come to be included in that which is permissible.

מועלים בה – for Rabbi Yehoshua himself did not dispute this.

לדבר שיש בו מעילה – for the sake/name of a burnt-offering.

ששחטן בדרום – for the name/sake of a peace-offering will prove it (see also Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1 - as this sacrifice is supposed to be offered in the north).

ששינה שמן ומעשיהן לדבר שאין בו מעילה – for the Lesser Holy Things do not have religious sacrilege other than with their portions of the offerings that are consumed on the altar.

ומועלים בהן – because they were disqualified with the change of their place and their sprinkling/tossing of the blood did not remove them from religious sacrilege.

איסור והיתר – the Lesser Holy Things there is religious sacrilege with the portions of their offerings that are consumed on the altar, but not with their flesh because of religious sacrilege.

בדבר שכולו היתר – with the sin-offering of birds which has no side of religious sacrilege. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

ר׳ אליעזר אומר מועלים בה. דהא עולה היא ומי הוציאה ממעילתה, והלא שעת היתר לכהנים לא היה לה:

רבי יהושע אומר אין מועלים בה. דכיון דשינה שמה ומעשיה ומקומה לשם חטאת, נעשית חטאת:

ומה חטאת העוף שאין מועלים בה. כששחטה לשמה, שהרי נאכלת לכהנים:

שינה את שמה. נפסלה ולא באה לכלל היתר:

מועלים בה. דהא רבי יהושע גופיה לא פליג עליה:

לדבר שיש בו מעילה. לשם עולה:

ששחטן בדרום. לשם שלמים, יוכיחו:

ששינה שמן ומעשיהן לדבר שאין בו מעילה. שקדשים קלים אין מעילה אלא באימוריהן:

ומועלים בהן. מפני שנפסלו בשינוי מקומן ולא הוציאתן זריקתן מידי מעילה:

איסור והיתר. קדשים קלים יש באימוריהן משום מעילה ואין בבשרן משום מעילה:

בדבר שכולו היתר. בחטאת העוף שאין בו צד מעילה. והלכה כרבי יהושע:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 7 Mishnah 5

זבחים פרק ז׳ משנה ה׳

5
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.
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:
ה׳

מלק בשמאל – that his pinching of the bird’s head is invalid. For every place where it states, “finger”/אצבע and “priesthood”/כהונה it is none other than the right [hand].

או בלילה – for there is pinching of the bird’s head at night, for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 7:38): “[with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai,] when He commanded [by day] (not included in the new Jewish Publication Society translation but found explicitly in the Hebrew ) /ביום צותו [that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai].”

אינן מטמאין – for since they are disqualified in Holy Things and even their pinching of the bird’s head that if they went up, but did not descend (see also, Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 2, that the pinching of the bird’s head purifies them).

שחט חולין בפנים וקדשים בחוץ אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה – and even though they are forbidden to be consumed.

מלק בסכין – it is not the [proper] pinching of the bird’s head (i.e., neck), and it is not [proper] ritual slaughter, for the pinching of the bird’s neck is with the fingernail by the Kohen himself.

מלק חולין בפנים – for the pinching of the bird’s head (i.e., neck) does not belong with unconsecrated [birds] but rather with [birds] that are sanctified inside [at the altar], and the person who pinches the bird’s neck with the fingernail for a profane purpose in any place, or Holy Things outside [the altar], it is as if he perforates (i.e., kills by stabbing) or mutilates it, and this pinching of the bird’s head does not remove it from being a carrion (i.e., an animal that has died a natural death, not slaughtered according to the ritual rules).

תורין שלא הגיעו זמנן – large turtle doves, which are kosher/fit, small ones are invalid. Pigeons – small ones are kosher/fit, large ones are invalid.

ושיבש גפה – that it is missing a limb, it is invalid, even with birds. For we hold that there is no unblemished condition or male sex with regard to birds, these words, as for example regarding a withered spot in the eye/cataract that their blemishes are not recognized, but that which is missing a limb, (Malachi 1:8): “Just offer it to your governor.”

מטמא בבית הבליעה – that their pinching of the head has no effect at all, for even if they went up, they descended.

כל שאין פסולן בקודש – that it became invalid before they came to the Temple courtyard. And everything where its becoming invalid did not happen in the Holy area, we state further on in the Chapter [Nine], “The altar sanctifies that which is appropriate to it”/"המזבח מקדש" (see Mishnah 5), “And what are those things which, if they have gone up, should go down.” But those things that were invalidated in the Holy Areas, as for example, the Holy Things that were appropriate but they were invalidated in their Divine Service, they don’t defile, for the pinching of the bird’s head was beneficial to them for if they went up, they would not come down (see Mishnah 2 of that chapter).

כל הפסולים – as for example, a “foreigner,” (i.e., non-Kohen), and someone prior to the burial of a kinsman, a person who immersed himself on that day and someone lacking atonement (i.e., a woman after childbirth, a person suffering a flux, a healed leper, etc.) – all of those that are taught at the beginning of chapter 2 [of Tractate Zevakhim].

ואינן מטמאות בבית הבליעה – for even though their pinching of the bird’s neck does not permit Holy Things to be eaten, nevertheless, it removes them from being considered an un-slaughtered animal carcass.

מלק בשמאל. דמליקתו פסולה. שכל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינו אלא של ימין:

או בלילה. דאין מליקה בלילה, דרחמנא אמר ביום צוותו:

אינן מטמאין. הואיל ופסולן בקודש ואהני מליקה דידהו שאם עלו לא ירדו:

שחט חולין בפנים וקדשים בחוץ אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה. ואף על פי שאסורים באכילה:

מלק בסכין. לאו מליקה היא ולאו שחיטה היא, דהא מליקה בצפורן היא בעצמו של כהן:

מלק חולין בפנים. דלא שייך מליקה בחולין אלא בקדשים בפנים, והמולק חולין בכל מקום או קדשים בחוץ הוי כאילו נוחר או מעקר, ואין אותה מליקה מוציאה מידי נבילה:

תורין שלא הגיע זמנן. תורים גדולים, כשרים, קטנים פסולים. בני יונה, קטנים כשרים, גדולים פסולים:

ושיבש גפה. דמחוסר אבר פסול אף בעופות. דהא דקיימא לן אין תמות וזכרות בעופות, הני מילי כגון דוקין שבעין שאין מומן ניכר, אבל מחוסר אבר, הקריבהו נא לפחתך:

מטמא בבית הבליעה. דלא מהני מליקה דידהו למידי, שאפילו עלו ירדו:

כל שאין פסולן בקודש. שנפסלו קודם שבאו לעזרה. וכל שאין פסולן בקודש אמרינן לקמן בפרק המזבח מקדש, דאם עלה ירד. אבל אותן שפסולן בקודש כגון הקדשים הראויין אלא שנפסלו בעבודותיהן, אין מטמאין, דהא אהני להו מליקה דאם עלו לא ירדו:

כל הפסולים. כגון זר, ואונן וטבול יום ומחוסר כפורים וכל אותן השנויין בריש פ״ב:

ואינן מטמאות בבית הבליעה. שאף על פי שאין מליקתן מתרת קדשים באכילה. מכל מקום מוציאתן מידי נבלה:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us