Chullin — Daf 23a

כי איצטריך קרא למעוטי נרבע ונעבד

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ

עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל כל שהמום פוסל בו דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בו וכל שאין המום פוסל בו אין דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בו והני עופות הואיל ולא פסיל בהו מומא דאמר מר תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות אימא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים נמי לא לפסול בהו קא משמע לן

בעי רבי זירא האומר הרי עלי עולת בהמה מן האיל או מן הכבש והביא פלגס מהו

אליבא דרבי יוחנן לא תבעי לך דאמר בריה הוי דתנן הקריבו מביא עליו נסכי איל ואין עולה לו מזבחו

וא"ר יוחנן (במדבר טו, ו) או לאיל לרבות את הפלגס

כי תבעי לך אליבא דבר פדא

The verse is required to exclude birds that have suffered an unnatural crime or that have been worshipped.1 For since it is written: For their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them,2 and a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever ‘corruption’ is mentioned it means either sexual perversion or idolatry — sexual perversion: for it is written: For all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth;3 idolatry: for it is written: Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image4 — it might well be argued that whatever is rendered unfit for sacrifice by reason of a blemish will similarly be rendered unfit by reason of sexual perversion or idolatry, and, on the other hand, whatever is not rendered unfit for sacrifice by reason of a blemish will not be rendered unfit by reason of sexual perversion or idolatry, with the result that birds, inasmuch as they are not rendered unfit for sacrifice by reason of a blemish5 — for a Master said:6 The unblemished state and the male sex are prerequisites only to sacrifices of cattle but not of birds — will likewise not be rendered unfit by reason of sexual perversion or idolatry! The verse therefore teaches us [that they are excluded]. R. Zera put the following question: What is the law if a man said: ‘Behold, I undertake to offer for a burnt-offering either a ram or a lamb’, and he brought a pallax?7 Of course according to R. Johanan the question does not arise, since he holds that it is a distinct species.8 For we have learnt:9 If a man [under an obligation to bring a lamb or a ram as a sacrifice] offered a pallax, he must bring for it libations as for a ram,10 but he does not thereby discharge the obligation of his sacrifice. And R. Johanan said that the verse. Or a ram,11 included a pallax. The question, however, does arise according to the view of Bar Padda, whose neck feathers begin to glisten, is now abandoned. it is known as a pallax. Heb. xdkp, from Greek **, specifically a youth not yet arrived at adolescence, below the age of eighteen years. animal offered. For a bullock it was necessary to bring three tenths of an ephah meal and one half of a hin wine; for a ram two tenths meal and one third of a hin wine; for a lamb one tenth meal and one quarter of a hin wine. extend the rule contained in this verse so as to include the pallax. Now it is evident that R. Johanan, by his interpretation that the verse purports to include the pallax, holds that it is a distinct species; for were it indeed a case of doubt he surely would not have explained the verse as purporting to include a condition of doubt! Cf. supra. p. 113, n. 3.