Zevachim

GEMARA. Wherein does he deviate?1 If we say that he deviates in melikah?2 Shall we then say that it does not agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, who said: I have heard that one severs a bird sin-offering? — But have we not explained that it does not agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon?3 — No:4 [it means] that he deviates in the sprinkling.5 That too is logical, since the sequel teaches, IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE, EVEN WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, IT IS UNFIT, [which means] even with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. Now, wherein does he deviate?6 If you say that he deviates in melikah, surely a master said: If he performed its melikah on any part of the altar, it is fit? Hence it must surely mean that he deviates in sprinkling, and since the second clause means in sprinkling, the first clause too means in sprinkling! — Why interpret it thus? Each is governed by its own circumstances.7 IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD etc. Wherein does he deviate?8 If we say, that he deviates in melikah,9 then when he [the Tanna] teaches in the sequel:10 ‘All of these do not defile in the gullet,11 and involve trespass’;12 shall we say that this does not agree with R. Joshua; for if it agreed with R. Joshua, surely he ruled [that] they do not involve trespass?13 — Rather, [he deviated] in draining [the blood].14 Then consider the subsequent clause: If one offered a burnt-offering of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. R. Eliezer maintains: It involves trespass; R. Joshua said: It does not involve trespass. Now, wherein did he deviate? If we say, in draining; granted that R. Joshua ruled [thus] where he deviated in melikah, did he rule [thus] in reference to draining?5 , Hence it must mean, in melikah: then the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining? — Yes: the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining. MISHNAH. AND ALL OF THESE15 DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET16 AND INVOLVE TRESPASS,17 EXCEPT THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHICH WAS OFFERED BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING.18 IF ONE OFFERED THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD BELOW WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER MAINTAINED: IT INVOLVES TRESPASS;19 R. JOSHUA RULED: IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS.20 SAID R. ELIEZER: IF A SIN-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS WHEN [THE PRIEST], DEVIATED IN ITS NAME,21 THOUGH IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS WHEN [IT IS OFFERED] IN ITS OWN NAME, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT A BURNT-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS IF HE DEVIATED IN ITS NAME, SEEING THAT IT INVOLVES TRESPASS [WHEN HE OFFERED IT] IN ITS OWN NAME?22 NO, ANSWERED R. JOSHUA: WHEN YOU SPEAK OF A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE ALTERED TO THAT OF A BURNT-OFFERING, [IT INVOLVES TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES TRESPASS; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A BURNT-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE CHANGED TO THAT OF A SIN-OFFERING, SEEING THAT HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS?23 burnt-offering (I, 15). melikah. permitted to the priests, which is secular benefit. Since, however, they became unfit, and so were not permitted at any time, they retain the trespass, involving status which they possessed before they were offered. This applies even to a sin-offering, save for the exception which follows.