## Mishnah Zevachim Chapter 7

###### Mishnah Zevachim 7:1
[Mishnah Zevachim 7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Zevachim/r/7:1)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Mishnah Zevachim 7:2
[Mishnah Zevachim 7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Zevachim/r/7:2)

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּשֵׁרָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּשֵׁרָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כֻלָּן, פְּסוּלָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed** in its designated place **above** the red line **according to the procedure of a burnt offering** and **for the sake of a burnt offering** is **fit.** This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering *ab initio*. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line **according to the procedure of** the **burnt offering** but **for the sake of a sin offering,** the offering is **fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.** If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering **according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering,** or **according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering,** the offering is **disqualified.** If **he sacrificed it below** 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.


###### Mishnah Zevachim 7:3
[Mishnah Zevachim 7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Zevachim/r/7:3)

וְכֻלָּן אֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And all of** the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they **do not render** one who swallows their meat **ritually impure** when the meat is **in the throat.** This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. **But** nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of **them** is liable for **misusing** consecrated property. This is the *halakha* in all cases **except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below** the red line **according to the procedure of** the **sin offering** and **for the sake of a sin offering.** Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.


###### Mishnah Zevachim 7:4
[Mishnah Zevachim 7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Zevachim/r/7:4)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Mishnah Zevachim 7:5
[Mishnah Zevachim 7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Zevachim/r/7:5)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.** 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.


###### Mishnah Zevachim 7:6
[Mishnah Zevachim 7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Zevachim/r/7:6)

מָלַק וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְטַמְּאָה בְבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מָה אִם נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ, נִבְלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ. מַה מָּצִינוּ בִשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה, וּמְטַהֶרֶת אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ, אַף מְלִיקָתָהּ, שֶׁהִיא מַכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה, תְּטַהֵר אֶת טְרֵפָתָהּ מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the priest **pinched** the nape of the bird’s neck properly **and** then **it was found** to be **a *tereifa*,** and it was therefore disqualified from being sacrificed and forbidden for consumption by a priest, **Rabbi Meir says:** An olive-bulk of its meat **does not render** one who swallows it **ritually impure** when it is **in the throat,** as the pinching prevents it from assuming the status of a carcass. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and its meat **renders** one who swallows it **ritually impure.** **Rabbi Meir said:** My opinion can be inferred ***a fortiori*. If an animal carcass transmits impurity** to a person **through touching** it **and through carrying** it, and nevertheless the **slaughter of** an animal **purifies it,** even if it is **a *tereifa*, from its impurity,** i.e., its slaughter prevents it from assuming the impurity status of a carcass, then with regard to **a bird carcass, which** possesses a lesser degree of impurity, as it **does not transmit impurity** to a person **through touching** it **and through carrying** it, but only through swallowing it, **is it not logical that its slaughter should purify it,** even if it is **a *tereifa*, from its impurity?** And once it is established that slaughter renders a bird that is a *tereifa* pure, it can be inferred that **just as we found with regard to its slaughter that it renders** a bird **fit for consumption and purifies** a bird, even if it is **a *tereifa*, from its impurity, so too its pinching, which renders** a bird offering **fit with regard to consumption, should purify it,** even if it is **a *tereifa*, from its impurity.** **Rabbi Yosei says:** Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter renders even a bird that is a *tereifa* pure, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every *a fortiori* inference, namely, that a *halakha* derived by means of an *a fortiori* inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: **It is sufficient** for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a *tereifa* to be **like** that of **the carcass of** an **animal** that is a *tereifa*; **its slaughter renders it pure, but its pinching** does **not.**