## Zevachim Daf 69a

###### Zevachim 69a:1
[Zevachim 69a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:1)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, ״שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ״ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And according to your reasoning,** one could infer the opposite from the following clause: The meat of any bird **whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred** Temple courtyard transmits ritual impurity to one who swallows it. Here, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, **what** disqualification **is added** if not pinching by a non-priest?


###### Zevachim 69a:2
[Zevachim 69a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:2)

אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים, סֵיפָא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מְלִיקַת חוּלִּין בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** both clauses add other disqualifications not mentioned in the mishna. **The former clause,** concerning an offering that was disqualified in the Temple courtyard, is written **to add** that **the slaughter of sacrificial** birds **inside** the Temple courtyard does not render them carcasses. **The latter clause,** with regard to an offering disqualified outside the Temple courtyard, is written **to add** that **the pinching of non-sacred** birds **outside** the Temple courtyard does render them carcasses.


###### Zevachim 69a:3
[Zevachim 69a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:3)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְלָקָהּ זָר, מְלָקָהּ פָּסוּל, הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan:** In a case where **a non-priest pinched** a bird offering, or a priest **disqualified** from the Temple service **pinched it,** or it became ***piggul*,** i.e., it was sacrificed with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, **or** it became ***notar*,** i.e., its meat remained uneaten beyond its designated time, **or** it became **ritually impure,** in all these cases, even though the meat of these birds may not be consumed, they still **do not render** one who swallows them **ritually impure** when they are **in the throat.**


###### Zevachim 69a:4
[Zevachim 69a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שָׁמַעְתִּי שְׁתַּיִם – אַחַת קְמִיצַת זָר, וְאַחַת מְלִיקַת זָר; אַחַת תֵּרֵד, וְאַחַת לֹא תֵּרֵד; וְלָא יָדַעְנָא. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, מִסְתַּבְּרָא: קְמִיצָה תֵּרֵד, מְלִיקָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yitzḥak says: I heard [*shamati*] two** *halakhot*, **one** concerning **the removal of a handful** from a meal offering **by a non-priest** for burning on the altar, **and one** concerning the **pinching** of a bird offering **by a non-priest.** Although both offerings are disqualified, I heard that **one shall descend** from the altar if it ascended, **and one shall not descend; but I do not know** which *halakha* applies to which case. **Ḥizkiyya said: It stands to reason** that in the case of the **removal of** the **handful** the offering **shall descend** and in the case of **pinching** the offering **shall not descend.**


###### Zevachim 69a:5
[Zevachim 69a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:5)

מַאי שְׁנָא מְלִיקָה – דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ בְּבָמָה, קְמִיצָה נָמֵי – יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּבָמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **pinching** by a non-priest that would allow the bird to be sacrificed if it ascended onto the altar? If the difference is **that** for a non-priest to do so **would be** valid **on** a private **altar,** where all sacrificial rites were performed by non-priests, this does not constitute a difference, as the **removal of** the **handful** by a non-priest **would also be** valid **on** a private **altar.**


###### Zevachim 69a:6
[Zevachim 69a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:6)

וְכִי תֵימָא אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה, אֵין עוֹפוֹת נָמֵי בְּבָמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that no handfuls were removed on private altars because **no meal offering** was sacrificed **on** a private **altar,** as meal offerings were brought before the construction of the Temple only on the altar in the Tabernacle, you must also say that there was no pinching either, as according to this opinion **no birds** were sacrificed **on** a private **altar either.**


###### Zevachim 69a:7
[Zevachim 69a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:7)

דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר יֵשׁ מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה – יֵשׁ עוֹפוֹת בְּבָמָה. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין מִנְחָה – אֵין עוֹפוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״זְבָחִים״ וְלֹא מְנָחוֹת, ״זְבָחִים״ וְלֹא עוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Sheshet says: According to the statement of the one who says** that **a meal offering was** sacrificed **on** a private **altar, birds were** sacrificed **on** a private **altar. According to the statement of the one who says** that **no meal offering** was sacrificed on a private altar, **no birds** were sacrificed there either. **What is the reason** for this? This is because the Torah, in describing the offerings brought at Mount Sinai, before the Tabernacle was built, mentions **slaughtered offerings** (see Exodus 24:5) **but not meal offerings;** it mentions **slaughtered offerings,** i.e., animal offerings, **but not birds.**


###### Zevachim 69a:8
[Zevachim 69a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:8)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵין קִידּוּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בְּמִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** that even though both pinching the nape of a bird offering and removing the handful of a meal offering by a non-priest are valid on a private altar, the *halakhot* of meal offerings sacrificed on a private altar cannot be compared to those of meal offerings sacrificed in the Temple. This is because in the case of **a meal offering** sacrificed **on** a private **altar, there is no consecration in a service vessel of** the handful removed from it. By contrast, in the Temple, the handful must always be consecrated in a service vessel.


###### Zevachim 69a:9
[Zevachim 69a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:9)

מָלַק בִּשְׂמֹאל אוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא מְלִיקָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנִים, מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna rules that if a priest **pinched with** his **left** hand, **or** if he pinched **at night,** the offering does not render one ritually impure when in his throat. With regard to this issue **the Sages taught:** One **might** have thought that invalid **pinching that** occurs **inside** the Temple courtyard, such as pinching with the left hand or pinching at night, **would** cause the offering to **render** the **garments** of one who swallows it **ritually impure** when it is **in the throat.** Therefore **the verse states:** “Every soul that eats **a carcass**…shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). Bird offerings whose napes were pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not considered carcasses.


###### Zevachim 69a:10
[Zevachim 69a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:10)

הָא נָמֵי נְבֵלָה הִיא! אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״טְרֵיפָה״; מָה טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁאֵין מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אַף כֹּל – שֶׁאֵין מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** a bird offering whose nape was pinched inside the Temple courtyard **also a carcass? Rather,** the *halakha* of the mishna is derived from that which **the verse states:** “Every soul that eats a carcass or **a *tereifa***…shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). A *tereifa* is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months. It is derived from this verse that **just as** having the status of **a *tereifa* does not render permitted** any **forbidden** bird, **so too, any** type of death **that does not render permitted** any **forbidden** bird renders the animal a carcass with regard to ritual impurity.


###### Zevachim 69a:11
[Zevachim 69a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:11)

(יצא) [יָצָאת] מְלִיקָה שֶׁהִיא לִפְנִים – הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, invalid **pinching that is** performed **inside** the Temple courtyard **is excluded, since it renders permitted a forbidden** bird, as it is permitted to sacrifice such a disqualified offering if it ascended onto the altar, whereas it was prohibited to sacrifice such a disqualified offering if it was not pinched. The meat of such an offering therefore **does not render** the **garments** of one who swallows it **ritually impure** when it is **in the throat.**


###### Zevachim 69a:12
[Zevachim 69a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:12)

הֵבִיא הַמּוֹלֵק (קֵ״ץ חָפֵ״ץ – סִימָן) קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, וּמוֹלֵק חוּלִּין בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ – הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מַתִּירִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This principle **includes** two other cases of invalid pinching, for which the Gemara gives a two-word **mnemonic: *Ketz*, *ḥefetz*.** These words are acronyms for the cases of **one who pinches** the napes of **sacrificial** birds **outside** the Temple courtyard, **and** one who **pinches** the napes of **non-sacred** birds **whether inside** the Temple courtyard **or outside** of it. **Since** these offerings **do not render permitted** any **forbidden** bird, as these offerings may not be sacrificed even if brought onto the altar, **they render** the **garments** of one who swallows them **ritually impure** when they are **in the throat.**


###### Zevachim 69a:13
[Zevachim 69a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:13)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִּין לִפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים וּבֵין מִבַּחוּץ, מְטַמְּאָה אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: One **might** have thought **that the slaughter of non-sacred** birds **inside** the Temple courtyard, **or** the slaughter of **sacrificial** birds **whether inside or outside** of it, would cause their meat to **render** the garments of one who swallows it **ritually impure** when it is **in the throat.** Therefore **the verse states:** “Every soul that eats **a carcass**…shall be impure until the evening.” Birds that have been slaughtered in this manner are not considered carcasses, and so they do not impart ritual impurity.


###### Zevachim 69a:14
[Zevachim 69a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:14)

הָא נָמֵי נְבֵלָה הִיא! אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״טְרֵיפָה״; מָה טְרֵיפָה – שָׁוָוה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אַף כֹּל – שָׁווֹת בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** a bird slaughtered in one of these manners **also a carcass? Rather,** it is derived from that which **the verse states:** “Every soul that eats a carcass or **a *tereifa***…shall be impure until the evening,” as follows: **Just as** the status of **a *tereifa* is the same,** if the bird is slaughtered **inside** the Temple courtyard **as** it is if the bird is slaughtered **outside** of it, i.e., forbidden, **so too all** forbidden birds whose status **is the same** if slaughtered **inside** the Temple courtyard **as** it is if they were slaughtered **outside** of it constitute carcasses.


###### Zevachim 69a:15
[Zevachim 69a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:15)

יָצָא שְׁחִיטַת חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים, וְקָדָשִׁים בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ – הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, **the slaughter of non-sacred** birds **inside** the Temple courtyard, **or** of **sacrificial** birds **whether inside or outside** of it, **is excluded, since** the status of such birds **is not the same** if they are slaughtered **inside** the Temple courtyard **as** if they are slaughtered **outside** of it. The meat of such an offering therefore **does not render** the **garments** of one who swallows it **ritually impure** when it is **in the throat.**


###### Zevachim 69a:16
[Zevachim 69a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:16)

בִּשְׁלָמָא חוּלִּין – לֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ; אֶלָּא קָדָשִׁים – אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פְּסוּלִין נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Granted,** the status of **non-sacred** birds **is not the same** if slaughtered **inside** the Temple courtyard **as** if they are slaughtered **outside** of it, as if slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard they are forbidden, while if slaughtered outside of it they are permitted. **But** with regard to **sacrificial** birds, in both **this** case **and that** case, whether slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard or outside of it, they **are disqualified.**


###### Zevachim 69a:17
[Zevachim 69a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם הוֹעִילָה לוֹ שְׁחִיטַת חוּץ לְחַיְּיבוֹ כָּרֵת, לֹא תּוֹעִיל לוֹ לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵילָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The *halakha* with regard to slaughtered sacrificial birds outside the Temple should not be derived from the verse at all, but rather by logic. **If the slaughter of** a sacrificial bird **outside** the Temple courtyard **has** sufficient **effect on it** as proper slaughter **to render** the one who slaughtered it **liable to excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*],** which is the punishment for slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard (see 107a), could it be that **it does not have** sufficient **effect on** the bird as proper slaughter **to render it ritually pure** by preventing it **from** assuming the status of **a carcass?**


###### Zevachim 69a:18
[Zevachim 69a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:18)

אַשְׁכְּחַן חוּץ, פָּנִים מְנָלַן? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* with regard to the slaughter of sacrificial birds **outside** the Temple courtyard; **from where do we** derive this *halakha* with regard to their slaughter **inside** the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the principle articulated above: **Since** their status **is not the same** if they are slaughtered **inside** the Temple courtyard **as** if they are slaughtered **outside** of it, as one who slaughters a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive *karet*, the status of a carcass does not apply.


###### Zevachim 69a:19
[Zevachim 69a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:19)

אִי הָכִי, מָלַק קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ נָמֵי לָא – דְּלָא שָׁווּ בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** it follows that if the priest **pinched sacrificial** birds **outside** the Temple courtyard, they are **also not** considered carcasses, **as** their status **is not the same** if they are pinched **inside** the Temple courtyard **as** if they are pinched **outside** of it; if they are pinched inside, they are fit offerings, and if they are pinched outside, they are disqualified. This conclusion would contradict the mishna, which rules that sacrificial birds pinched outside the Temple courtyard are considered carcasses, and they render one who eats their meat impure.


###### Zevachim 69a:20
[Zevachim 69a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:20)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ; וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶיכְשֵׁרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: One can derive** the *halakha* with regard to **an item that is** prepared **not in its valid manner,** i.e., sacrificial birds slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, **from** the *halakha* with regard to another **item that is** prepared **not in its valid manner,** i.e., sacrificial birds slaughtered inside it. **But one cannot derive** the *halakha* with regard to **an item that is** prepared **not in its valid manner,** i.e., sacrificial birds pinched outside the Temple courtyard, **from** the *halakha* with regard to **an item that is** prepared **in its valid manner,** i.e., those pinched inside it. The cases of a bird pinched outside and a bird pinched inside the Temple courtyard are not subject to comparison, so one cannot derive conclusions from the differences between them.


###### Zevachim 69a:21
[Zevachim 69a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:21)

וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְיוֹצֵא – שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד? שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** can one **not** derive the *halakha* with regard to disqualified offerings from the *halakha* with regard to fit offerings? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to** an item that **emerged** from the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, **that if** it nevertheless **ascended** upon the altar **it shall not descend?** It is derived from the fact **that** an item that **emerged is valid** for sacrifice **on** a private **altar,** i.e., that disqualification was not applicable to an offering sacrificed on a private altar, as there was no Temple. Here, the *baraita* derives the *halakha* with regard to a disqualified offering from the *halakha* with regard to a fit one.


###### Zevachim 69a:22
[Zevachim 69a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:22)

תַּנָּא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ***tanna*** of that *baraita* **relies on** the phrase: **“This is the law of the burnt offering [*ha’ola*]”** (Leviticus 6:2), a seemingly superfluous general phrase which is interpreted homiletically to **include** the *halakha* that any item that ascends [*ola*] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. The verse is the actual source for the *halakha* of the *baraita*, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.


###### Zevachim 69a:23
[Zevachim 69a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/69a:23)

**מַתְנִי׳** מָלַק וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ מְטַמֵּא בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה,

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