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 sinoffering [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 sinoffering. 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 THESE (15) DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET (16) AND INVOLVE TRESPASS, (17) EXCEPT THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHICH WAS OFFERED BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SINOFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SINOFFERING. (18) IF ONE OFFERED THE BURNTOFFERING 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 SINOFFERING 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 BURNTOFFERING 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 BURNTOFFERING, [IT INVOLVES TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES TRESPASS; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A BURNTOFFERING WHOSE NAME HE CHANGED TO THAT OF A SIN-OFFERING, SEEING THAT HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS? (23)

---

(1). ↑ When he offers a sin-offering with the rites of a burnt-offering.
(2). ↑ Nipping both organs, and thus severing it.
(3). ↑ Supra 65b. The same obviously applies here: What then is your difficulty?
(4). ↑ This Mishnah can be explained as agreeing even with him.
(5). ↑ Instead of first sprinkling some of the blood (v. Lev. V, 9), he drains out the whole of it, thus treating it like a burnt-offering (I, 15).
(6). ↑ Which rite does he perform above?
(7). ↑ The sequel, it is true, can only refer to a deviation in sprinkling, yet the first clause can still refer to a deviation in melikah.
(8). ↑ When he performs the rites of a sin-offering.
(9). ↑ He does not sever it.
(10). ↑ The next Mishnah, which is the sequel to this.
(11). ↑ V. p. 176. n. 10.
(12). ↑ V. p. 257. n. 1 and note on next Mishnah.
(13). ↑ If the melikah is not done properly.
(14). ↑ There R. Joshua agrees. For R. Joshua's reason, as stated infra, will not apply. (11) He did not, as already stated.
(15). ↑ Enumerated in the preceding Mishnah.
(16). ↑ V. p. 257. no. 1. Though they are unfit, the melikah frees them from the uncleanness of nebelah.
(17). ↑ v. p. 176, n. 10. If their rites were properly performed, they would no longer involve trespass, since they would be 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.
(18). ↑ Since that is fit, and there is a time when it is permitted to the priests; hence even a Zar is not liable to trespass.
(19). ↑ For it is a burnt-offering, and at no time was it permitted to the priests.
(20). ↑ For it has become a sin-offering through all these deviations, and is permitted.
(21). ↑ For it is then unfit and not permitted to the priests.
(22). ↑ Since a burnt-offering must be altogether burnt, and is not permitted at any time.
(23). ↑ Surely not.