Zevachim 64

Sugya Map

• Issue: The sugya on Zevachim 64a-b meticulously details the performance of avodot (sacrificial rites) for bird offerings, with a particular focus on chatat ha'of (bird sin-offering) and olat ha'of (bird burnt-offering). Key areas of contention and clarification include:
  • The precise location on the mizbe'ach (altar) for hizah (sprinkling) and mitzuy ha'dam (squeezing out residual blood) for a chatat ha'of, and its validity if mitzuy is omitted.
  • The locations for shiyarei hadam (remaining blood), hagashot (bringing meal-offerings near the altar), and nisuch hamayim v'hayayin (water and wine libations).
  • The derech aliyah v'yerida (path of ascent and descent) for kohanim on the kevesh (ramp) to the mizbe'ach, with specific exceptions.
  • The dinim of piggul (intent to consume/burn beyond time) and notar (leftover) as they apply to bird offerings, and their unique parameters for karet liability.
  • The physical avoda of melika (pinching the bird's nape) and its designation as one of the most difficult rites.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The kasherut (validity) of a chatat ha'of if mitzuy is not performed, or if hizah is done in a non-optimal location.
  • The impact of machshava (improper intent) on piggul status and karet liability for bird offerings.
  • Practical halachot for the kohanim performing the avoda in the Beit Hamikdash.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishna: Zevachim 64a, 64b. Tamid 28b, 33b.
  • Baraita: Zevachim 64a (multiple instances).
  • Tanakh: Vayikra 4:7 ("וְאֵת כָּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה"¹), Vayikra 5:9 ("וְהִזָּה מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ... וְאֶת שְׁאָר הַדָּם יִמָּצֶה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ"²).

Text Snapshot

The Gemara engages in a classic linguistic derasha to clarify the nature of mitzuy ha'dam for a chatat ha'of:

רבא אמר: מי כתיב ימצה? יִמָּצֶה כתיב, מכלל שבא מאליו.³

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: Rava's insight hinges on the precise grammatical form of the verb in Vayikra 5:9, regarding the remaining blood of the bird sin-offering. He distinguishes between yimtzeh (ימצה), which is an active, transitive form, implying "he shall squeeze out," and yimmatzeh (יִמָּצֶה), the passive, reflexive form, meaning "it shall be squeezed out" or "it shall drain by itself." The pasuk uses the latter. This seemingly subtle grammatical distinction bears monumental halachic weight. Rava argues that since the Torah uses the passive voice, the mitzva is not an active avoda of squeezing by the kohen, but rather a condition that the blood must naturally flow to the yesod (base) of the mizbe'ach. This implies that the initial hizah must be performed in a location (i.e., below the chut hasikra) from which such a natural drainage is possible, rather than requiring an additional act of the kohen.

Readings

Rashi's Insight on Mitzuy's Status

Rashi, ever the master of succinct clarity, unpacks the implications of the opening baraita on Zevachim 64a, which states: "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה, ובלבד שיתן מדם הנפש מחוט הסיקרא ולמטה."⁴ (If he sprinkled but did not squeeze out, it is valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below).

Rashi on "בכל מקום כשירה"⁵ (it is valid no matter where) immediately clarifies the underlying halachic principle:

כדמפרש טעמא דמיצוי בחטאת לאו עבודה היא ליפסל בשינוי שאפילו עקר המיצוי לגמרי שהזה ולא מיצה כשירה כדאמרן באיזהו מקומן (לעיל זבחים דף נב.) והנשאר ימצה שאינו נשאר לא ימצה אלמא איכא דסבירא דלא מעכב ומהאי קרא:⁶

Rashi explains that the baraita's ruling stems from the understanding that mitzuy for a chatat ha'of is lav avoda hi – it is not a primary avoda whose improper performance would invalidate the offering. Therefore, even if the mitzuy is completely omitted ("עקר המיצוי לגמרי"), the offering remains valid if hizah was properly performed. He cross-references this to Zevachim 52b ("איזהו מקומן"), where the sugya indeed discusses whether mitzuy is me'akev (essential). Rashi's concluding phrase, "והנשאר ימצה שאינו נשאר לא ימצה אלמא איכא דסבירא דלא מעכב ומהאי קרא,"⁷ connects this idea to the very pasuk of yimmatzeh, suggesting that the Torah's passive language implies it's not a required avoda.

Further, Rashi on "ובלבד"⁸ (provided that) clarifies the crucial caveat:

שיהא הזאה הנעשית ראשון מחוט הסיקרא ולמטה מדם הנפש:⁹

The validity of omitting mitzuy is conditional upon the initial hizah of the dam hanefesh (blood of the soul) being performed below the chut hasikra (red line). This ensures that the blood can naturally drain to the yesod, fulfilling the passive requirement of "יִמָּצֶה," even if no active squeezing occurs. Rashi thus harmonizes the baraita with Rava's derasha, establishing a nuanced halacha where the kohen's action (or inaction) is judged against the natural outcome mandated by the pasuk.

Tosafot's Dialectical Engagement with Me'ilah

Tosafot, with characteristic dialectical prowess, addresses an apparent kushya from Me'ilah 8b regarding the status of mitzuy. Our baraita here states: "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה"¹⁰ (if he sprinkled but did not squeeze, it is valid), clearly implying mitzuy is eino me'akev. Yet, in Me'ilah 8b, the Gemara presents a machloket on this very point, and even challenges certain Amoraim based on baraitot implying mitzuy is me'akev.

Tosafot on "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה"¹¹ asks:

הא דלא פריך מהכא במסכת מעילה פרק חטאת העוף (מעילה דף ח:) לרב אדא בר אהבה ' ואמר דתני רב מיצה דמיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב דמצי למימר הא מני תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל היא דאמר אינו מעכב לעיל פ' איזהו מקומן (זבחים דף נב:) כדאמר תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי ישמעאל¹²

Tosafot notes that the Gemara in Me'ilah 8b challenges Rav Ada bar Ahava (who holds mitzuy me'akev) from a baraita in Me'ilah itself, but notably doesn't challenge him from our baraita in Zevachim 64a (which states eino me'akev). Tosafot explains that Rav Ada bar Ahava could easily dismiss our baraita by attributing it to Tana d'vei Rabbi Yishmael, who (as stated in Zevachim 52b) holds that mitzuy is eino me'akev. This is a standard terutz in the Gemara: attributing a potentially contradictory baraita to a specific Tanna whose view it reflects.

However, Tosafot then raises a more incisive point:

והא דפריך התם לרב הונא דתני הזה דמיצוי אינו מעכב ולא משני דאתא כההוא תנא דאמר אינו מעכב ניחא ליה לשנויי טפי לצדדין קתני:¹³

In Me'ilah 8b, the Gemara challenges Rav Huna (who holds mitzuy eino me'akev) from a baraita that implies mitzuy is me'akev. Why, Tosafot asks, doesn't the Gemara there simply answer that Rav Huna follows the Tanna who says eino me'akev? This would be a parallel terutz to the one suggested for Rav Ada bar Ahava. Tosafot's answer is that the Gemara in Me'ilah preferred a different terutz for Rav Huna's case: "לצדדין קתני" (the baraita lists options, not requirements). This shows Tosafot's nuanced understanding of the Gemara's methodology – sometimes a straightforward attribution to a Tanna is sufficient, but other times, the Gemara seeks a deeper harmonization or reinterpretation of the baraita's intent. This highlights the fluidity of sugyot and the various approaches Amoraim take to resolve perceived contradictions.

Friction

The Enigma of Mitzuy: An Essential Rite or a Natural Consequence?

The most pronounced friction in this sugya revolves around the precise halachic status of mitzuy ha'dam for a chatat ha'of. The baraita opens with a seemingly unequivocal statement: "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה"¹⁴ (If he sprinkled but did not squeeze out, it is valid). This immediately suggests that mitzuy is eino me'akev (not essential for validity).

However, this stands in tension with several facets of the sugya and related texts:

1. The Pasuk's Language: Vayikra 5:9 states, "וְאֶת שְׁאָר הַדָּם יִמָּצֶה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ"¹⁵ ("And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar"). The very mention of mitzuy in the pasuk implies it is a required component of the avoda.
2. Logical Inference (Kal v'Chomer): The baraita itself, before Rava's intervention, attempts a kal v'chomer: "Just as with an animal offering, where the blood of a burnt offering is applied below the red line, nevertheless, the blood of the sin offering is applied above the red line, with regard to a bird offering, where the blood of the burnt offering is sprinkled above the red line, is it not logical that the blood of its sin offering is sprinkled above the red line?"¹⁶ This logic would imply that hizah for a bird sin-offering should be above the red line. But if hizah is above the red line, how could the "remaining blood" naturally drain to the yesod (base) as the pasuk mandates? This creates a practical tension between two seemingly valid interpretations.
3. Machloket Tana'im in Zevachim 52b and Me'ilah 8b: As noted by Rashi and Tosafot, Zevachim 52b explicitly presents a machloket Tana'im as to whether mitzuy for chatat ha'of is me'akev or eino me'akev. Me'ilah 8b further engages with this machloket, challenging Amoraim based on differing baraitot. If our baraita here is so clear that it's eino me'akev, why the extensive debate elsewhere?

Rava's Linguistic Precision: A Terutz for the Ages

The primary and most elegant terutz (resolution) to this friction comes from Rava, leveraging the power of linguistic precision:

רבא אמר: מי כתיב ימצה? יִמָּצֶה כתיב, מכלל שבא מאליו.¹⁷

Rava argues that the pasuk does not use the active form yimtzeh (he shall squeeze), which would mandate an active avoda by the kohen. Instead, it uses the passive form yimmatzeh (it shall be squeezed/drain), implying that the blood must drain by itself ("בא מאליו").

This derasha provides a multi-faceted resolution:

1. Reconciling with "כשירה": If mitzuy is not an active avoda, but a condition of natural drainage, then the baraita's statement "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה" makes perfect sense. The kohen isn't required to perform an action of squeezing; he's required to ensure the hizah is done in a way that allows natural drainage. If he sprinkles correctly, the mitzva is fulfilled, even if he doesn't actively squeeze.
2. Refuting the Kal v'Chomer: The baraita's attempt at a kal v'chomer to apply hizah above the red line is therefore rejected. The Gemara explicitly states: "לֶאֱמֹר יִמָּצֶה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, על קיר שממנו ימצה אל היסוד, ואיזהו? זהו קיר התחתון."¹⁸ The pasuk "יִמָּצֶה אֶל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" mandates that the blood be sprinkled on a wall from which it can drain to the yesod. This inherently means the hizah must be on the lower wall, below the chut hasikra, negating the kal v'chomer.
3. Clarifying the Machloket: Rava's interpretation allows for understanding the machloket Tana'im (e.g., in Zevachim 52b) not as a dispute over whether mitzuy happens, but over the precise nature of its requirement. One view might maintain that even if yimmatzeh is passive, it still implies a necessary condition that must be actively facilitated (e.g., by ensuring sufficient blood or precise angling), while others, like Rava's interpretation, emphasize the natural consequence over the kohen's specific action. Rashi, as seen, adopts this interpretation, stating mitzuy is lav avoda hi.

In essence, Rava shifts the focus from the kohen's potential act of squeezing to the passive outcome of the blood reaching the yesod. This profound derasha resolves the textual and logical tensions, providing a coherent framework for the halacha of chatat ha'of.

Intertext

1. Zevachim 52b: The Genesis of the Mitzuy Debate

Our sugya's discussion regarding the status of mitzuy for chatat ha'of finds its foundational machloket in Zevachim 52b. There, the Gemara explicitly asks: "מיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב או אינו מעכב?"¹⁹ (Is the squeezing out of the bird sin-offering essential or not essential?). The Gemara presents a machloket Tana'im:

תניא: רבי ישמעאל אומר: מיצוי חטאת העוף אינו מעכב. רבי עקיבא אומר: מעכב.²⁰ (It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: The squeezing out of the bird sin-offering is not essential. Rabbi Akiva says: It is essential.)

This machloket directly informs the Amoraic discussions in our sugya and elsewhere. Rashi (Zevachim 64a s.v. "בכל מקום כשירה"²¹) explicitly references Zevachim 52b when explaining that mitzuy is lav avoda hi and therefore eino me'akev. Tosafot (Zevachim 64a s.v. "שאם היזה ולא מיצה"²²) likewise uses this machloket to explain why Rav Ada bar Ahava (who holds mitzuy me'akev) in Me'ilah 8b could dismiss our baraita as aligning with Tana d'vei Rabbi Yishmael. The sugya on 64a, with Rava's derasha of "יִמָּצֶה," provides the textual basis for the view that mitzuy is eino me'akev, aligning with Rabbi Yishmael.

2. Menachot 6b: The Difficulty of Avodot

The Gemara on Zevachim 64a discusses the melika of a chatat ha'of and states: "והקשה שבעבודות במקדש"²³ (And this is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple). The Gemara then challenges this: "הכי קאמר: קשה שבעבודות במקדש, ולא עוד? והא איכא קמיצה, והא איכא קומץ של קטורת של יום הכפורים!"²⁴ (Is this the most difficult rite, and no other? But isn't there the removal of the handful of the meal offering, and the handful of the incense on Yom Kippur?). The Gemara concludes: "אלא אימא: קשה שבעבודות במקדש"²⁵ (Rather, say: it was a difficult sacrificial rite, one of the most difficult sacrificial rites in the Temple).

This discussion finds a thematic parallel in Menachot 6b, where the difficulty of kemitzah (removing a handful from the mincha offering) is highlighted:

קומץ מעכב, קמיצה מעכבת, כלי שרת מעכבין... קמיצה בזר מעכבת... הקשה שבעבודות במקדש, ומתניתין דחטאת העוף.²⁶

Menachot 6b indeed lists kemitzah as a difficult avoda that is me'akev. The Gemara there also contrasts it with chatat ha'of, implying that the two are among the most intricate. This intertextual reference not only reinforces the idea that certain Temple rites demanded exceptional skill and precision but also provides context for the comparative difficulty discussed in our sugya. The physical dexterity required to perform melika correctly, holding the bird with specific fingers and pinching precisely, is akin to the skill needed for kemitzah – removing a precise amount of flour without spilling or leaving too much.

Psak/Practice

The psak halacha regarding mitzuy ha'dam for a chatat ha'of largely follows the view that it is eino me'akev, provided the initial hizah is performed correctly.

The Rambam, as the authoritative posek for Kodshim, articulates this clearly. In Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:15, he describes the procedure for chatat ha'of: "וּמוֹלֵק וּמַזֶּה וּמְמַצֶּה אֶת שְׁיָרֶיהָ עַל יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמַטָּה."²⁷ He lists mitzuy as part of the procedure, indicating it should be done. However, in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:19, the Rambam explicitly clarifies its din if omitted:

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף... וְאִם לֹא מִצָּה דָּמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ שֶׁבָּהּ בִּמְקוֹם הַהַזָּאָה מִחוּט הַסִּקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה.²⁸

The Rambam unequivocally rules that if the kohen did not squeeze out the blood, the offering is still valid, provided that the dam hanefesh (blood of the soul) was sprinkled below the chut hasikra. This perfectly mirrors the baraita in our sugya and aligns with Rava's interpretation of "יִמָּצֶה" as a passive requirement for natural drainage. This demonstrates how a deep linguistic derasha can directly shape normative halacha.

From a meta-psak heuristic perspective, this sugya illustrates the principle of distinguishing between an ikkar avoda (essential service) and a zika or hakana (ancillary action or preparation). When an action is deemed "לאו עבודה היא," its omission or improper performance generally does not invalidate the korban, provided the core avoda has been fulfilled and any necessary conditions (like natural drainage) are met. It also underscores the importance of interpreting biblical verses with extreme precision, as a subtle grammatical nuance can completely alter the halachic implication of a command.

Takeaway

The sugya on Zevachim 64a-b exemplifies the rigorous, multi-layered analysis of Torah Sheb'al Peh, where a passive verb form can determine the validity of a korban, and seemingly minor procedural details reflect profound halachic principles. It teaches us that even in the absence of an explicit command for action, the Torah may mandate a condition that must be naturally fulfilled.

---

¹ Vayikra 4:7, quoted in Zevachim 64a. ² Vayikra 5:9, quoted in Zevachim 64a. ³ Zevachim 64a. ⁴ Zevachim 64a. ⁵ Rashi on Zevachim 64a s.v. "בכל מקום כשירה". ⁶ Rashi on Zevachim 64a s.v. "בכל מקום כשירה". Translation: "As it explains the reason that mitzuy for a sin-offering is not a service to be invalidated by change, that even if he completely omitted the mitzuy, that he sprinkled but did not squeeze out, it is valid, as we said in 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim 52b). And 'the remaining blood shall be squeezed out' (Vayikra 5:9) implies that what is not remaining is not squeezed out. This shows that there is a view that it is not essential, and this is derived from this verse." ⁷ Ibid. ⁸ Rashi on Zevachim 64a s.v. "ובלבד". ⁹ Rashi on Zevachim 64a s.v. "ובלבד". Translation: "That the sprinkling, which is done first, be from the red line and below, from the blood of the soul." ¹⁰ Zevachim 64a. ¹¹ Tosafot on Zevachim 64a s.v. "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה". ¹² Tosafot on Zevachim 64a s.v. "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה". Translation: "Why is it not challenged from here in Masechet Me'ilah, in the chapter 'Chatat Ha'of' (Me'ilah 8b), to Rav Ada bar Ahava, who said that Rav taught that mitzuy of a bird sin-offering is essential? Because he can say: who is this [baraita]? It is Tana d'vei Rabbi Yishmael, who says it is not essential, as stated earlier in 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim 52b), as it states there are two Tana'im and it is according to Rabbi Yishmael." ¹³ Ibid. Translation: "And as to why it challenged Rav Huna there, who taught 'he sprinkled' [implying mitzuy is not essential], and it did not answer that it comes according to that Tanna who says it is not essential, it preferred to answer in a different way: the baraita lists options." ¹⁴ Zevachim 64a. ¹⁵ Vayikra 5:9. ¹⁶ Zevachim 64a. ¹⁷ Zevachim 64a. ¹⁸ Zevachim 64a. Translation: "to say 'it shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar' means on a wall from which it will drain to the base. And which is this? This is the lower wall." ¹⁹ Zevachim 52b. ²⁰ Zevachim 52b. ²¹ Rashi on Zevachim 64a s.v. "בכל מקום כשירה". ²² Tosafot on Zevachim 64a s.v. "שאם היזה ולא מיצה כשירה". ²³ Zevachim 64a. ²⁴ Zevachim 64a. ²⁵ Zevachim 64a. ²⁶ Menachot 6b. Translation: "Kemitzah is essential, the act of kemitzah is essential, the service vessels are essential... kemitzah by a non-priest is essential... it is the most difficult of the services in the Temple, and so is our Mishna of the bird sin-offering." ²⁷ Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:15. Translation: "he pinches and sprinkles and squeezes out its remnants at the base of the altar from below." ²⁸ Rambam, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:19. Translation: "A bird sin-offering... if he did not squeeze out its blood, it is valid, provided that the blood of its soul, which is in it, was in the place of sprinkling from the red line and below."