תורין שלא הגיע זמנן ובני יונה שעבר זמנן שיבשה גפה שנסמית עינה ושנקטעה רגלה מטמא בבית הבליעה

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.

זה הכלל כל שפסולו בקודש אינו מטמא בבית הבליעה לא היה פסולו בקודש מטמא בבית הבליעה

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב שמאל ולילה אין מטמאין בבית הבליעה זר וסכין מטמאין בבית הבליעה

GEMARA: Rav says: Pinching with the thumbnail of the left hand and pinching at night do not cause the offering’s meat to render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat as would the carcass of an unslaughtered bird; but pinching by a non-priest and pinching, i. e., cutting from the nape of the neck, with a knife rather than the fingernail do cause the meat to render one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

מאי שנא שמאל דאית ליה הכשירה ביום הכפורים ולילה אית ליה הכשירה באיברים ופדרים זר נמי אית ליה הכשירה בשחיטה שחיטה לאו עבודה היא

The Gemara challenges: What is different about the first two cases that prevents the bird from assuming the status of a carcass? Temple service with the left hand has an instance of validity during the service on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies holding the spoon of incense in his left hand. And Temple service at night has an instance of validity in the burning of limbs and fats of offerings on the altar, which may be burned throughout the night. But a non-priest also has an instance of validity in the slaughter of animal offerings. Why then does Rav rule that pinching by a non-priest renders the bird a carcass? The Gemara answers: Slaughter is not considered a full-fledged sacrificial rite, and therefore it cannot be compared to pinching.

ולא והא אמר רבי זירא שחיטת פרה בזר פסולה ומחוי רב עלה אלעזר וחוקה

The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that the slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid, which indicates that it is a full-fledged rite? And Rav showed a source in the Torah for this halakha: The verses concerning the red heifer mention both Elazar the priest as performing the slaughter and the word“ statute, ” which is mentioned in the verse: “ This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazar’s involvement was halakhically required.

שאני פרה דקדשי בדק הבית היא

The Gemara answers: The red heifer is different, as it has the halakhic status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance rather than for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, its slaughter cannot teach the halakha concerning an actual offering.

ולא כל דכן הוא קדשי בדק הבית בעו כהונה קדשי מזבח מיבעיא

The Gemara asks: But can it not be inferred a fortiori that slaughter is a sacrificial rite? If animals that have the status of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are of lesser sanctity, require slaughter by the priesthood, is it necessary to say that the slaughter of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, which are of greater sanctity, is a sacrificial rite that should require a priest? Apparently, the fact that non-priests may slaughter offerings proves that certain sacrificial rites apply to them.

אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי מידי דהוה אמראות נגעים דלאו עבודה היא ובעיא כהונה

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of a red heifer does not constitute Temple service at all, and therefore it cannot be compared to the slaughter of an offering. The halakha is just as it is with regard to the examination of the shades of leprous marks, which does not constitute Temple service but requires a declaration of purity or impurity by the priesthood.

ונילף מבמה

The Gemara asks: But let us derive from the halakha of a private altar, which was a valid medium for sacrificing offerings before the Temple was built, where non-priests were permitted to pinch the napes of bird offerings, that there is a circumstance in which pinching by non-priests is valid. Why then does the bird assume the status of a carcass when the pinching is performed by a non-priest?

מבמה לא יליף

The Gemara answers: One cannot derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar, which was considered non-sacred by comparison.

ולא והתניא מנין ליוצא שאם עלה לא ירד שהרי יוצא כשר בבמה

The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita:

From where is it derived with regard to an item, e. g., the limbs of an offering, which emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, 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. This indicates that one can learn from the halakhot of a private altar with regard to the Temple service.

תנא אזאת תורת העולה סמיך ליה

The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse:“ This is the law of the burnt offering [ha’ola]” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, 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.

ורבי יוחנן אמר זר אין מטמא אבית הבליעה סכין מטמא אבית הבליעה

Until this point the Gemara has discussed the opinion of Rav, who holds that the pinching of a non-priest renders the bird a carcass with regard to ritual impurity. But Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If a non-priest pinched the nape of a bird offering, the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; but if a priest pinched it, i. e., cut it from the nape of the neck, with a knife, the meat renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

תנן כל הפסולין שמלקו מליקתן פסולה בשלמא לרבי יוחנן כל לאיתויי זר אלא לרב כל לאיתויי מאי

The Gemara brings proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of those disqualified for Temple service pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?

(לאו) לאיתויי שמאל ולילה שמאל ולילה בהדיא קתני תני והדר מפרש

The Gemara answers: It is written to add pinching with the left hand or pinching at night. The Gemara challenges: The word: Any, is unnecessary with regard to teaching the cases of pinching with the left hand and pinching at night, as they are taught in the mishna explicitly. The Gemara answers: According to Rav, the word: Any, is not meant to add a specific case. Rather the mishna teaches the principle and then explains using specific examples.

תא שמע זה הכלל כל שהיה פסולו בקודש אינו מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה בשלמא לרבי יוחנן כל לאיתויי זר אלא לרב לאיתויי מאי

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: This is the principle: The meat of any bird whose disqualification occurred during the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?