מה לכלאים שמצותו בכך What is notable about diverse kinds? It is notable in that its mitzva is in this manner, since the belt of the priestly vestments must be sewn from diverse kinds. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a tereifa.
רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר משום דאיכא למימר ליהדר דינא ותיתי במה הצד מה למליקה שכן קדושתה אוסרתה חלב ודם יוכיחו Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from the verse, because it can be said: Let this claim be derived by analogy from the common element of two sources, as follows: With regard to the question of the baraita: What is notable about pinching? It is notable in that its sanctity prohibits it, one can respond: Fat and blood prove that this consideration is not enough to reject the a fortiori inference, as these are prohibited before they are sanctified and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High.
מה לחלב ודם שכן באים מכלל היתר מליקה תוכיח Similarly, with regard to the question: What is notable about fat and blood? They are notable in that they come from an item that is generally permitted, i.e., the animal from which they come is itself permitted for consumption, one can reply: Pinching proves that this consideration is insufficient for a rejection of the a fortiori inference, as a bird that was killed by pinching is entirely prohibited for eating, and yet a pinched bird is permitted to the altar.
וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאסורין להדיוט ומותרין לגבוה אף אני אביא טרפה אף על פי שאסורה להדיוט תהא מותרת לגבוה מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן מצותה בכך Rav Sheisha concludes: And accordingly, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High. Therefore, I will also bring the case of a tereifa and say: Even though is it prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person, it should be permitted for the Most High. It is therefore necessary to derive from a verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to fat and blood, and pinching, in both cases its mitzva is performed in this manner.
אלא אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פרכא מהיכא קא מייתית לה מבעל מום Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is necessary to derive the halakha of a tereifa from a verse because one can say that the refutation of the a fortiori inference is present from the outset. Rav Ashi elaborates: From where do you wish to derive the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice? You wish to derive it from an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished animal, as a blemished animal is permitted for consumption and prohibited for sacrifice. This is problematic.
מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו מקריבין כקריבין Rav Ashi explains: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, i.e., a blemished priest may not sacrifice an offering just as a blemished animal is unfit for sacrifice (see Leviticus, chapter 22). This cannot be said with regard to a tereifa, as a priest with a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months may perform the Temple service. It is therefore necessary to derive from the verse the fact that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.
אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי יוצא דופן יוכיח שלא עשה בו מקריבין כקריבין ומותר להדיוט ואסור לגבוה Rav Aḥa Sava said to Rav Ashi: But an animal born by caesarean section proves that this a fortiori inference cannot be rejected based on that consideration, as with regard to it the Torah did not render those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, since an animal born by caesarean section is unfit for sacrifice whereas a priest born in such a manner may perform the Temple service. And yet an animal born by caesarean section is permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. If so, one cannot reject the a fortiori inference because with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed. Why then is a verse necessary in order to derive that a tereifa is unfit?
מה ליוצא דופן שכן אינו קדוש בבכורה Rav Ashi responds: What is notable about an animal born by caesarean section? It is notable in that such an animal is not sanctified with firstborn status, whereas a firstborn animal that was born as a tereifa is sanctified. Accordingly, without the verse one might have concluded that a tereifa may be sacrificed.
בעל מום יוכיח מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו מקריבין כקריבין יוצא דופן יוכיח Rav Aḥa Sava answers: A blemished animal proves that this is not the decisive consideration, as it does become sanctified with the sanctity of a firstborn, and it too is permitted for consumption and prohibited for the Most High. And if you say: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to it the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, one can respond: An animal born by caesarean section proves that this consideration is not decisive, as a priest born by caesarean section may perform the Temple service.
וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמותרים להדיוט ואסורים לגבוה וכ"ש טרפה שאסורה להדיוט תהא אסורה לגבוה Rav Aḥa Sava concludes: And therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. And all the more so a tereifa, which is prohibited to an ordinary person, should be prohibited for the Most High. If so, the derivation from a verse is unnecessary.
מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו מכללן תאמר בטריפה שהותרה מכללה Rav Ashi refutes the proof of Rav Aḥa Sava: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that their general prohibition was not permitted, since blemished animals and those born by caesarean section are never permitted for sacrifice. Will you say that the same applies to a tereifa, whose general prohibition was permitted, as will be explained? Accordingly, it is necessary to derive from the verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.
א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי טרפה שהותרה מכללה מאי היא אילימא מליקה דעולת העוף לגבוה בעל מום נמי בעופות אשתרויי אשתרי תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This tereifa whose general prohibition was permitted, what is it, i.e., to what case is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the pinching of a bird burnt offering for the Most High, whereby the bird is initially rendered a tereifa at the start of the pinching process, and nevertheless it is sacrificed upon the altar, then the same may be said of a blemished animal as well. As with regard to birds it is permitted to sacrifice a blemished bird. This is in accordance with the halakha that the requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male applies to animal offerings, but there is no requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male in the case of bird offerings.
אלא מליקה דחטאת העוף לכהנים כהנים משולחן גבוה קא זכו Rather, this permitting the general prohibition found in the context of a tereifa is referring to the halakha that the pinching of a bird sin offering renders it permitted to the priests for consumption despite the fact that it was not slaughtered by cutting its neck with a knife. This claim can be refuted as well, as the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High, i.e., they may partake of the sin offering only because it was permitted for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, there is no difference between a tereifa due to pinching and a blemished bird, as both were released from their general prohibition in this regard, since both are permitted for sacrifice upon the altar and both are therefore permitted for consumption by the priests. Consequently, the a fortiori inference remains valid, and the verse is unnecessary.
ואלא פריך הכי מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן מומן ניכר תאמר בטריפה שכן אין מומה ניכר מש"ה איצטריך קרא Rather, refute the a fortiori inference like this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to both a blemished animal and one born by caesarean section their blemish is noticeable, as a blemished animal is visibly blemished and it is well known when an animal is born by caesarean section. Will you say that they can serve as the source of the halakha of a tereifa, whose blemish is not necessarily noticeable? Due to that reason, the verse: “Of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), was necessary, to teach that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.
וטריפה מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (יחזקאל מה, טו) ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל § After trying to prove why a derivation from a verse is necessary, the Gemara questions the very source provided by the baraita on 5b for the disqualification of a tereifa, i.e., the verse: “Of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3). But is the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from the verse: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel” (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that an offering may be brought only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.
(ויקרא כז, כח) מכל אשר יעבור תחת השבט נפקא פרט לטריפה שאינה עוברת Alternatively, this halakha can be derived from a verse discussing animal tithe offerings: “Whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy for the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all animals may be sacrificed as the animal tithe, excluding a tereifa, as it does not pass under the rod on account of its weakness, and the Sages derived from this the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for any type of offering.
צריכי דאי ממשקה ישראל ה"א למעוטי היכא דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר דומיא דערלה וכלאי הכרם אבל היתה לה שעת הכושר אימא תתכשר כתב רחמנא כל אשר יעבור The Gemara responds: All of these verses are necessary, because if the disqualification of a tereifa was derived from the verse “the well-watered pastures of Israel,” I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only in a case where it did not have a period of fitness, e.g., if it was born a tereifa and was therefore never fit for sacrifice. This is similar to the case of the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, whose disqualification is derived from this verse. But with regard to a tereifa that had a period of fitness, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Whatever passes under the rod,” to teach that all animals that do not pass under the rod are unfit for sacrifice, even if they were once fit.
ואי כתב רחמנא כל אשר יעבור הוה אמינא למעוטי היכא דנטרפה ולבסוף הקדישה דומיא דמעשר אבל הקדישה ולבסוף נטרפה דבעידנא דאקדשה הוה חזיא אימא תתכשר כתב רחמנא מן הבקר צריכי: The Gemara continues: And if the Merciful One had written only: “Whatever passes under the rod,” I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only where it was rendered a tereifa and its owner subsequently sanctified it. This is similar to the case of animal tithes, as this verse is teaching that a tereifa cannot be subsequently sanctified as a tithe. But if the owner sanctified it and it was subsequently rendered a tereifa, which means that at the time when it was sanctified it was fit, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “Of the herd,” to teach that even an animal that became a tereifa after it was already sanctified is unfit for sacrifice. Accordingly, all three verses are necessary.
מתני׳ אחד מנחת חוטא ואחד כל המנחות שקמצן זר אונן טבול יום מחוסר בגדים מחוסר כיפורים שלא רחץ ידיו ורגליו ערל טמא יושב עומד על גבי כלים על גבי בהמה ע"ג רגלי חבירו פסול MISHNA: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest, or a priest who was an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died and was not yet buried, or a priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and was waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, or a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments, or a priest who had not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, or a priest who did not wash his hands and feet from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service, or an uncircumcised priest, or a ritually impure priest, or a priest who removed the handful while sitting, or while standing not on the floor of the Temple but upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another person; in all these cases the meal offerings are unfit for sacrifice.
קמץ בשמאל פסול בן בתירא אומר יחזיר ויחזור ויקמוץ בימין If the priest removed the handful with his left hand the meal offering is unfit. Ben Beteira says: He must return the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful, this time with his right hand.
קמץ ועלה בידו צרור או גרגר מלח או קורט של לבונה פסול מפני שאמרו הקומץ היתר והחסר פסול ואיזהו היתר שקמצו מבורץ וחסר שקמצו בראשי אצבעותיו: If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone, a grain of salt, or a pinch [koret] of frankincense emerged in his hand, the meal offering is unfit due to the fact that the Sages said: The handful that is outsized or that is lacking is unfit. The existence of one of these foreign items in the handful means that the requisite measure of flour is lacking. And which is the outsized handful? It is one where he removed the handful overflowing [mevoratz] in a manner in which his fingers do not hold the flour. And which is the lacking handful? It is one where he removed the handful with the tips of his fingers.
גמ׳ למה לי למתנא אחד מנחת חוטא ואחד כל המנחות ליתני כל המנחות שקמצן זר ואונן GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings? Let it teach: All the meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest or an acute mourner. Why does the mishna single out the case of the meal offering of a sinner?
לר"ש איצטריך דתניא א"ר שמעון בדין הוא שתהא מנחת חוטא טעונה שמן ולבונה שלא יהא חוטא נשכר ומפני מה אינה טעונה שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר ובדין הוא שתהא חטאת חלב טעונה נסכים The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: By right the meal offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense like other meal offerings, so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does it not require oil and frankincense? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. And likewise, by right the sin offering of forbidden fat, i.e., the offering brought by one who unwittingly ate the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, should require libations