Zevachim 7:4-5

Zevachim 7:4

Rabbi Eliezer says that if the kohein offered a bird burnt offering below the line in the manner of a sin offering and under the name of a sin offering, it is subject to the laws of misappropriation; Rabbi Yehoshua says that it is not. Rabbi Eliezer argued that if a sin offering under its own name is not subject to the laws of misappropriation but one under the wrong name is, then it makes sense that a burnt offering, which subject to the laws of misappropriation, should all the more so be subject to misappropriation when offered under the wrong name. Rabbi Yehoshua replied that the opposite is true: if you say that about a sin offering whose name was changed to a burnt offering, which is subject to the laws of misappropriation, will you say the same of a burnt offering whose name was changed to a sin offering, which is not subject to the laws of misappropriation? Rabbi Eliezer replied: Let’s prove it from the kodshei kodashim (most-holy sacrifices) that were slaughtered in the south (rather than the north) under the name of kodshim kalim (sacrifices of lesser sanctity). He changed their name to something that is not subject to the laws of misappropriation and yet they’re subject to misappropriation. We should therefore not be surprised that a burnt offering whose name is changed to something not subject to misappropriation is nevertheless subject to misappropriation. Rabbi Yehoshua responded that this logic is incorrect. Just because we say this about kodshei kodashim that were slaughtered in the south under the name of kodshim kalim, because he changed their name to something that is partially prohibited and partially permitted (i.e., the parts are subject to the laws of meilah but the flesh isn’t), that doesn’t mean we should say the same of a burnt offering whose name was changed to something that is completely permitted (a bird sin offering has no parts to be burned, so they can’t be subject to meilah).

Zevachim 7:5

If the kohein nipped the bird’s head (melikah) with his left hand or at night, if he slaughtered a non-sacrificial animal inside the Temple courtyard or sacrifices outside the courtyard, they don’t render one ritually unclean by swallowing. If he nipped the head with a knife rather than his nail, nipped the head of a non-sacrificial bird inside the courtyard, or of a sacrificial bird outside, or if he nipped the heads of underaged pigeons or overaged doves, or on a bird with a withered wing, a blind eye or a severed foot, they render one ritually unclean by swallowing. The general principle is that if something becomes unfit in the Temple, it doesn’t render one ritually unclean by swallowing. If it didn’t become unfit in the Temple, then it does render one ritually unclean by swallowing. If anyone unfit nipped a bird’s head, the melikah is invalid but the bird doesn’t render one ritually unclean by swallowing.