ואנן ניקו כו׳ – לשון קושיא הוא.
לידי תקלה – להעלות פסולין שירדו.
מוטלים כנבלה – הקרבים בפרש שלהן.
(1) 
וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּ נֶעְבֵּיד לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים מִילְּתָא דְּאָתוּ בַּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה אפ״ה אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי עֲדִיפָא שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם מוּטָלִים כִּנְבֵילָה.
וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּ נֶעְבֵּיד לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים מִילְּתָא דְּאָתוּ בַּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה The Gemara asks: And shall we stand and do something for the priests through which they shall come to encounter a stumbling block? Were these innards to remain unwashed, no priest would mistakenly sacrifice them upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Even so, rinsing disqualified innards is preferable, so that the sanctified offerings of Heaven shall not be lying as a carcass.
ותמהים: ואנן ניקו נעביד להו [ואנו נקום נעשה להם] לכהנים מילתא דאתו בה [דבר שיבואו בו] לידי תקלה?! שהרי כשאין הקרביים רחוצים לא יבואו להעלותה למזבח! ומשיבים: אפילו הכי עדיפא [אפילו כך עדיף], שלא יהו קדשי שמים מוטלים כנבילה.
The Gemara asks: And shall we stand and do something for the priests through which they shall come to encounter a stumbling block? Were these innards to remain unwashed, no priest would mistakenly sacrifice them upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Even so, rinsing disqualified innards is preferable, so that the sanctified offerings of Heaven shall not be lying as a carcass.
הכל
(2) אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן יֵרְדוּ אוֹ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall they descend or shall they not descend?
With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall they descend or shall they not descend?
בעניין זה שעסקנו בו, אמר ר׳ חייא בר אבא, בעי [שאל הסתפק] ר׳ יוחנן: אימורי קדשים קלים שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן (שהיא המתירה אותה בהקרבה), האם ירדו או לא ירדו?
With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall they descend or shall they not descend?
הכל
(3) א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ מְעִילָה א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְעִילָה לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי דִּזְרִיקָה הוּא דְּקָבְעָה לְהוּ בִּמְעִילָה כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ יְרִידָה וּפָשֵׁיט לֹא יֵרְדוּ וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions shall descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When Rabbi Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions shall descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When Rabbi Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
ותיבעי לך מעילה – אי מהני להו לאיקבעינהו במעילה.
לא ירדו – דנעשו לחמו של מזבח ומיהו מעילה לית בהו דלא הובררו לחלק ראוי לגבוה.
אמר ליה [לו] ר׳ אמי לר׳ יוחנן: עד שאתה דן בדינם של אלו לענין ירידה מהמזבח, ותיבעי [ותישאל, ותסתפק] לך האם העלאתם למזבח קידשתם לענין דין מעילה! אמר ליה [לו] בתשובה: לענין מעילה לא קמיבעיא [נשאלה] לי, כי ודאי הוא שזריקה הוא דקבעה להו [שקובעת אותם] בדין מעילה, ואין העלאתם למזבח מקדשתם לענין זה. ואולם כי קמיבעיא ליה [כאשר נשאלה לו] לר׳ יוחנן, היה זה רק האם יש בהם ירידה. ופשיט [ופשט ר׳ יוחנן ופתר את ספקו]: הלכה היא שאם עלו לא ירדו, ואולם אין בהן מעילה.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions shall descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When Rabbi Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
הכל
(4) רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי א״ר אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה אוֹ לָא א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ יְרִידָה א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ יְרִידָה לָא קָא מיבעי׳ מִיבַּעְיָא לִי דְּנַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ כִּי קמיבעי׳ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי מְעִילָה וּפָשֵׁיט הָכִי אלֹא יֵרְדוּ בוְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.:
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches the discussion in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, are they subject to the halakhot of misuse or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: And you should raise the dilemma with regard to their descent from upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to their descent I do not raise the dilemma, because after these sacrificial portions ascend the altar they become the bread of the altar and shall not descend. When I raise the dilemma it is with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma in this manner: They shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches the discussion in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, are they subject to the halakhot of misuse or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: And you should raise the dilemma with regard to their descent from upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to their descent I do not raise the dilemma, because after these sacrificial portions ascend the altar they become the bread of the altar and shall not descend. When I raise the dilemma it is with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma in this manner: They shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני הכי [היה שונה כך] את מהלך הדברים: אמר ר׳ חייא בר אבא, בעי [שאל, הסתפק] ר׳ יוחנן: אימורי קדשים קלים שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן, יש בהן מעילה או לא? אמר ליה [לו] ר׳ אמי: ותיבעי [ושתישאל] לך בענין ירידה! אמר ליה [לו]: ירידה לא קא מיבעיא [נשאלה] לי משום שלאחר שעלו נעשו לחמו של מזבח, כי קמיבעיא [כאשר נשאלה] לי היה זה בענין מעילה, ופשיט הכי [ופשט ר׳ יוחנן ופתר כך]: לא ירדו, ואין בהן מעילה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches the discussion in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, are they subject to the halakhot of misuse or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: And you should raise the dilemma with regard to their descent from upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to their descent I do not raise the dilemma, because after these sacrificial portions ascend the altar they become the bread of the altar and shall not descend. When I raise the dilemma it is with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma in this manner: They shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
הכל
(5) וְאֵלּוּ לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן [וְכוּ׳].:
§ The mishna teaches: And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality…or blemished animals. Such offerings shall descend from the altar if they ascended. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend.
§ The mishna teaches: And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality…or blemished animals. Such offerings shall descend from the altar if they ascended. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend.
א שנינו במשנה: ואלו לא היה פסולן בקודש: הרובע והנרבע... ובעלי מומין, שאם עלו — ירדו, ור׳ עקיבא מכשיר בבעלי מומין.
§ The mishna teaches: And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality…or blemished animals. Such offerings shall descend from the altar if they ascended. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend.
הכל
(6) א״ר אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא הִכְשִׁיר ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן הוֹאִיל וּכְשֵׁרִים בָּעוֹפוֹת וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן וּמוֹדֶה ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה דִּכְשֶׁקָּדַם מוּמָהּ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁהּ דָּמְיָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only those animals with small blemishes, such as on the cornea of the eye, as such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And this is the halakha only when their consecration preceded their blemish, since such an animal was fit for the altar at the time of its consecration. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they shall descend, as they were never fit for the altar. And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that it shall descend from the altar. Since only a male animal may be used for a burnt offering, it is like a case where the animal’s blemish preceded its consecration.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only those animals with small blemishes, such as on the cornea of the eye, as such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And this is the halakha only when their consecration preceded their blemish, since such an animal was fit for the altar at the time of its consecration. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they shall descend, as they were never fit for the altar. And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that it shall descend from the altar. Since only a male animal may be used for a burnt offering, it is like a case where the animal’s blemish preceded its consecration.
הואיל וכשרין בעופות – דכתיב (ויקרא כב) תמים זכר בבקר בכשבים תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות ומיהו מחוסר אבר לא משום הקריבהו נא לפחתך (מלאכי א) וכן מום מגונה.
והוא שקדם הקדשן את מומן – שחלה עליהן קדושת מזבח [קודם] אבל קדם מומן להקדשן לא היו קדשי מזבח מימיהן ואין המזבח מקדשן.
ומודה רבי עקיבא בעולת נקבה – שעלתה למזבח תרד ואע״פ שכשרה בעופות דכמאן דקדם מומה להקדשה דמיא דאין לך מום גדול מזה.
והוא שקדם הקדשן את מומן – שחלה עליהן קדושת מזבח אבל קדם מומן להקדשן לא היו קדשי מזבח מעולם ואפילו בדוקין שבעין אין המזבח מקדשן ותימה דבפ׳ ב׳ דבכורות (בכורות טז.) אמרינן והשוחטן בחוץ פטור רב הונא מתני חייב ומוקי לה בדוקין שבעין ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו ולכאורה לא קאי אמתניתין דהתם אלא אברייתא דתניא כוותיה דרב ששת שפירש כללו של דבר לאתויי לשוחט בחוץ דפטור ומיירי דקדם מומן להקדשן ועלה קאמר דרב הונא מתני חייב והשתא אמאי מתני חייב הא אמרינן הכא אפילו בדוקין שבעין ירדו כיון דקדם מומן להקדשן ובלאו הכי קשה דהא בכלל קתני הרי הן כחולין והיכי מתני חייב ובקונטרס הגיה שם בסיפא דברייתא דקדם הקדשן למומן והשוחט בחוץ פטור ועלה קאי רב הונא ומתני חייב וכן נראה דמייתי בתריה בין לפני פדיון בין לאחר פדיון עושין תמורה דהיינו סיפא דברייתא.
אמר ר׳ יוחנן: לא הכשיר ר׳ עקיבא כל בעלי מומים, שאם עלו לא ירדו, אלא דווקא באלה שהיה בהם מום קטן, כגון בדוקין (כעין קרומים) שבעין, הואיל וכשרים מומים כאלה לכתחילה בעופות. והוא שקדם הקדשן את מומן, שבשעת הקדשם היו ראויים למזבח, אלא שאחר כך נפל בהם מום. אבל אם קדם מומם להקדשם — גם אם עלו ירדו, שמתחילה לא היו ראויים להקרבה. ומודה ר׳ עקיבא בעולת נקבה, שאם הקדיש נקבה לעולה, שגם אם עלתה — תרד. שהואיל ואין עולה באה אלא מן הזכרים, הרי כמו שקדם מומה להקדשה דמיא [היא נחשבת]. ומביאים דיון שהוזכרו בו דברי ר׳ עקיבא כראיה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only those animals with small blemishes, such as on the cornea of the eye, as such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And this is the halakha only when their consecration preceded their blemish, since such an animal was fit for the altar at the time of its consecration. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they shall descend, as they were never fit for the altar. And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that it shall descend from the altar. Since only a male animal may be used for a burnt offering, it is like a case where the animal’s blemish preceded its consecration.
הכל
(7) בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה יֵשׁ נִרְבָּע בָּעוֹפוֹת אוֹ אֵין נִרְבָּע בָּעוֹפוֹת מִי אָמַר מִן הַבְּהֵמָה לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע.
The Gemara presents a discussion in which the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is cited: Rabbi Yirmeya raises the dilemma: Is the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applicable with regard to birds, or is there no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality with regard to birds? Did the verse say: “When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals” (Leviticus 1:2), where the term “of” serves to exclude from being brought as offerings both an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, in order to equate the two?
The Gemara presents a discussion in which the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is cited: Rabbi Yirmeya raises the dilemma: Is the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applicable with regard to birds, or is there no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality with regard to birds? Did the verse say: “When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals” (Leviticus 1:2), where the term “of” serves to exclude from being brought as offerings both an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, in order to equate the two?
יש נרבע בעופות או אין נרבע בעופות – הא דדרשינן בסוף פרק קמא דחולין (חולין כג.) מן התורין למעוטי נרבע היינו כמסקנא דשמעתין אבל אם תמצא לומר דאין נרבע בעופות לא תוקמיה אלא למעוטי מוקצה.
בעי [שאל הסתפק] ר׳ ירמיה: האם יש פסול נרבע בעופות, או אין נרבע בעופות? ויסוד הספק: מי [האם] זה שאמר הכתוב: ״אדם כי יקריב... מן הבהמה״ (ויקרא א, ב), ובאה לשון ״מן״ שבכתוב להוציא (למעט) מכלל הכשרים להקרבה את הרובע אדם והנרבע על ידי אדם, האם יש ללמוד ממה שנלמדו רובע ונרבע כאחד, כי
The Gemara presents a discussion in which the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is cited: Rabbi Yirmeya raises the dilemma: Is the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applicable with regard to birds, or is there no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality with regard to birds? Did the verse say: “When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals” (Leviticus 1:2), where the term “of” serves to exclude from being brought as offerings both an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, in order to equate the two?
הכל
(8) כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ אִיתֵיהּ בְּנִרְבָּע כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ לֵיתֵיהּ בְּנִרְבָּע אוֹ דִלְמָא הֲרֵי נֶעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה.
If so, then derive from it that anywhere that there is a disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is a disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality, and anywhere that there is no disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality. Consequently, since birds cannot be the active party in an act of bestiality, the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality is also inapplicable to birds. Or perhaps the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality does apply with regard to birds, as nevertheless a sin was committed with it?
If so, then derive from it that anywhere that there is a disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is a disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality, and anywhere that there is no disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality. Consequently, since birds cannot be the active party in an act of bestiality, the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality is also inapplicable to birds. Or perhaps the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality does apply with regard to birds, as nevertheless a sin was committed with it?
כל היכא דאיתיה [כל מקום שישנו] באיסור רובע איתיה [ישנו] גם בנרבע, כל היכא דליתיה [כל מקום שאינו] בדין רובע ליתיה [אינו] בדין נרבע. ובעופות שאין בהם אפשרות שיהא רובע, אין בהם גם פסול נרבע. או דלמא [שמא] הנרבע פסול להקרבה, שהרי על כל פנים נעבדה בו עבירה?
If so, then derive from it that anywhere that there is a disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is a disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality, and anywhere that there is no disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality. Consequently, since birds cannot be the active party in an act of bestiality, the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality is also inapplicable to birds. Or perhaps the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality does apply with regard to birds, as nevertheless a sin was committed with it?
הכל
(9) אָמַר רַבָּה ת״ש תָּא שְׁמַע ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין גוְאִם אִיתָא נַכְשֵׁיר נָמֵי בְּנִרְבָּע הוֹאִיל וְכָשֵׁר בָּעוֹפוֹת שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rabba said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit when the blemish is on the cornea, since such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And if it is so that a bird that was the object of bestiality is fit as an offering, then let us also deem fit an animal that was the object of bestiality, since such an offering is fit with regard to birds. From the fact that such animals are not deemed fit, conclude from the mishna that the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applies to birds as well.
Rabba said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit when the blemish is on the cornea, since such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And if it is so that a bird that was the object of bestiality is fit as an offering, then let us also deem fit an animal that was the object of bestiality, since such an offering is fit with regard to birds. From the fact that such animals are not deemed fit, conclude from the mishna that the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applies to birds as well.
עוף – לא שייך ביה רובע דאין עוף רובע אשה.
ואם איתא – דעוף שנרבע כשר ליכשר לרבי עקיבא נמי בבהמה נרבעת אם עלתה לא תרד הואיל וכשר בעופות לכתחילה.
אמר רבה: תא שמע [בוא ושמע] ממה ששנינו במשנתנו: ר׳ עקיבא מכשיר בבעלי מומין, הואיל וכשרים בעופות. ואם איתא [יש] מקום לסברה זו, שנרבע כשר בעופות — נכשיר נמי [שיכשיר גם כן] בנרבע, הואיל ונרבע כשר בעופות. שמע מינה [למד מכאן] שאין נרבע בעופות כשר להקרבה.
Rabba said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit when the blemish is on the cornea, since such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And if it is so that a bird that was the object of bestiality is fit as an offering, then let us also deem fit an animal that was the object of bestiality, since such an offering is fit with regard to birds. From the fact that such animals are not deemed fit, conclude from the mishna that the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applies to birds as well.
הכל
(10) אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא הַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמּוּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד וְאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה ש״מ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ .:
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn in the baraita as well: A bird that was the object of bestiality, or that was set aside for idol worship, or that was worshipped as a deity, or that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or that was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, in all of those cases, if its nape was pinched, it renders the garments of one who swallows an olive-bulk from the carcass ritually impure when it is in the throat, as is the halakha with regard to all unslaughtered carcasses of birds. Since the baraita lists a bird that was the object of bestiality among those disqualified offerings, conclude from the baraita that such a bird is in fact disqualified.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn in the baraita as well: A bird that was the object of bestiality, or that was set aside for idol worship, or that was worshipped as a deity, or that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or that was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, in all of those cases, if its nape was pinched, it renders the garments of one who swallows an olive-bulk from the carcass ritually impure when it is in the throat, as is the halakha with regard to all unslaughtered carcasses of birds. Since the baraita lists a bird that was the object of bestiality among those disqualified offerings, conclude from the baraita that such a bird is in fact disqualified.
ה״ג: אף אנן נמי תנינא הנרבע והמוקצה – ולא גרסינן הרובע דהא בעוף קאי ואין רובע בעוף וקתני דיש נרבע.
וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס – ואע״פ שלא נאמר תמות וזכרות בעופות קסבר בריה בפני עצמה היא ואינו ספק זכר ספק נקבה ורבי אליעזר פליג עליה בבכורות (דף מב.) דקתני סיפא רבי אליעזר אומר כל מקום שנאמר זכר ונקבה אתה מוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס מביניהם ועוף הואיל ולא נאמר בו זכר ונקבה אי אתה יכול להוציא מביניהן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: אף אנן נמי תנינא [אנו גם כן שנינו בברייתא]: העוף הנרבע, והמוקצה והנעבד, ואתנן, ומחיר, וטומטום, ואנדרוגינוס — כולן אם נמלקו, הרי כזית מהם מטמאין בגדים בהיותם בבית הבליעה של האוכלם, כדין כל נבלת העוף. ומתוך שבכלל הפסולים נמנה גם עוף הנרבע, שמע מינה [למד מכאן] שיש פסול נרבע בעוף.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn in the baraita as well: A bird that was the object of bestiality, or that was set aside for idol worship, or that was worshipped as a deity, or that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or that was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, in all of those cases, if its nape was pinched, it renders the garments of one who swallows an olive-bulk from the carcass ritually impure when it is in the throat, as is the halakha with regard to all unslaughtered carcasses of birds. Since the baraita lists a bird that was the object of bestiality among those disqualified offerings, conclude from the baraita that such a bird is in fact disqualified.
הכל
(11) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳.: מַאי קמ״ל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מַעֲשֶׂה קמ״ל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מַאי דּוֹחֶה כִּלְאַחַר יָד.:
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? The first tanna already stated that blemished animals shall descend. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? The first tanna already stated that blemished animals shall descend. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.
ב שנינו במשנה, ר׳ חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר: דוחה היה אבא את בעלי מומין מעל גבי המזבח. ושואלים: מאי קא משמע לן [מה השמיע לנו] כאן? הרי זו היא דעת תנא קמא, שאמר שאם עלו — ירדו! ומשיבים: איבעית אימא [אם תרצה אמור]: מעשה קא משמע לן [משמיע לנו], שאין זו רק הלכה בלבד, אלא כך נעשה מעשה בפועל. ואיבעית אימא [ואם תרצה אמור]: מאי [מה פירוש] ״דוחה״ שאמר שם — שהיה מוריד אותם מן המזבח כלאחר יד, ולא בפרהסיה כדרך בזיון.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? The first tanna already stated that blemished animals shall descend. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.
הכל
(12) כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם עָלָה כּוּ׳.: אָמַר עוּלָּא דלֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר אֲבָל מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר יַעֲלוּ.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to those disqualified offerings that shall not descend from the altar if they ascended it: Just as if it ascended it does not descend, so too, if it descended it does not then ascend. Ulla says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of these offerings. But if the fire has taken hold of these offerings, then even if they descended from the altar they shall ascend.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to those disqualified offerings that shall not descend from the altar if they ascended it: Just as if it ascended it does not descend, so too, if it descended it does not then ascend. Ulla says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of these offerings. But if the fire has taken hold of these offerings, then even if they descended from the altar they shall ascend.
ג שנינו במשנה לגבי הקרבנות הפסולים שאם עלו לא ירדו: כשם שאם עלה לא ירד, כך אם ירד — אין מעלים אותו. אמר עולא: לא שנו אלא שלא משלה (אחזה) בהן האור אש המזבח, אבל משלה בהן האור, גם אם ירדו — יעלו.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to those disqualified offerings that shall not descend from the altar if they ascended it: Just as if it ascended it does not descend, so too, if it descended it does not then ascend. Ulla says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of these offerings. But if the fire has taken hold of these offerings, then even if they descended from the altar they shall ascend.
הכל
(13) רַב מָרִי מַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא מַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּחוּבָּרִין יַעֲלוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ אָמַר עוּלָּא לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר אֲבָל מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר יַעֲלוּ.
Rav Mari teaches that the statement of Ulla is referring to the first clause, i.e., to this mishna. Rav Ḥanina of Sura teaches that Ulla is referring to the latter clause, i.e., to the next mishna, which states: The bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves of a burnt offering; when they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering. If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend. With regard to this Ulla says: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them. But if the fire has taken hold of them, then even if they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall ascend.
Rav Mari teaches that the statement of Ulla is referring to the first clause, i.e., to this mishna. Rav Ḥanina of Sura teaches that Ulla is referring to the latter clause, i.e., to the next mishna, which states: The bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves of a burnt offering; when they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering. If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend. With regard to this Ulla says: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them. But if the fire has taken hold of them, then even if they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall ascend.
ארישא – מתני לה להא דעולא ארישא כדאמרן אפסולין שעלו וירדו דקתני מתניתין לא יעלו.
כ״ש ארישא – דדם עולה או אימורים בני הקטרה נינהו אם לא נפסלו והני כיון דמשלה בהן האור קדשינהו כמה שהן פסולין.
רב מרי מתני ארישא [היה שונה את דבריו אלה של עולא על ההתחלה, על משנתנו] כפי שהסברנו. רב חנינא מסורא מתני אסיפא [היה שונה זאת על הסוף, על המשנה הבאה] ששנינו בה: העצמות והגידין, והקרנים והטלפים של קרבן עולה, שקרב כליל על המזבח, בזמן שמחוברין לבהמה — יעלו, פרשו מבשרה — לא יעלו. אמר עולא: לא שנו שאם פרשו לא יעלו, אלא שלא משלה בהן האור, אבל משלה בהן האור, גם אם פרשו מבשרה — יעלו.
Rav Mari teaches that the statement of Ulla is referring to the first clause, i.e., to this mishna. Rav Ḥanina of Sura teaches that Ulla is referring to the latter clause, i.e., to the next mishna, which states: The bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves of a burnt offering; when they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering. If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend. With regard to this Ulla says: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them. But if the fire has taken hold of them, then even if they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall ascend.
הכל
(14) מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא כ״ש כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא לָאו בְּנֵי הַקְטָרָה נִינְהוּ.:
The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement, i.e., if the fire has taken hold of them they still ascend the altar, as referring to the latter clause, which discusses items that are not burned on the altar, all the more so will Ulla’s statement apply to the first clause, which discusses items that are burned on the altar but were disqualified. And according to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement as referring to the first clause, it applies only to those items that were to be burned on the altar but were disqualified. But with regard to the latter clause it does not apply, since the bones, tendons, and other items mentioned there are not subject to burning at all.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement, i.e., if the fire has taken hold of them they still ascend the altar, as referring to the latter clause, which discusses items that are not burned on the altar, all the more so will Ulla’s statement apply to the first clause, which discusses items that are burned on the altar but were disqualified. And according to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement as referring to the first clause, it applies only to those items that were to be burned on the altar but were disqualified. But with regard to the latter clause it does not apply, since the bones, tendons, and other items mentioned there are not subject to burning at all.
אבל עצמות וגידים לאו בני הקטרה נינהו – דאמרינן לקמן (שם) מועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם הלכך לא שייכא בהו משלה אור לקדשינהו.
מתני׳ ואלו אם עלו ירדו – ואף על פי שכשרין דלא שייך בהו מזבח כלל.
ומעירים: מאן דמתני אסיפא [מי שהיה שונה את דברי עולא על הסוף, לגבי עצמות וגידים שפרשו], שאם אחזה בהן האור יעלו, למרות שאינם בני הקטרה כשלעצמם, כל שכן שהוא שונה אותם ארישא [על ההתחלה, על משנתנו] שעוסקת בדברים שהם בני הקטרה אלא שנפסלו. ואולם מאן דמתני ארישא [מי ששונה את דברי עולא על ההתחלה], יש לומר כי דווקא פסולים שאחזה בהם האש, גם אם ירדו יעלו, אבל אסיפא [על הסוף] אינו מודה, כי עצמות וגידים לאו [לא] בני הקטרה (הקרבה) נינהו [הם] כלל.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement, i.e., if the fire has taken hold of them they still ascend the altar, as referring to the latter clause, which discusses items that are not burned on the altar, all the more so will Ulla’s statement apply to the first clause, which discusses items that are burned on the altar but were disqualified. And according to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement as referring to the first clause, it applies only to those items that were to be burned on the altar but were disqualified. But with regard to the latter clause it does not apply, since the bones, tendons, and other items mentioned there are not subject to burning at all.
הכל
(15) מתני׳ מַתְנִיתִין : הוְאֵלּוּ אִם עָלוּ יֵרְדוּ בְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וּבְשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת.
MISHNA: And these are the items that if they ascended upon the altar they descend, because they are completely unfit for the altar: The meat of offerings of the most sacred order, i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, which is eaten by the owners; and the surplus of the omer meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; and the two loaves meal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; and the incense that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned.
MISHNA: And these are the items that if they ascended upon the altar they descend, because they are completely unfit for the altar: The meat of offerings of the most sacred order, i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, which is eaten by the owners; and the surplus of the omer meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; and the two loaves meal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; and the incense that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned.
והקטורת – שעלתה על מזבח החיצון דהא לאו ראוי הוא.
הצמר שבראשי הכבשים – רישא דבבא אחריתי היא ובהדי עצמות וגידין קתני לה וכמשפטן שבראשי כבשי של עולה שהראש אינו בכלל הפשט וקרב עם עורו כדאמר בשחיטת חולין בפ״ב (כז.) אין לי אלא נתחים שישנן בכלל הפשטה וישנן בכלל הקטרה מנין לרבות את הראש שכבר הותז בשחיטה שאע״פ שאינו בהפשטה ישנו בהקטרה ת״ל כו׳ ויש צמר בגובה ערפו אצל ראשו.
ומותר העומר – אינו בכלל שירי מנחות דחלוק הוא מהן שבא להתיר מן החדש ומן השעורין שתי הלחם באין חמץ ולחם הפנים אין נקטר בהם אלא שני בזיכי לבונה.
ד משנה ואלו הם הדברים שאף אם עלו למזבח ירדו כיון שאינם ראויים כלל למזבח: בשר קדשי קדשים (אשם וחטאת) שנאכל לכהנים, ובשר קדשים קלים שנאכל לבעלים, ומותר מנחת העומר שמביאים מן השעורים למחרת הפסח, לאחר שהקטירו ממנה את הקומץ, ושתי הלחם הבאים בחג השבועות, ולחם הפנים, ושירי (שאריות) מנחות לאחר הקמיצה מהם, שכל אלו נאכלים לכהנים, והקטורת שעלתה על המזבח החיצון, ולא על מזבח הזהב שבהיכל, כהלכתה.
MISHNA: And these are the items that if they ascended upon the altar they descend, because they are completely unfit for the altar: The meat of offerings of the most sacred order, i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, which is eaten by the owners; and the surplus of the omer meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; and the two loaves meal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; and the incense that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned.
הכל
(16) והַצֶּמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְבָשִׂים וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָשִׁים וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מְחוּבָּרִים יַעֲלוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {ויקרא א׳:ט׳} וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל פֵּירְשׁוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {דברים י״ב:כ״ז} וְעָשִׂיתָ עולותיך הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם.:
With regard to the wool that is on the heads of the sheep brought as burnt offerings, and the hair that is in the beard of goats that were sacrificed, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.
With regard to the wool that is on the heads of the sheep brought as burnt offerings, and the hair that is in the beard of goats that were sacrificed, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.
וכן שער שבזקן תישים – עולה.
פירשו – שחלצו מן הבשר לפני העלאתן לא יעלו והוא הדין נמי דאם עלו ירדו כדאמר לקמן בברייתא (דף פו.) אליבא דרבי ומוקמינן מתניתין אליביה.
ועוד בדינם של חלקי קרבן עולה שאינם ראויים למזבח: הצמר שבראשי כבשים (הבאים לקרבן עולה), ושער שבזקן תישים שהוקרבו, והעצמות, והגידים, והקרנים, והטלפים (קצות הרגלים, הפרסות), כל אלה, בזמן שהם מחוברים לבשר הזבח — יעלו על המזבח ויוקרבו עם הזבח עצמו, שכן נאמר: ״והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה״ (ויקרא א, ט). ואולם אם פירשו (נפרדו) מבשר הזבח עצמו — לא יעלו, שנאמר: ״ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם״ (דברים יב, כז), ולא דברים אחרים.
With regard to the wool that is on the heads of the sheep brought as burnt offerings, and the hair that is in the beard of goats that were sacrificed, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.
הכל
(17) גמ׳ גְּמָרָא : ת״ר תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן {ויקרא א׳:ט׳} וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעָשִׂיתָ עולותיך הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). The term “the whole” serves to include the bones and the tendons and the horns and the hooves among those items that are sacrificed on the altar. One might have thought that even if they separated from the flesh of the burnt offering they are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only those items and anything attached to them are sacrificed upon the altar.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). The term “the whole” serves to include the bones and the tendons and the horns and the hooves among those items that are sacrificed on the altar. One might have thought that even if they separated from the flesh of the burnt offering they are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only those items and anything attached to them are sacrificed upon the altar.
ה גמרא תנו רבנן [שנו חכמים]: ״והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה״ (ויקרא א, ט) — הרי לשון זו (״הכל) באה לרבות בכלל ההקרבה גם את העצמות והגידים, והקרנים והטלפים. יכול אפילו פרשו מן העולה יוקרבו? תלמוד לומר: ״ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם״ (דברים יב, כז).
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). The term “the whole” serves to include the bones and the tendons and the horns and the hooves among those items that are sacrificed on the altar. One might have thought that even if they separated from the flesh of the burnt offering they are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only those items and anything attached to them are sacrificed upon the altar.
הכל
(18) אִי בָּשָׂר וָדָם
If one derives the halakha with regard to bones and tendons from the phrase “the flesh and the blood,”
If one derives the halakha with regard to bones and tendons from the phrase “the flesh and the blood,”
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
זבחים פה: – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), קישורים זבחים פה:, עין משפט נר מצוה זבחים פה: – מהדורת על־התורה בסיועו של הרב דב גולדשטיין ות"ת כנגד כולם (tora.co.il, נייד: +972-52-2424305) (כל הזכויות שמורות, ואין להעתיק מן הטקסט לצרכים מסחריים), רש"י זבחים פה:, תוספות זבחים פה:, פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ זבחים פה:
Zevachim 85b – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Kishurim Zevachim 85b, Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah Zevachim 85b, Rashi Zevachim 85b, Tosafot Zevachim 85b, Steinsaltz Commentary Zevachim 85b