1) “HAVDALAH” IN “CHATAS HA’OF” (cont.)

(a) Question (Rav Acha brei d’Rava): If we will say that “Lo Yavdil” means, he need not Mavdil, we should also say (regarding a pit) “V’Lo Yechasenu” means, he need not cover it!
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): No – since it says “Ba’al ha’Bor Yeshalem”, clearly, it is incumbent on him to cover it;
1. Here, it says “V’Hikrivo”, the Torah already taught that Chatas ha’Of is offered differently than Olas ha’Of (i.e. he does not cut both Simanim);
2. Therefore, “Lo Yavdil” teaches that he *need* not (but may) Mavdil.
(c) (Mishnah): He squeezes out the blood from the body.
(d) (Beraisa): “Olah” – it is Kosher even if he squeezed out the blood of the body but not of the head;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps it is Kosher even if he squeezed out the blood of the head but not of the body!
2. Rejection: “Hu” (it is Kosher only if done properly).
3. Question: How does this teach that the former is Kosher but not the latter?
4. Answer (Ravina): Presumably, we are more concerned for the blood of the body, for there is more blood in the body than in the head.
***** PEREK CHATAS HA’OF ****
2) DEVIATIONS IN THE “AVODAH” OF BIRDS

(a) If Chatas ha’Of was offered below, like (i.e. according to the Avodah of) Chatas (ha’Of), l’Shem Chatas, it is Kosher (this is no Chidush, it is merely for parallel structure to the coming clauses);
(b) If it was offered (below) like Chatas but l’Shem Olah, or like Olah but l’Shem Chatas, or like Olah l’Shem Olah, it is Pasul;
(c) If it was offered above, in any case it is Pasul.
(d) If Olas ha’Of was offered above, like Olah, l’Shem Olah, it is Kosher;
(e) If it was offered (above) like Olah but l’Shem Chatas, it is Kosher, but the owner did not fulfill his obligation;
(f) If it was offered (above) like Chatas, whether it was l’Shem Olah or l’Shem Chatas, it is Pasul;
(g) If it was offered below, in any case it is Pasul.
66b—————————————66b

(h) (Gemara) Question: (When it was done ‘like an Olah’,) how did he deviate from the Avodah of a Chatas?
(i) Answer #1: He did Melikah of an Olah (he cut both Simanim).
1. Question: If so, our Mishnah is not like R. Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon, for he says that this is Kosher in Chatas ha’Of!
2. Answer: There is nothing wrong with this, we already established the previous Mishnah unlike him!
(j) Answer #2: (Our Mishnah can even be like R. Elazar) – he deviated regarding Haza’ah (he omitted it, he only did Mitzuy).
(k) Support (a later clause of the Mishnah): If it was offered above, in any case it is Pasul;
1. This is even if it was like Chatas l’Shem Chatas.
2. Question: Which Avodah was done above?
i. It cannot mean, he did Melikah above – we learned that Melikah is Kosher anywhere on the Mizbe’ach!
3. Answer: He did Haza’ah above.
4. Culmination of support: Just like the later clause refers to (a deviation in) Haza’ah, also the former.
(l) Rejection of support: No, each clause refers to something else.
(m) (Mishnah): Olas ha’Of…
(n) Question: How did he deviate from the Avodah of an Olah?
(o) Answer #1: He did Melikah of a Chatas (he cut only one Siman).
(p) Rejection: If so, the coming Mishnah would be unlike R. Yehoshua (this is difficult, for R. Yehoshua argues with R. Eliezer, who is from Beis Shamai)!
1. (The coming Mishnah): In all of the above cases, Tum’as Beis ha’Beli’ah (one who eats the Neveilah of a Tahor bird (and his clothing) become Tamei) does not apply, Me’ilah does apply (to one who benefits from the bird);
2. R. Yehoshua says that there is no Me’ilah (for it becomes Chatas ha’Of, Kohanim eat it)!
(q) Answer #2: Rather, he deviated in Mitzuy (he omitted it, he did Haza’ah instead – R. Yehoshua admits that Me’ilah applies in this case, for it does not become Chatas ha’Of).
(r) Question (later in the next Mishnah – R. Eliezer): If Olas ha’Of was offered below like Chatas l’Shem Chatas, there is Me’ilah;
1. R. Yehoshua: There is no Me’ilah.
2. Question: How did he deviate from the Avodah of an Olah?
i. Suggestion: He deviated in Mitzuy.
ii. Rejection: R. Yehoshua only exempts from Me’ilah when Melikah was like a Chatas (for it becomes a Chatas), otherwise he would agree that there is Me’ilah!
3. Answer: He deviated in Melikah.
4. Summation of question: Can we say that our Mishnah and the end of the next Mishnah discuss (deviations in) Melikah, and the beginning of the next Mishnah (which is in between these) discusses Mitzuy?!
(s) Answer: Indeed, this is so.
3) THE STATUS OF IMPROPERLY OFFERED BIRDS
(a) (Mishnah): In all of the above cases, there is no Tum’as Beis ha’Beli’ah and there is Me’ilah, except for Chatas ha’Of offered below like Chatas l’Shem Chatas (since it is permitted to Kohanim);
(b) R. Eliezer says, if Olas ha’Of was offered below like Chatas l’Shem Chatas, there is Me’ilah;
(c) R. Yehoshua says, there is no Me’ilah.
1. R. Eliezer: There is no Me’ilah in a Chatas offered Lishmah, but there is when it is offered l’Shem something else – there is Me’ilah in an Olah Lishmah, all the more so there is when it is offered l’Shem something else!
2. R. Yehoshua: There is Me’ilah in Chatas l’Shem Olah, for it was offered l’Shem something which has Me’ilah – you cannot learn to Olah l’Shem Chatas, for it was offered l’Shem something which has no Me’ilah!