When seeking the source of a particular law, the rabbis employ two distinct tools: midrashic interpretation and logical reasoning. On today’s daf, we encounter a situation where both are needed to paint the full picture.
The final section of mishnah on Zevachim 64 discusses the proper procedure for sacrificing a bird as a burnt offering. As we have learned, the procedure for slaughtering birds does not involve the use of knives or other utensils. Rather the priest severs (almost, but not completely) the bird’s neck with his hand, using a long fingernail to do so. As part of the ritual, the bird’s blood is squeezed out onto the altar in a two-part process, first from the body and then from the head. About this, the mishnah says:
In a case where he squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid.
In other words, while ideally all of the bird’s blood should be sprinkled on the altar, it is okay, after the fact, if you wrung out the body and overlooked the head. If, however, you wrung out the head and overlooked the body, the offering is disqualified.
On today’s daf, the Gemara brings a beraita to explain from where this rule is derived:
The sages taught: “It is a burnt offering.” (Leviticus 1:17) This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, (it is valid).
One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, (the offering is still valid). Therefore, the verse states: “It is.”
About a bird offering, Leviticus 1:17 says, “The priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet odor to the Lord.” The phrase “it is a burnt offering” appears to be extra — that is, the verse’s meaning would be the same had it been omitted. Given the rabbinic assumption that there are no extra words in the Torah, this phrase must teach us something — or in this case, two things.
According to the beraita, the words “a burnt offering” imply that the sacrifice counts as a burnt offering even if part of the ritual is not completed. Which part? The sprinkling of the blood of the head. Simultaneously, the words “it is” imply that the ritual must be complete (it = all of it) and that failure to spill the blood from the body, even if blood from the head was spilled, disqualifies the ritual.
The beraita is reading the verse to say the ritual must be completed in full in order to be valid; at the same time, it is saying that if a particular step, i.e. the spilling of blood from the head on the altar, is skipped, the sacrifice is still valid. A contradiction? Perhaps. Confusing? Definitely.
Thankfully, Ravina comes to clarify things:
Ravina said: It stands to reason, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.
Ravina isn’t so sure that the interpretation in the beraita is conclusive all by itself. After all, there is nothing specific in the language of the verse that indicates that we must pour the blood from the bird’s body but not from its head. Yet most of the blood is found in the bird’s body and a much smaller amount is found in the head. So it makes sense, reasons Ravina, that spilling only the blood from the body counts as a complete ritual and spilling only the blood from the head does not.
In this case, Ravina squeezes more meaning out of logic than a close reading of the Torah text.
Read all of Zevachim 66 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 19, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
