Parallel
זבחים 65
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
IF HE NIPPED A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME; OR IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION; OR IF HE NIPPED IT AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION: IN THESE CASES HE DID NOT OFFER THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATION. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. SAID R. JUDAH: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHERE THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDES THAT OF PLACE, [THE SACRIFICE] IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH; BUT IF THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF PLACE PRECEDES THAT OF TIME, IT IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES [THE SACRIFICE IS] UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. [IF ONE INTENDS] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [WITHOUT BOUNDS OR AFTER TIME] [AND] TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [SIMILARLY]. IT IS FIT, FOR EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And [the priest] shall bring it [unto the altar]: Why is this stated? Because it is said, Then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons, you might think that when he vows a bird [as a burnt-offering], he must give not less than two birds; therefore it states, ‘And [the priest] shall bring it:’ he can bring even one bird to the altar, Why is ‘the priest’ stated? To prescribe a priest for it. For you might argue, is not [the reverse] logical? If a priest was not prescribed for a sheep. though north was prescribed for it; is it not logical that a priest is not prescribed for a bird, seeing that [Scripture] did not prescribe north for it? Therefore ‘the priest’ is stated, in order to prescribe a priest for it. You might think that he must nip it with a knife, and that is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed a utensil for shechitah, though it did not prescribe a priest for it; is it not logical that it prescribed a utensil for nipping, seeing that it prescribed a priest for it? Therefore it states, [And] the priest . . . shall pinch off [its head]. Said R. Akiba: Would you then think that a zar might approach the altar? Why then is ‘the priest’ stated? To teach that the pinching must be done by the very priest himself. You might think that he can pinch it off either above [the red line] or below [it]; therefore it states, ‘and pinch off [its head], and make it smoke [on the altar]:’ as haktarah [making it smoke] is [done] on the top of the altar, so is pinching [done] on the top of the altar. ‘And shall pinch off’: Close by the nape [of the neck]. You say, close by the nape; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather by the throat? It follows by logic: ‘and shall pinch off’ is stated here, and ‘and shall pinch off’ is stated elsewhere: as there it is close by its neck, so here it is close by its neck. If so, just as there he pinches but does not sever it, so here too he pinches but does not sever it? Therefore it states, ‘and shall pinch off [its head], and make it smoke’: as [in] haktarah, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so [after] pinching, the head is by itself and the body is by itself. And how do we know that the haktarah of the head is separate and that of the body is separate? Because it is said, ‘And make it smoke’: thus the burning of the body is ordered. How then do I interpret, [and the priest] shall make it smoke upon the altar? Scripture [here] treats of the burning of the head. And the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar, but not on the wall of the ascent, nor on the wall of the hekal. And which is it? The upper wall. Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather the lower wall; and that is indeed logical: if [the blood of] an animal burnt-offering is [sprinkled] below, though [that of] an animal sin-offering is [sprinkled] above; surely [the blood of] a burnt-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below, seeing that [that of] a sin-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below? Therefore it states, ‘and shall pinch off... and shall burn . . . and the blood thereof shall be drained out’: now, can you really think that after he has burnt it he returns and drains it? Rather it is to tell you: as haktarah is [done] on the top of the altar, so is the draining out on the top of the altar. How did he do this? He ascended the ascent and turned to the terrace, whence he proceeded to the south-east horn. Then he pinched off its head close by the neck, severed it, and drained [some] of its blood on the wall of the altar. If he did it below his feet even a cubit, it is fit. R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintained: It must essentially be done nought elsewhere but on the top of the altar. Wherein do they differ? — Abaye and Raba both said: They differ in respect of building a pyre on the terrace. THEN HE TOOK THE BODY etc. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof: that is the crop. You might think that he cuts through with a knife and takes it; therefore it states, ‘with the feathers thereof’: [hence] he takes the plumage together with it. R. Abba Jose b. Hanan said: He takes it [the crop] together with the craw. The school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘With the feathers thereof’ [means] with its [very] own feathers, [hence] he cuts it [round] with a knife like a skylight.26
—
HE RENT IT. BUT DID NOT SEVER IT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall rend it: rending is by hand only, and thus it says, and he rent him as one would have rent a kid. IF HE DID NOT REMOVE THE CROP etc. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. For it was taught. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: I have heard that one severs the sin-offering of a bird. Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Hisda: They disagree as to whether the draining [of the blood] of the bird sin-offering is indispensable. The first Tanna holds that it is indispensable, and since then he must drain out the blood, when he [also] severs [it] he performs the rites of a burnt-offering with the bird sin-offering. Whereas R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the draining out of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable, therefore he is merely cutting flesh. Raba said: They differ about a delay at [the nipping of] the second organ in the case of a bird burnt-offering. The first Tanna holds that it does not invalidate [it], and though he does delay, he performs the rites of a burntoffering with a sin-offering; whereas R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that it does invalidate [it], and since he delays, he is merely cutting flesh. Abaye said: They differ as to whether [the cutting through of] the greater part of the flesh is indispensable. And they [Raba and Abaye] disagree in the same controversy as that of R. Zera and R. Samuel son of R. Isaac: One maintains that they [the first Tanna and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon] disagree on whether delay at the second organ invalidates; and the other maintains that they disagree as to whether the [cutting of] the greater part of the flesh is indispensable. Now, this proves that in the first place we require [the cutting of] the greater part of the flesh? — Yes, and it was taught likewise: How is the melikah of a bird sin-offering performed? He cuts through the spinal column and the nape, without the greater part of the flesh, until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. When he reaches the gullet or the windpipe he cuts one organ, or the greater part thereof, together with the greater part of the flesh; and in the case of a burnt-offering, two [organs] or the greater part thereof. This was stated before R. Jeremiah. Said he: Have they not heard what R. Simeon b. Eliakim said on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Pedath on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon affirmed: I have heard that a bird sin-offering is severed, and what does he shall not divide it asunder mean?
—