Zevachim — Daf 66a

אין צריך להבדיל א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אלא מעתה גבי בור דכתיב (שמות כא, לג) "ולא יכסנו" ה"נ דאין צריך לכסות

הכי השתא התם כיון דכתיב (שמות כא, לד) בעל הבור ישלם עלויה הוא דרמי לכסויי אבל הכא מכדי כתיב (ויקרא א, טו) והקריבו חלק הכתוב בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף

לא יבדיל למה לי ש"מ אין צריך להבדיל:

מיצה דם הגוף: ת"ר עולה אע"פ שמיצה דם הגוף ולא מיצה דם הראש יכול מיצה דם הראש ולא מיצה דם הגוף ת"ל הוא

מאי תלמודא אמר רבינא מסתברא דרוב דמים בגוף שכיחי:

הדרן עלך קדשי קדשים

מתני' חטאת העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת כשירה

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כמעשה עולה לשם עולה פסולה עשאה למעלה כמעשה כולן פסולה

עולת העוף שעשאה למעלה כמעשה עולה לשם עולה כשירה כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כשירה ובלבד שלא עלתה לבעליה

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת פסולה עשאה למטה כמעשה כולן פסולה:

He need not sever it.1 Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If so, when it is written in connection with a pit, [And if a man shall open a pit . . .] and not cover it,2 does that too mean that he need not cover it? — How compare! There, since it is written, the owner of the pit shall make it good.3 he is [obviously] bound to cover it. But here, consider: it is written, And [the priest] shall bring [offer] it [unto the altar],4 [whereby] the Writ drew a distinction between a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering. What then is the purpose of ‘he shall not divide it asunder’?5 Infer from this that he need not sever it.6 IF HE DRAINED THE BLOOD OF THE BODY. Our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering7 [teaches that] even if he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head [it is still a valid burnt-offering].8 You might think that even if he drained the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body [it is valid]; therefore it states, ‘it is’.9 How does this imply it?10 — Said Rabina: It is logical, for most of the blood is found in the body.11 MISHNAH. IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED12 BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING13 [AND] FOR THE SAKE OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT. [IF IT IS OFFERED] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING, [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING; OR WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE [THE RED LINE]. [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE,14 IT IS UNFIT. IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED ABOVE, WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS FIT; WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT15 BUT DOES NOT FREE ITS OWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION.15 [IF HE OFFERS IT] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT BELOW, [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE,16 IT IS UNFIT. does sever it, but that nevertheless he may not sever it in the first place. But on the present interpretation he differs from the first Tanna on the very law itself. burnt-offering by nipping both organs; and further, that in this respect Scripture draws a distinction between a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. Now, if ‘he shall not divide it asunder’ means that he may not sever it, then the distinction would merely justify us in saying that in the case of a burnt-offering he may sever it, but not that he must. Hence it must mean, he need not sever it, and then the distinction shows that he must sever a burnt-offering. it still counts as such even if something of its rites is omitted.