Chullin

the priest sprinkles the blood whilst holding the head and the body in his hand, so in this case, too, he sprinkles the blood whilst holding the head and the body in his hand. (What can this mean?1 — It means this: Just as in the latter case he sprinkles the blood whilst the head is still attached to the body,2 so, too, in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird he sprinkles the blood whilst the head is still attached to the body.) But then it should follow, should it not, that just as in the former case only one organ shall be severed, so here, too, only one organ shall be severed? It is, therefore, written: ‘And he shall bring it near’.3 Now it may be asked against the first Tanna: since he derives the rule4 from the verse: ‘And he shall nip off . . . and he shall burn it’, what need is there for the verse: ‘And he shall bring it near’?5 — Without the verse: ‘And he shall bring it near’, he would have interpreted, ‘According to the ordinance’, to mean, according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a bird;6 and as to the verse: ‘And he shall nip off . . . and he shall burn it’, he would have explained it thus: as the burning [of the sacrifice is performed] upon the top of the altar, so shall [the draining of the blood following] the nipping be performed upon the upper part of the altar wall.7 But now that the Divine Law states: ‘And he shall bring it near’, [this verse therefore serves to distinguish in every respect the burnt-offering of a bird from the sin-offering of a bird, and from the verse: ‘And he shall nip off . . . and he shall burn it’] he can derive this too.8 Whence do we know that the sin-offering of an animal must be brought only from unconsecrated animals?9 — R. Hisda answered: From the verse: And Aaron shall offer the bullock of the sin-offering which is his;10 [that is to say], it must come from his own means and not from the money of the community nor from Second Tithe. Is not [the rule that sacrifices may only be offered] by day inferred from the verse: In the day that he commanded?11 — It is indeed stated [above] to no purpose. Is not [the rule that all the services in connection therewith must be performed] with the right hand derived from the following dictum of Rabbah b. Bar Hannah; for Rabbah b. Bar Hannah declared in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish. Wherever the word ‘finger’ or ‘priest’ is employed it signifies that the right hand only [shall be Used].12 — And the other?13 [He is of the opinion that the word] ‘priest’ requires [with it the word] ‘finger’ [in order that the above rule may apply], though [the word] ‘finger’ does not require [with it the word] ‘priest’. 14 Whence do the first Tanna and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon15 derive the Jaw [that the nipping in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird shall be] close to the back of the neck?16 — They derive it from the fact that nipping is prescribed in both cases.17 MISHNAH. [THE AGE] WHICH QUALIFIES TURTLE DOVES [FOR SACRIFICE] DISQUALIFIES PIGEONS, AND [THE AGE] WHICH QUALIFIES PIGEONS [FOR SACRIFICE] DISQUALIFIES TURTLE DOVES. AT THE PERIOD WHEN THE NECK FEATHERS BEGIN TO GLISTEN IN EITHER KIND THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Turtle doves are qualified [for sacrifice] when fully grown, but not when small; pigeons are qualified [for sacrifice] when small, but not when fully grown. It follows, therefore, that the age which qualifies turtle doves for sacrifice disqualifies pigeons, and the age which qualifies pigeons for sacrifice disqualifies turtle doves. Our Rabbis taught: The expression, turtle doves,18 implies fully grown birds, but not small. For [without the Biblical direction] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: of the bird in his hand whilst sprinkling the blood. organ must also be cut, though not severed, in order to conform with the rule that the head be attached to the body. Hence the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, frequently mentioned previously, that the greater portion of both organs must be cut, but no more. burnt.offering of a bird only one organ shall be severed. upon the lower half of the altar wall. V, Zeb. 64b. In all other respects, however, the burnt-offering of a bird shall be like unto the sin.offering of a bird. organs of the throat in the case of the burnt-offering shall be absolutely severed. sacrifices enumerated in the preceding verse. Wherefore is it necessary to derive the burnt-offering of a bird from the sin-offering of an animal? bring it near, Lev. I, 17. burnt.offering of a bird the word ‘finger’ is not found, he is obliged to derive the rule of ‘right hand’ from the analogy. and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, although comparing the burnt.offering of a bird with the sin-offering of a bird, utilizes the analogy in order to obtain the result that the head of the bird must remain attached to the body.