Zevachim

HE RENT IT. BUT DID NOT SEVER IT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall rend it:1 rending is by hand only, and thus it says, and he rent him as one would have rent a kid.2 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.3 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 Tanna4 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.5 Whereas R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the draining out of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable,6 therefore he is merely cutting flesh.7 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.8 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. 9 Now, this proves that in the first place we require [the cutting of] the greater part of the flesh?10 — 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.11 This was stated before R. Jeremiah.12 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 asunder13 mean? sin-offering is sprinkled below and that of the burnt-offering is sprinkled above the red line, that is not regarded as a sufficient distinction (Tosaf.). performing the rites of a burnt-offering. should a delay occur between these two organs, it is invalid, and the animal is nebelah (q.v. Glos.). The shechitah of a bird (of hullin) consists of cutting through one organ only (the second is optional), since that is sufficient to kill it. Now, a bird burnt-offering must have both organs pinched (which is the equivalent of cut) through, and this can be done without delay between the organs; but when one nips both organs of a bird sin-offering, delay is inevitable, owing to the particular manner in which the rite must be performed, as stated infra. The first Tanna holds that delay between the two organs in the case of a burnt-offering does not invalidate the sacrifice, because the nipping of the second organ is not really part of the shechitah at all. Hence when he nips both organs of a sin-offering, he performs the same rite as would be valid in the case of a burnt-offering, and therefore it (the sin-offering) is unfit. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon holds that delay in the case of a burnt-offering does invalidate the sacrifice, and since delay is inevitable in the case of a sin-offering, it is obvious that he is not treating it like a burnt-offering. and this naturally makes a delay before the second organ inevitable. Abaye explains that all hold that a delay at the second organ of a burnt-offering invalidates the sacrifice, but they disagree as to whether the cutting through of the flesh in the case of a sin-offering is indispensable. The first Tanna holds that it is not indispensable, hence it is possible to nip both organs without a delay, and so it becomes like the rites of a burnt-offering and is therefore invalid. But R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon holds that this cutting through is indispensable; hence there must be a delay between the organs, and thereby it differs from a burnt-offering. Simeon.