Zevachim 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“he shall split”

the body of the burnt-offering

“but he shall not divide”

meaning that he does not cut the body completely.

The Sages taught:

With regard to that which is written

“and he shall split it,”

the Sages interpret:

“Splitting” means only by hand, and so it

is

stated

with regard to Samson, who split the young lion that came toward him:

“And he split it as one splits a kid.”

And there it was done by hand, and it is called splitting.

We learned in the Mishna: If one altered the procedure of the offerings, for example,

if he divided the סימנים in a sin-offering

by pinching both סימנים, or

if he did not divide them in a burnt-offering

and pinched only one סימן,

the offering is disqualified

!

And we infer:

The Mishna

which maintains that dividing both סימנים disqualifies a bird sin-offering

is not in accordance with the view of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: “I heard that they divide them”

meaning that if one divided both סימנים

in a bird sin-offering,

the offering is not disqualified.

And we inquire:

What is the difference between them?

In what did these tannaim disagree?

Rav Ḥisda said: Whether the squeezing of the bird sin-offering is indispensable is the difference between them

between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

The bird sin-offering is disqualified only when its procedure was performed entirely like that of a bird burnt-offering; and they disagree whether, in such a case, its procedure is equivalent to that of a bird burnt-offering.

The first tanna holds: The squeezing of the bird sin-offering,

which was performed after sprinkling its blood on the wall of the altar,

is indispensable

to the offering, and if he did not squeeze it, it is disqualified.

And since he is required to squeeze the blood,

he squeezes the blood against his will, for otherwise the offering would be disqualified;

he performs the procedure of a burnt-offering with a bird sin-offering.

It follows that this sin-offering was performed entirely like a burnt-offering, both with regard to dividing the סימנים and with regard to squeezing its blood like a burnt-offering, and it is therefore disqualified.

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that the squeezing of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable

to the offering. And if he divided both סימנים in a sin-offering, he is not required to squeeze its blood; therefore the sin-offering is valid since it is not entirely like the procedure of a burnt-offering. For in a burnt-offering there is squeezing, whereas in this sin-offering no squeezing was performed; and the division of the סימנים that he performed

is merely cutting flesh

and is not like the procedure of a burnt-offering.

Rava said: Whether pausing during the second סימן of a bird burnt-offering is the difference between them

between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. With regard to slaughtering both סימנים of an animal, the law is that if one paused between slaughtering the first סימן and the second, he disqualified the slaughter. With regard to pinching a bird burnt-offering, they disagree, as

the first tanna holds that pausing during the second סימן

that is, pausing between the first סימן and the second

in a bird burnt-offering does not disqualify it.

Although both סימנים must be pinched in a bird burnt-offering, the pinching is nevertheless valid even when he paused between one סימן and the other. Specifically, in the case of an animal, pausing between the two סימנים disqualifies it because as long as he has not slaughtered the second סימן, the animal is still alive and the slaughter has not been completed; therefore, if he pauses between the סימנים, this is a pause in the middle of the slaughter. By contrast, in pinching, the bird dies with the first סימן and the pinching procedure is completed; the division of the second סימן is not part of the pinching procedure, but is merely the mitzva of division, and is considered a separate procedure. Therefore, when one pinches both סימנים of a bird sin-offering and divides them, he disqualifies the sin-offering because he performed with it the procedure of a burnt-offering: a burnt-offering pinched in this manner has valid pinching. And although in a bird sin-offering it is impossible to divide the second סימן without pausing from the pinching of the first סימן, since one must cut most of the flesh together with the pinching of the first סימן, and this cutting constitutes a pause between the first and second סימנים, nevertheless the sin-offering is disqualified when both סימנים are pinched, even though he paused between them, because in a burnt-offering as well, pausing does not disqualify it. This is therefore “like the procedure of a burnt-offering.”

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds

that pausing in a bird burnt-offering between one סימן and the other

disqualifies it.

Therefore, a bird sin-offering that he pinched while pausing between one סימן and the other is not disqualified, since this pinching is not “like the procedure of a burnt-offering”: pinching a burnt-offering while pausing between one סימן and the other is not valid. Thus, although he divided the second סימן in the sin-offering, nevertheless,

since there was a pause

between one סימן and the other, his division is

merely cutting flesh

and not the procedure of division.

Abaye said:

According to all the tannaim, pausing in a bird burnt-offering between pinching one סימן and the other disqualifies it. The disagreement between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerns the law of cutting

most of the flesh

in a bird sin-offering: whether it

is indispensable.

The first tanna holds that cutting most of the flesh in a bird sin-offering is not indispensable. Therefore, it is possible to perform the procedure of a burnt-offering with a sin-offering by dividing both סימנים without cutting the flesh, and this is like the procedure of a burnt-offering, so the offering is disqualified. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that cutting most of the flesh is indispensable. Therefore, it is impossible to make a sin-offering like a burnt-offering, because when he cuts most of the flesh, he pauses between one סימן and the other; consequently, this is not “like the procedure of a burnt-offering,” since pausing in a burnt-offering disqualifies it.

And Abaye and Rava

disagreed in the same dispute as Rabbi Zeira and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak

regarding the matter, for

one

of these amoraim

said: Whether pausing during the second סימן of a bird burnt-offering

is indispensable

is the difference between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon;

and one

of these amoraim

said: Whether most of the flesh is indispensable

in a bird sin-offering

is the difference between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

And we infer:

By inference

from their disagreement over whether most of the flesh is indispensable, we hear

that

according to everyone

we require

the cutting of

most of the flesh

in a bird sin-offering

at the outset.

No;

that is not so, for this is what

was taught in a beraita: How does one pinch a bird sin-offering? He cuts

the spinal cord

and the neck vertebra without cutting most of the flesh

[for if he cuts most of the flesh before the pinching, the sin-offering becomes dead and is an animal carcass]

until he reaches the esophagus or the windpipe. Once he reaches the esophagus or the windpipe, he cuts one סימן or most of it

of the סימן

together with most of the flesh; and in a burnt-offering

he cuts

both סימנים or most of both.

They stated

this dispute between the amoraim, who disagreed in explaining the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

before Rabbi Yirmeya, who said

Rabbi Yirmeya:

They had not heard

these amoraim

what Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua,

who said:

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would say: “I heard that they divide the סימנים in a bird sin-offering,”

and the offering is not disqualified.

And what is the meaning of “he shall not divide,”

which Scripture stated with regard to a bird sin-offering?