Zevachim 65b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“he shall split”

the body of the burnt-offering

“but shall not sever”

for he does not cut the body completely.

The Sages taught:

That which is written,

“and he shall split it,”

they interpret:

“Splitting is only by hand, and so it says”

the verse

“says”

concerning Samson, that he split the young lion that came toward him,

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

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

We learned in the Mishna: If he altered [the procedure] with the offerings, such as

“he severed [both signs] in the sin-offering,”

that he pinched two signs, or

“he did not sever [them] in the burnt-offering,”

and pinched one sign,

“it is disqualified”

the offering!

And we infer:

“The Mishna”

which holds that severing two signs disqualifies in the bird sin-offering

“is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. For it was taught: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon said: I heard that they sever”

that is, if he severed two signs

“in the bird sin-offering,”

the offering is not disqualified.

And we raised this:

“What is the difference between them?”

These tannaim—over what did they disagree?

Rav Hisda said: “Whether the pressing-out of the bird sin-offering is indispensable is the difference between them,”

between the First Tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

For the disqualification of the bird sin-offering is only in a manner in which it was performed entirely like the service of the bird burnt-offering, and they disagreed whether in this manner its performance is equivalent to the performance of the bird burnt-offering.

The First Tanna holds: The pressing-out of the bird sin-offering,

in which, after sprinkling the blood on the wall of the altar, he pressed out its blood,

“is indispensable”

for the offering, and if he did not press it out, it is disqualified.

“And since he must press out the blood,”

he presses out the blood against his will, for otherwise the offering is disqualified,

“he performs the act of a burnt-offering in a bird sin-offering,”

it emerges that this sin-offering was performed entirely like a burnt-offering, both in the severing of the signs and in the pressing-out performed in it, like a burnt-offering, and it is disqualified.

“And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds: The pressing-out of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable”

for the offering. And if he severed two signs in a sin-offering, he is not required to perform pressing-out in it; therefore the sin-offering is fit since it is not entirely like the service of a burnt-offering. For in a burnt-offering there is pressing-out, whereas in this sin-offering pressing-out was not performed; and the severing of the signs that he performed

“is merely cutting flesh”

but it is not like the act of a burnt-offering.

Rava said: “Whether pausing at the second sign in the bird burnt-offering is the difference between them,”

between the First Tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. With regard to the slaughtering of two signs of an animal, the law is that if he paused between the slaughtering of one sign and the second, he disqualified it; and with regard to pinching in the bird burnt-offering they disagreed, for

“the First Tanna holds that pausing at the second sign” [

that is, pausing between the first sign and the second sign]

“in the bird burnt-offering does not disqualify it,”

and even though in the bird burnt-offering the pinching of two signs is required, nevertheless the pinching is fit even when he paused between one sign and the second. And specifically in an animal does pausing between the two signs disqualify, because as long as he has not slaughtered the second sign, the animal is still alive and the slaughtering has not been completed; and if he paused between the signs, there is a pause in the middle of the slaughtering. This is not so with pinching, for with one sign the bird dies and the service of pinching is completed, and the severing of the second sign is not part of the service of pinching, but is merely the mitzva of severing, and it is like a service in its own right. For this reason, when he pinched two signs in a bird sin-offering and severed them, he disqualifies the sin-offering because he performed in it like the act of a burnt-offering, for a burnt-offering that he pinched in such a manner has valid pinching. And even though in a bird sin-offering it is impossible to perform severing at the second sign without pausing from the pinching of the first sign, since he must cut the greater part of the flesh together with the pinching of the first sign, and this cutting is a pause between the first sign and the second, nevertheless the sin-offering is disqualified by the pinching of the two signs, even though he paused between them, because even in a burnt-offering pausing does not disqualify; and this is “like the act of a burnt-offering.”

“And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds”

that pausing in the bird burnt-offering between one sign and another

“disqualifies it,”

and for this reason a bird sin-offering that he pinched while pausing between one sign and the second was not disqualified, for this is not “like the act of a burnt-offering”: this pinching, in which he paused between one sign and another in a burnt-offering, is not valid. Therefore, even though he severed the second sign in the sin-offering, nevertheless

“since there was pausing”

between one sign and the second, his severing is like

“merely cutting flesh”

and not like the service of severing.

Abaye said:

According to all the tannaim, pausing in a bird burnt-offering between the pinching of one sign and the second disqualifies it; and the disagreement between the First Tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon is regarding the law of cutting

“the greater part of the flesh”

in a bird sin-offering, whether it

“is indispensable,”

for the First Tanna holds that cutting the greater part of the flesh in a bird sin-offering is not indispensable, and for this reason it is possible to perform the act of a burnt-offering in a sin-offering when he severs two signs without cutting the flesh, and this is like the act of a burnt-offering, and it is disqualified . And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that cutting the greater flesh is indispensable, and for this reason it is impossible to make a sin-offering like the act of a burnt-offering, because when he cuts the greater part of the flesh, he pauses between one sign and another, and consequently this is not “like the act of a burnt-offering,” for pausing in a burnt-offering disqualifies.

And Abaye and Rava

disagreed in the dispute between Rabbi Zeira and Rav Shmuel son of Rav Yitzhak,

for

one

of these amoraim

said: “Whether pausing at the second sign in the bird burnt-offering,”

if it is indispensable,

“is the difference between them,”

between the First Tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon;

“and one”

of these amoraim

“said: ‘The greater part of the flesh is indispensable’”

in the bird sin-offering,

“is the difference between them,”

between the First Tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

And we infer:

“By implication,”

from their disagreement, in which they disagreed whether the greater part of the flesh is indispensable, we hear

“that”

according to everyone

“we require”

the cutting of

“the greater part of the flesh”

in a bird sin-offering

“at the outset.”

“No,”

for this is how it is,

“as it was taught: How does one pinch a bird sin-offering? He cuts”

the spinal cord

“and the neck bone without the greater part of the flesh” [

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

“until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. When he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one sign or most of it,”

of the sign,

“and the greater part of the flesh with it; and in the burnt-offering,”

he cuts

“two or most of two.”

“They stated it”

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

“before Rabbi Yirmeya. He said,”

Rabbi Yirmeya:

“They had not heard it,”

these amoraim,

“that which 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 sever in the bird sin-offering,’”

and the offering is not disqualified,

“and what is [the meaning of] ‘he shall not sever’”

which the verse said concerning the bird sin-offering?