Zevachim 66a — the Talmud in English

It is not necessary to separate,

therefore, if he separated, it is not a change in the service.

Rab Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But if so,

if the verse is interpreted in this way—“he shall not separate” does not constitute a warning that he should not separate, but merely comes to teach us that it is not necessary to separate—then

regarding a pit, where it is written: “and he shall not cover it,” likewise

shall we explain the intent of the verse in this way,

that it is not necessary

for the owner of the pit

to cover it?

And we reject this:

Is it so now?!

There is no comparison between the interpretation of the verse concerning a pit and the interpretation of the verse concerning the bird sin-offering.

There,

regarding a pit, we interpret “and he shall not cover it” to mean that he is obligated to cover it, because

since it is written, “the owner of the pit shall pay,”

for the damage caused by the pit that injured those who fell into it, it is reasonable that the intent of the verse is that

the responsibility to cover it is imposed upon him. But here,

in the verse concerning the bird sin-offering, we interpret it to mean that it is not necessary to separate, because

since it is written

concerning the bird burnt-offering

“and he shall offer it,”

and we learn [in Hullin, folio 21a] from this verse that

the verse distinguished between

the pinching of the

bird sin-offering and

the pinching of the

bird burnt-offering,

for the bird burnt-offering requires separation, whereas the bird sin-offering does not require separation; if so, why do I need the verse in which it is stated

“he shall not separate it”?

[For it cannot be explained that it comes to say that it is forbidden to separate in the sin-offering, for if so, from where is there the mitzva of separation in the burnt-offering? Perhaps the burnt-offering differs from the sin-offering, in that in the burnt-offering there is no warning and it is permitted to separate.] Rather,

infer from it

that the explanation of the verse that says “he shall not separate it” comes to teach us that

it is not necessary to separate.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he pressed out the blood of the body but did not press out the blood of the head, it is valid.

The Sages taught: A burnt-offering

is valid

even though he pressed out the blood of the body but did not press out the blood of the head.

One might think

that we could entertain the thought and deem valid

even if he pressed out the blood of the head but did not press out the blood of the body; the verse says

as it is written

“it,”

teaching that pressing out the blood of the body is indispensable.

What is the proof

for explaining thus that “it” refers to the blood of the body?

Ravina said: It is reasonable

to explain thus because

most blood is found in the body,

and the blood of the body is the principal blood.

We will return to you, chapter of Most Holy Offerings

The bird sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering are two “bird offerings” that come from turtledoves or from young pigeons. In the previous chapter, the differences in the laws between these two offerings are explained:

a. The bird sin-offering is performed below the sikra line, whereas the bird burnt-offering is performed above the sikra line.

b. For the bird sin-offering, the koen stands on the floor of the Temple courtyard, near the

southwestern

corner of the altar. Whereas for the bird burnt-offering, the koen ascends the ramp until he reaches the

southeastern

corner, and there he performs the procedure of the burnt-offering.

c. For the bird sin-offering, the koen pinches one siman, either the windpipe or the gullet, and does not separate the head from the body. Whereas for the bird burnt-offering, he pinches both simanim and separates the head from the body of the bird.

d. For the bird sin-offering, the koen sprinkles some of the bird’s blood on the altar, and afterward drains its blood onto the wall of the altar. Whereas for the bird burnt-offering, he does not sprinkle from the blood; rather, he drains the blood from the body of the bird onto the wall of the altar.

Our Mishna comes to teach which changes made in the bird sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering invalidate them, and which changes leave them in a state of fitness.

Mishna:

A. The law of changes in the bird sin-offering —

A bird sin-offering that he performed

according to its law,

below

the sikra line, which is the place fit for it, and he performed it

as the procedure of a sin-offering,

pinching one siman and not separating [the head], and sprinkling its blood, and afterward draining its blood onto the wall of the altar, and performing all the procedures

for the sake of a sin-offering,

it is

fit,

for this is its mitzva.

But if he changed, and did not perform it according to its halakhic procedure, for example:

a. He

performed it as the procedure of a sin-offering,

but changed in his intention during its procedure, and performed it

for the sake of a burnt-offering,

it is unfit, like the law of an animal sin-offering that he slaughtered for the sake of a burnt-offering, for an intention of a change of sacred designation invalidates a sin-offering.

b. He performed the bird sin-offering

as the procedure of a burnt-offering [and the Gemara will explain in which procedure of the procedures of the sin-offering he changed and performed it as the procedure of a burnt-offering], but he intended in performing it

for the sake of a sin-offering.

c. And likewise, if he performed the bird sin-offering

as the procedure of a burnt-offering

and also performed it

for the sake of a burnt-offering,

in all these cases, it is

unfit!

d. He

performed

the bird sin-offering, whose law is to be performed below the sikra line,

above,

and its performance was

as the procedure of all of them,

like one of all the procedures of a sin-offering explained here in the Mishna; that is, even if he performed the bird sin-offering as the procedure of a sin-offering and for the sake of a sin-offering, but performed it above — it is

unfit.

B. The law of changes in the bird burnt-offering —

A bird burnt-offering that he performed

according to its halakhic procedure

above

the sikra line, and performed all its procedures

as the procedure of a burnt-offering,

pinching both simanim and separating the head of the bird from the body, and not sprinkling the blood but only draining it onto the wall of the altar, it is

fit!

But if he changed in it and did not perform it according to its halakhic procedure, for example:

a. He performed the bird burnt-offering

as the procedure of a burnt-offering,

but intended during its procedure that he was performing it

for the sake of a sin-offering;

it is

fit,

like the law of all the offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake [apart from the Passover-offering and the sin-offering], which are fit,

provided that it did not count for its owners

as fulfillment of their obligation; rather, they must bring another burnt-offering and offer it for the sake of a burnt-offering.

b. But if he changed in its performance, performing it

as the procedure of a sin-offering [and the Gemara explains in which procedure he changed], then even though he performed it

then even though he performed it

for the sake of a burnt-offering,

it is unfit.

c. And likewise, if he changed both in the performance and in the intention during the procedure, performing the bird burnt-offering

as the procedure of a sin-offering, for the sake of a sin-offering,

in all these cases, it is

unfit.

d. He

performed

the bird burnt-offering

below, as the procedure

of one

of all of them,

of all the forms explained in the Mishna; that is, even if he performed the bird burnt-offering as the procedure of a burnt-offering and for the sake of a burnt-offering, but performed it below, it is

unfit.