Zevachim 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

There is no need to separate,

therefore, if he did separate, it is not a deviation in the sacrificial service.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But from now on,

if the verse “he shall not separate” is interpreted in this manner—that it is not a prohibition against separating, but merely teaches us that there is no need to separate—then

with regard to a pit, about which it is written: “and he did not cover it,” this too

should be interpreted as meaning

that it is not necessary

for the owner of the pit

to cover it?

And we reject this:

Can these cases really be compared?!

The interpretation of the verse concerning a pit cannot be compared to the interpretation of the verse concerning the bird sin offering.

There,

with regard to a pit, we interpret “and he did not cover it” as meaning 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 meaning of the verse is that

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

in the verse concerning the bird sin offering, we interpret it as meaning that there is no need to separate, because

once it is written

with regard to the bird olah,

“and he shall bring it,”

and it is derived [in Chullin 21a] from this verse that

Scripture distinguished between

the pinching of the

bird sin offering and

the pinching of the

bird olah,

as the bird olah 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”? [

For it cannot be interpreted as coming to say that it is prohibited to separate in the sin offering, since if so, from where do we know that there is a mitzva of separation in the olah? Perhaps the olah differs from the sin offering in that there is no prohibition concerning the olah, and it is permitted to separate.] Rather,

learn from it

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

there is no need to separate.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head, it is valid.

The Sages taught: An olah

is valid

even if he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head.

One might have thought

that we should conclude and validate

even if he drained the blood of the head but did not drain the blood of the body; the verse states

as it is written

“it,”

teaching that draining the blood of the body is indispensable.

What is the proof

for interpreting it in this manner, that “it” refers to the blood of the body?

Ravina said: It is reasonable

to interpret it in this manner, because

most of the blood is commonly found in the body,

and the blood of the body is the principal blood.

We have concluded the chapter “Sacred Offerings.”

The bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering are the two “bird offerings” brought from turtledoves or young pigeons. The previous chapter explains the differences in the laws between these two offerings:

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

priest stands on the floor of the Temple courtyard near the southwestern

corner of the altar. For the bird burnt offering, however, the priest 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 priest pinches one of the signs—the trachea or the esophagus—and does not separate the head from the body. For the bird burnt offering, however, he pinches both signs and separates the head from the body of the bird.

d. For the bird sin offering, the priest sprinkles some of the bird’s blood on the altar and afterward presses out the rest of its blood onto the wall of the altar. For the bird burnt offering, however, he does not sprinkle the blood; rather, he presses the blood from the body of the bird onto the wall of the altar.

Our Mishna teaches which deviations made in the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering invalidate them, and which deviations leave them valid.

Mishna:

A. The laws of deviations in the bird sin offering —

A bird sin offering that one performed

in accordance with its law,

below

the sikra line, which is its proper place, and performed it

according to the procedure of a sin offering,

pinching one sign without separating the head, sprinkling its blood, and afterward pressing out its blood onto the wall of the altar, and performing all the rites

for the sake of a sin offering,

it is

valid,

for this is the manner in which its mitzva is performed.

But if one deviated and did not perform it according to its law, for example:

a.

He performed it according to the procedure of a sin offering,

but deviated in his intention during the rite and performed it

for the sake of a burnt offering,

it is invalid, as in the case of a sin-offering animal that one slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering, since an intention involving a change of sanctity invalidates a sin offering.

b. He performed the bird sin offering

according to the procedure of a burnt offering [and the Gemara will explain which rite of the sin offering he changed and performed according to the procedure of a burnt offering], but while performing it he intended it

for the sake of a sin offering.

c. Similarly, if he performed the bird sin offering

according to the procedure of a burnt offering and also performed it

and also performed it

for the sake of a burnt offering,

in all these cases, it is

invalid!

d.

If he performed

the bird sin offering, whose law is that it must be performed below the sikra line,

above

it, and its performance was

according to the procedure of all of them,

like any one of the procedures of the sin offering described here in the Mishna—in other words, even if he performed the bird sin offering according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering, but performed it above the line—it is

invalid.

B. The laws of deviations in the bird burnt offering —

A bird burnt offering that one performed

according to its law

above

the sikra line, and performed all its rites

according to the procedure of a burnt offering—

he pinched both signs, separated the head of the bird from its body, and did not sprinkle its blood but only pressed it out onto the wall of the altar—it is

valid!

But if he deviated in it and did not perform it according to its law, for example:

a. He performed the bird burnt offering

according to the procedure of a burnt offering,

but while performing its rites he intended to perform it

for the sake of a sin offering;

it is

valid,

like all offerings slaughtered not for their own sake [except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering], which are valid,

provided that it does not fulfill the obligation of its owner,

who must instead bring another burnt offering and offer it for the sake of a burnt offering.

b. But if he deviated in performing it and performed it

according to the procedure of a sin offering [and the Gemara explains which rite he changed], then although he performed it

then even though he performed it

for the sake of a burnt offering,

it is invalid.

c. Similarly, if he deviated both in the performance and in his intention during the rite, and performed the bird burnt offering

according to the procedure of a sin offering, for the sake of a sin offering,

in all these cases, it is

invalid.

d.

If he performed

the bird burnt offering

below, according to the procedure

of any one

of them, of all the forms described in the Mishna—in other words, even if he performed the bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering, but performed it below—it is

of all the forms described in the Mishna. That is, even if he performed the bird burnt-offering in the manner of a burnt-offering and for the sake of a burnt-offering, but performed it below the line, it is

invalid.