IF HE NIPPED A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME; OR IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION; OR IF HE NIPPED IT AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION: IN THESE CASES HE DID NOT OFFER THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATION. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. SAID R. JUDAH: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHERE THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDES THAT OF PLACE, [THE SACRIFICE] IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH; BUT IF THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF PLACE PRECEDES THAT OF TIME, IT IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES [THE SACRIFICE IS] UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. [IF ONE INTENDS] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [WITHOUT BOUNDS OR AFTER TIME] [AND] TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [SIMILARLY]. IT IS FIT, FOR EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE. (1) GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And [the priest] shall bring it [unto the altar]: (2) Why is this stated? Because it is said, Then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons, (3) you might think that when he vows a bird [as a burnt-offering], he must give not less than two birds; therefore it states, ‘And [the priest] shall bring it:’ he can bring even one bird to the altar, Why is ‘the priest’ stated? To prescribe a priest for it. (4) For you might argue, is not [the reverse] logical? If a priest was not prescribed for a sheep. (5) though north was prescribed for it; (6) is it not logical that a priest is not prescribed for a bird, seeing that [Scripture] did not prescribe north for it? Therefore ‘the priest’ is stated, in order to prescribe a priest for it. You might think that he must nip it with a knife, and that is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed a utensil (7) for shechitah, though it did not prescribe a priest for it; is it not logical that it prescribed a utensil for nipping, seeing that it prescribed a priest for it? Therefore it states, [And] the priest... shall pinch off [its head]. (8) Said R. Akiba: Would you then think that a Zar might approach the altar? (9) Why then is ‘the priest’ stated? To teach that the pinching must be done by the very priest himself. (10) You might think that he can pinch it off either above [the red line] or below [it]; therefore it states, ‘and pinch off [its head], and make it smoke [on the altar]:’ as haktarah [making it smoke] is [done] on the top of the altar, so is pinching [done] on the top of the altar. (11) ‘And shall pinch off’: Close by the nape [of the neck]. You say, close by the nape; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather by the throat? (12) It follows by logic: ‘and shall pinch off’ is stated here, and ‘and shall pinch off’ is stated elsewhere: (13) as there it is close by its neck, so here it is close by its neck. If so, just as there he pinches but does not sever it, so here too he pinches but does not sever it? Therefore it states, ‘and shall pinch off [its head], and make it smoke’: as [in] haktarah, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so [after] pinching, the head is by itself and the body is by itself. And how do we know that the haktarah of the head is separate and that of the body is separate? Because it is said, ‘And make it smoke’: thus the burning of the body is ordered. How then do I interpret, [and the priest] shall make it smoke upon the altar? (14) Scripture [here] treats of the burning of the head. (15) And the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar, (16) but not on the wall of the ascent, nor on the wall of the Hekal. And which is it? The upper wall. Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather the lower wall; and that is indeed logical: if [the blood of] an animal burnt-offering is [sprinkled] below, though [that of] an animal sin-offering is [sprinkled] above; surely [the blood of] a burnt-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below, seeing that [that of] a sin-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below? Therefore it states, ‘and shall pinch off... and shall burn... and the blood thereof shall be drained out’: now, can you really think that after he has burnt it he returns and drains it? (17) Rather it is to tell you: as haktarah is [done] on the top of the altar, so is the draining out on the top of the altar. How did he do this? He ascended the ascent and turned to the terrace, whence he proceeded to the southeast horn. Then he pinched off its head close by the neck, severed it, and drained [some] of its blood on the wall of the altar. If he did it below his feet (18) even a cubit, it is fit. (19) R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintained: It must essentially be done naught elsewhere but on the top of the altar. Wherein do they differ? — Abaye and Raba both said: They differ in respect of building a pyre on the terrace. (20) THEN HE TOOK THE BODY, etc. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof: (21) that is the crop. (22) You might think that he cuts through with a knife and takes it; (23) therefore it states, ‘with the feathers thereof’: [hence] he takes the plumage together with it. R. Abba Jose b. Hanan said: He takes it [the crop] together with the craw. (24) The school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘With the feathers thereof’ [means] with its [very] own feathers, (25) [hence] he cuts it [round] with a knife like a skylight. (26)

---

(1). ↑ V. supra 29b for the whole passage.
(2). ↑ Lev. I, 15. This refers to a bird burnt-offering, and is apparently superfluous, since the preceding verse states, Then he shall bring his offering, etc. Hence Scripture should continue: ‘And the priest shall pinch off its head by the altar.’
(3). ↑ Ibid. 14.
(4). ↑ Only a priest, and not a Zar, must nip off its head.
(5). ↑ A sheep can be slaughtered by a Zar, and the slaughtering of a sheep corresponds to the nipping of a bird.
(6). ↑ It must be slaughtered at the north side of the altar.
(7). ↑ Viz., a knife.
(8). ↑ The Priest himself, without the assistance of a utensil, as R. Akiba explains.
(9). ↑ For the bird-offering one had actually to ascend the slope of the altar and walk round the terrace (supra 64b); that would obviously not be permitted to a Zar. An animal-offering, however, which could be slaughtered by a Zar, was killed on the ground, and even at some distance from the altar.
(10). ↑ Not with a knife.
(11). ↑ The ‘top’ here means the upper half, above the red line.
(12). ↑ The front part of the neck.
(13). ↑ Lev, V, 8: and shall pinch off its head close by its neck, but shall not divide it asunder.
(14). ↑ Lev, I, 17. This apparently a repetition of v. 15.
(15). ↑ Hence each was separate.
(16). ↑ Ibid. 15.
(17). ↑ That is obviously impossible!
(18). ↑ Stooping down,
(19). ↑ Because the red line, which demarcated the upper part of the altar from the lower, was a cubit below the terrace.
(20). ↑ The first Tanna holds that this can be done, therefore the blood can be drained out even below the terrace. But R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob hold that the haktarah must be done on the top of the altar itself; therefore the draining too must be done near there.
(21). ↑ Lev. I, 16.
(22). ↑ The Talmud translates the less familiar mur'ah by the more familiar zefek.
(23). ↑ Sc. the crop alone, without the skin and the feathers.
(24). ↑ The thick muscular stomach of birds.
(25). ↑ Not more than the feathers opposite the crop.
(26). ↑ He cuts the skin exactly opposite the crop, and then removes the crop, skin and feathers.