He need not sever it. (1) Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If so, when it is written in connection with a pit, [And if a man shall open a pit...] and not cover it, (2) does that too mean that he need not cover it? — How compare! There, since it is written, the owner of the pit shall make it good. (3) he is [obviously] bound to cover it. But here, consider: it is written, And [the priest] shall bring [offer] it [unto the altar], (4) [whereby] the Writ drew a distinction between a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering. What then is the purpose of ‘he shall not divide it asunder’? (5) Infer from this that he need not sever it. (6) IF HE DRAINED THE BLOOD OF THE BODY. Our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering (7) [teaches that] even if he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head [it is still a valid burnt-offering]. (8) You might think that even if he drained the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body [it is valid]; therefore it states, ‘it is’. (9) How does this imply it? (10) — Said Rabina: It is logical, for most of the blood is found in the body. (11) MISHNAH. IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED (12) BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING (13) [AND] FOR THE SAKE OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT. [IF IT IS OFFERED] WITH THE RITES OF A SINOFFERING, [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING; OR WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE [THE RED LINE]. [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, (14) IT IS UNFIT. IF A BURNTOFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED ABOVE, WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNTOFFERING, IT IS FIT; WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT (15) BUT DOES NOT FREE ITS OWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION. (15) [IF HE OFFERS IT] WITH THE RITES OF A SINOFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT BELOW, [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, (16) IT IS UNFIT.

---

(1). ↑ The foregoing controversies of the Amoraim assumed that R. Eleazar merely meant that the sacrifice is not unfit if he does sever it, but that nevertheless he may not sever it in the first place. But on the present interpretation he differs from the first Tanna on the very law itself.
(2). ↑ Ex. XXI, 33.
(3). ↑ Ibid. 34.
(4). ↑ Lev. I, 15. This refers to the burnt-offering.
(5). ↑ In Lev. V, 8, referring to the sin-offering.
(6). ↑ In Hul. 21a R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon deduces from this ‘shall bring it’ that the priest must sever the neck of a burnt-offering by nipping both organs; and further, that in this respect Scripture draws a distinction between a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. Now, if ‘he shall not divide it asunder’ means that he may not sever it, then the distinction would merely justify us in saying that in the case of a burnt-offering he may sever it, but not that he must. Hence it must mean, he need not sever it, and then the distinction shows that he must sever a burnt-offering.
(7). ↑ Lev. I, 17.
(8). ↑ ‘A burnt-offering’ here is superfluous, since the context makes it perfectly clear. Hence it is interpreted to mean that it still counts as such even if something of its rites is omitted.
(9). ↑ This is emphatic, intimating that it must be done with the proper rites.
(10). ↑ Perhaps it is the reverse?
(11). ↑ Hence that it at least must be drained out.
(12). ↑ Lit., ‘made’ — I.e., its blood is sprinkled.
(13). ↑ Viz., nipping one organ only, and sprinkling and draining the blood.
(14). ↑ Enumerated above, i.e., even with the rites and in the name of a sin-offering.
(15). ↑ V. supra 2a.
(16). ↑ Cf. n. 3.