Zevachim 131

אין צריך להבדיל א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אלא מעתה גבי בור דכתיב (שמות כא, לג) "ולא יכסנו" ה"נ דאין צריך לכסות

He need not sever it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33.');">²</span>

הכי השתא התם כיון דכתיב (שמות כא, לד) בעל הבור ישלם עלויה הוא דרמי לכסויי אבל הכא מכדי כתיב (ויקרא א, טו) והקריבו חלק הכתוב בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 34.');">³</span> he is [obviously] bound to cover it.

לא יבדיל למה לי ש"מ אין צריך להבדיל:

But here, consider: it is written, And [the priest] shall bring [offer] it [unto the altar],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 15. This refers to the burnt-offering.');">⁴</span> [whereby] the Writ drew a distinction between a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering.

מיצה דם הגוף: ת"ר עולה אע"פ שמיצה דם הגוף ולא מיצה דם הראש יכול מיצה דם הראש ולא מיצה דם הגוף ת"ל הוא

What then is the purpose of 'he shall not divide it asunder'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. V, 8, referring to the sin-offering.');">⁵</span> Infer from this that he need not sever it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Hul. ');">⁶</span>

מאי תלמודא אמר רבינא מסתברא דרוב דמים בגוף שכיחי:

IF HE DRAINED THE BLOOD OF THE BODY. Our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 17.');">⁷</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך קדשי קדשים</strong></big><br><br>

[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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '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.');">⁸</span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is emphatic, intimating that it must be done with the proper rites.');">⁹</span>

מתני' <big><strong>חטאת</strong></big> העוף שעשאה למטה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת כשירה

How does this imply it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps it is the reverse?');">¹⁰</span> - Said Rabina: It is logical, for most of the blood is found in the body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence that it at least must be drained out.');">¹¹</span>

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כמעשה עולה לשם עולה פסולה עשאה למעלה כמעשה כולן פסולה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'made' - I.e., its blood is sprinkled.');">¹²</span> BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., nipping one organ only, and sprinkling and draining the blood.');">¹³</span>

עולת העוף שעשאה למעלה כמעשה עולה לשם עולה כשירה כמעשה עולה לשם חטאת כשירה ובלבד שלא עלתה לבעליה

[AND] FOR THE SAKE OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT. [IF IT IS OFFERED] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING, [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.

כמעשה חטאת לשם עולה כמעשה חטאת לשם חטאת פסולה עשאה למטה כמעשה כולן פסולה:

IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE [THE RED LINE]. [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated above, i.e., even with the rites and in the name of a sin-offering.');">¹⁴</span> IT IS UNFIT. IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED ABOVE, WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS FIT; WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a.');">¹⁵</span> BUT DOES NOT FREE ITS OWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a.');">¹⁵</span> [IF HE OFFERS IT] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 3.');">¹⁶</span> IT IS UNFIT.