Where the Bird Sin-Offering Is Drained at the Altar

The bird sin-offering was performed at the southwest corner of the altar. From where do we know these things? Rabbi Eliezer said: Because the verse states, "He shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he place frankincense on it, for it is a sin-offering" (Leviticus 5:11). A meal-offering is called a sin-offering and a sin-offering is called a meal-offering [by this verse linking them]: just as a sin-offering requires the north, so too a meal-offering requires the north; just as a meal-offering is at the southwest corner, so too the sin-offering is at the southwest corner. As for the meal-offering itself, from where do we derive it? As it is written, "before the LORD" (Leviticus 6:7). One might think in the west; therefore Scripture states, "toward the front of the altar" (ibid.). If "toward the front of the altar," one might think in the south; therefore Scripture states, "before the LORD." How so? He brings it near at the southwest corner, and that is sufficient. Does Rabbi Ishmael hold that the draining of the blood of the bird sin-offering is indispensable? But it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael says, "And the remainder of the blood shall be drained out" (Leviticus 5:9) means that if it remained, it is drained, and if it did not remain, it is not drained. These are two Tannaim reporting according to Rabbi Ishmael. Regarding the bird sin-offering, one is liable for misappropriation of it from the moment it is consecrated; once its neck is pinched, it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact by one immersed that day, through one lacking atonement, and through being left overnight. Once its blood is sprinkled, one becomes liable for it on account of piggul [improper intent], leftover, and ritual impurity, and there is no misappropriation in it. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: the draining of the blood of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable, and Rav taught "he sprinkled its blood." Rabbi Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rav: the draining of the blood of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable, and Rav taught "he drained its blood." Come and hear: "And the remainder of the blood shall be drained out." This works well for Rav Adda bar Ahava, for this is what is written, "And the remainder of the blood"—even though it remained, it is a sin-offering [and still valid]. But according to Rav Huna, what is "and the remainder"? It is as Rabbi Ishmael taught, that if it remained, and what is "it is a sin-offering"? It refers back to the opening clause. Rav Aha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: if so, regarding the meal-offering where it is written, "and that which is left over" (Leviticus 2:10), does this likewise mean that if it was left over? And should you say it does mean so—but it was taught, "of its fine flour and of its oil, with all its frankincense" (Leviticus 2:2), excluding a case where its flour, its oil, or its frankincense is lacking. They said: there it is written "and that which is left over" as a superfluous verse, whereas here it is written "and the remainder."