Zevachim 66b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: A bird sin-offering in which he changed during its performance and performed it as the procedure of a burnt-offering — it is unfit.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

In what did he change?

In which performance was the disqualifying change?

If you say that he changed in the pinching,

that he pinched both simanim and separated the head from the body, as with a bird burnt-offering, whereas for a bird sin-offering he must pinch only one siman, if so,

let us say

that our Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.

For if it is according to Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, he said: I heard that they separate [the head] in a bird sin-offering.

That is, if he separated [the head], he did not disqualify it!?

The Gemara is astonished at the discussion of this matter: Surely the tanna of the Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon! Is it not the case that

we already established

it above, in the preceding chapter, with regard to the anonymous Mishna,

as not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon,

for we learned anonymously: If he separated [the head] in a sin-offering, he disqualified it!?

And we answer:

No!

Even if above we learned anonymously that it is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, in our Mishna here there is no necessity for this, for you can establish it as referring to a case in which

he changed in the sprinkling,

in that he did not sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering, but drained its blood onto the wall of the altar as the procedure of the burnt-offering, and for this reason he disqualified it. But if he changed only by separating [the head], he would not disqualify it; rather, it would be fit post facto, and in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.

Here too, it is reasonably so

to establish the change that he made in the sin-offering as the procedure of a burnt-offering as a change in the sprinkling —

As it teaches in the latter clause: He performed it

for the bird sin-offering

above

the sikra line

“as the procedure of all of them,”

it is

unfit.

And “as the procedure of all of them” means

even

that he performed it

as the procedure of a sin-offering, for the sake of a sin-offering.

Nevertheless, he disqualified it because he performed it above. And now we must discuss:

In what did he change?

That is, in which of the procedures that he performed above did he thereby disqualify the sin-offering [despite performing it as the procedure of a sin-offering and for the sake of a sin-offering]?

If you say that he changed in the pinching,

that he pinched the bird sin-offering above the sikra line, why did this disqualify it?

For the master said

with regard to a bird sin-offering [in the previous chapter]:

Pinching —

anywhere on the altar is fit?!

Rather, is it not

that its entire disqualification is because

he changed in the sprinkling,

in that he sprinkled the blood of the bird sin-offering above, and because the sprinkling was above, the sin-offering became unfit?

And since the latter clause

deals with a change

in the sprinkling [in that he sprinkled it above],

[sprinkling it above],

the first clause likewise

deals with one who changed

in the sprinkling.

That is, he did not sprinkle the blood of the bird sin-offering, but drained it there.

And we reject this:

Is it necessarily so?! This one is as it is, and that one is as it is!

It is possible that in the first clause the change is in the pinching and not in the sprinkling, while in the latter clause the change is in the sprinkling above. For the establishment of the latter clause does not compel us to establish the first clause likewise.

We learned in the Mishna:

The bird burnt-offering

that he performed as the procedure of a sin-offering is unfit.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

In what did he change?

Which procedure did he perform in the burnt-offering as the procedure of a sin-offering, thereby disqualifying it?

If you say that he changed in the pinching,

in that he pinched one siman and did not separate [the head], as the procedure of the sin-offering, then what is the meaning of that

which it teaches in the latter clause

[in the following Mishna]:

And all of them,

all the bird sin-offerings and bird burnt-offerings in which he changed during their performance and which became unfit, despite the fact that they are forbidden to eat,

do not render impure in the house of swallowing,

for they are not considered the carcass of a pure bird, which renders one who eats it impure in the house of swallowing; rather, their [disqualified] pinching was effective to purify them from the status of carcass, as though they had been slaughtered properly,

and

likewise

one commits misuse with them

even after the pinching, because the disqualified pinching in the sin-offering did not permit the sin-offering to be eaten by the priests, and every offering that never had a time when eating was permitted does not lose the prohibition of misuse that took effect upon it when it was sanctified while alive [for only when the offering becomes permitted for eating does the prohibition of misuse leave it]. And this law, that one commits misuse after disqualified pinching, was stated for all of them, including a bird burnt-offering that he performed below as a bird sin-offering and for the sake of a bird sin-offering —

Let us say

that this latter clause is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. For if it were according to Rabbi Yehoshua, he said

[in the following Mishna]: One who pinches a bird burnt-offering below, not according to its law but according to the law of a bird sin-offering, and also performs it for the sake of a bird sin-offering — since he changed its designation and its procedures to those of a sin-offering, it becomes a sin-offering, and it is fit and permitted for the priests to eat, and consequently one

does not commit misuse

with it. Yet we say that one still commits misuse with it!?

Rather,

if you wish to establish our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, you must establish it as referring to one who changed

in the draining.

That is, at first he pinched the bird burnt-offering according to its law, above, and separated the head from the body. Only when he came to drain the blood did he begin to change and perform it as the procedure of a sin-offering: he descended below, and instead of draining the blood onto the wall, he sprinkled some of the blood upon it, as the procedure of a sin-offering, and afterward drained it, and performed this for the sake of a sin-offering. In this way it is disqualified even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and it was not permitted for the priests to eat. Therefore, one continues to commit misuse with it even according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

And the reason for the distinction that Rabbi Yehoshua makes between pinching performed as the procedure of a sin-offering and sprinkling and draining performed as the procedure of a sin-offering is that if he pinched one siman in the bird burnt-offering below, and for the sake of a sin-offering, through this pinching he removed from it the designation of burnt-offering that it bore, and imposed upon it the designation of sin-offering, and from then on it is considered a bird sin-offering. For all his procedure with one siman below is a procedure of “the procedure of a sin-offering” alone, since pinching a bird burnt-offering below is not considered pinching, because the place of pinching a bird burnt-offering is only above, and one siman is pinching only in a sin-offering and not in a burnt-offering, which requires the pinching of two simanim. Therefore, immediately upon cutting the first siman by pinching below and for the sake of a sin-offering, the designation of burnt-offering is removed from the bird and the designation of sin-offering takes effect upon it; it is fit for eating, and there is no longer misuse.

But if he began to perform it as the procedure of a burnt-offering, pinching it above and separating the head from the body, then a change that he performs afterward as the procedure of a sin-offering, by sprinkling its blood below before the draining, is no longer effective to remove from it the designation of burnt-offering and impose upon it the designation of sin-offering, for the beginning of its performance was as the procedure of a burnt-offering.

But there still remains a difficulty:

Say the latter clause

[in the following Mishna]:

A bird burnt-offering that he performed below as the procedure of a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering — Rabbi Eliezer says: One commits misuse with it

because it has no permission for eating by the priests.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One does not commit misuse with it.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

In what did he change?

That is, in which procedure did he perform it as the procedure of a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering?

If you say, in the draining,

in that he sprinkled some of its blood as the procedure of a sin-offering before draining it,

say

that

what Rabbi Yehoshua said,

that it is possible to remove the designation of burnt-offering and impose the designation of sin-offering, applies only when

he changed in the pinching,

when the beginning of its performance was as the procedure of a sin-offering, and not where he began to perform the procedure of a burnt-offering and only afterward changed to the procedure of a sin-offering.

Rather,

what can you say: The latter clause speaks of a case in which he began to change and perform it as the procedure of a sin-offering immediately,

in the pinching?

If so, this is difficult, for according to this you establish the

first clause and the latter clause

of the Mishna

with pinching, and the middle clause

you establish

with draining!?

For we established the first clause of the Mishna as referring to a sin-offering in which he performed it as the procedure of a burnt-offering, pinching and separating [the head], and not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, who validates a sin-offering whose head he separated [that is, like the anonymous Mishna of the preceding chapter, which excluded it from the view of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon]. And you establish the middle clause as referring to a bird burnt-offering that he performed as the procedure of a sin-offering through draining, in order to establish our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. But the latter clause of the Mishna [in the following Mishna], concerning a bird burnt-offering that he performed as the procedure of a sin-offering, from which the designation of burnt-offering was removed and upon which the designation of sin-offering took effect, you establish with pinching. And this is difficult: Is it possible to establish the sections of the Mishna with differing explanations?

And we answer:

Yes,

it is indeed preferable to establish the

first clause and the latter clause with pinching, and the middle clause with draining,

and in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, and not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who disputes Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer is shumati [one who has been excommunicated], and the halakha is not in accordance with him.

Mishna:

a.

And all of them,

the bird sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering, despite their having become unfit because he changed in their performance, nevertheless their pinching was effective to purify them from the status of carcass. Therefore,

they do not

impart impurity to

render impure

one who eats them when he swallows them

in the house of swallowing [for they are not considered the carcass of a pure bird that renders impure one who eats it when it reaches the house of swallowing, because their pinching was effective to purify them, despite the fact that it did not permit them for eating].

[because they are not considered the carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity to one who eats it when it reaches the throat, since their pinching purified them even though it did not permit them to be eaten].

And likewise,

one commits misuse with them,

in all the offerings disqualified above, because they were not permitted for eating. For this is the law with all sacred offerings: one commits misuse with them as long as they have not been permitted for eating.

Except for a bird sin-offering that he performed

according to its halakhic procedure —

below, as the procedure of a sin-offering, for the sake of a sin-offering.

That is, only where the offering is fit and permitted for eating; only then does the prohibition of misuse leave it.

b.

A bird burnt-offering that he performed

not according to its halakhic procedure,

below, as the procedure of a sin-offering,

pinching one siman and not separating [the head], and sprinkling and draining its blood, and performing its procedures with the intention

for the sake of a sin-offering —

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It remains a bird burnt-offering, unfit, because it has no permission for eating by the priests, and therefore

one commits misuse with it. Rabbi Yehoshua says:

It becomes a bird sin-offering, since from its beginning it was performed as the procedure of a sin-offering and for the sake of a sin-offering; the designation of burnt-offering was removed from it, and the designation of sin-offering took effect upon it.

Therefore, it is fit, and it was permitted for the priests to eat according to the law of a bird sin-offering, and therefore

one does not commit misuse with it.

Rabbi Eliezer said:

We have an argument by kal va-chomer:

And if a sin-offering,

which has a leniency,

that one does not commit misuse with it

when he performs it

for its sake [for then it is permitted for the priests to eat], nevertheless

[since it is then permitted for the priests to eat], nevertheless

when he changed its designation

and performed it for the sake of a burnt-offering, he disqualified it [and there is no permission for eating it, and therefore]

one commits misuse with it

even according to Rabbi Yehoshua. If so, a

burnt-offering,

which is more stringent than it,

with which one commits misuse

even when he performs it

for its sake, when he changes its designation

from burnt-offering to sin-offering,

is it not certainly the case that one should commit misuse with it!?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer:

No,

No,

you should not reason with such a kal va-chomer. For

if you say, with regard to a sin-offering, that he changed its designation for the sake of a burnt-offering,

that one commits misuse with it, this is because he indeed

changed its designation

of the sin-offering, intending it for the sake of a burnt-offering, which is

a matter with which one commits misuse;

therefore, one commits misuse with it.

Can you say, with regard to a burnt-offering, that he changed its designation for the sake of a sin-offering, for he changed its designation to a matter with which one does not commit misuse?

Therefore, one does not commit misuse with it.