Zevachim 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: If one deviated in performing the bird sin offering and performed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, it is invalid.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

In what did he deviate?

In which rite was the invalidating deviation made?

If you say that he deviated in melika,

pinching both signs and separating the head from the body as with a bird burnt offering, whereas for a bird sin offering he must pinch only one sign, if so,

let us say

that our

Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

For if it is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, he said: I heard that the head is separated in a bird sin offering.

That is, if one separated it, he did not invalidate the offering!?

The Gemara expresses astonishment at this discussion: Surely the tanna of the Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon! Is it not the case that

we already established

it in the preceding chapter, with regard to the anonymous

Mishna, as not being in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

for we learned anonymously: If he separated the head in a sin offering, he invalidated it!?

The Gemara answers:

No!

Although above we learned anonymously that the ruling is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, there is no necessity to say that this is the case in our Mishna here, since you can establish it as referring to a case

where he deviated in the sprinkling,

in that he did not sprinkle the blood of the sin offering but pressed out its blood onto the wall of the altar according to the procedure of a burnt offering, and for that reason invalidated it. But if he deviated only by separating the head, he would not invalidate it; rather, it would be valid post facto, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

Here too, it is reasonably so,

to establish the deviation in which he performed the sin offering according to the procedure of a burnt offering as a deviation in the sprinkling—

As it teaches in the latter clause: If he performed

the bird sin offering

above

the sikra line

“according to the procedure of all of them,”

it is

invalid.

And “according to the procedure of all of them” means

even if he performed it

according to

the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering.

Nevertheless, he invalidated it because he performed it above. We must now ask:

In what did he deviate?

That is, in which of the rites that he performed above did he thereby invalidate the sin offering [despite having performed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering]?

If you say that he deviated in melika,

pinching the bird sin offering above the sikra line, why would that invalidate it?

For the Master said

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

“Melika—

anywhere on the altar—is valid”!?

Rather, is it not

that the entire invalidation is because

he deviated in the sprinkling,

sprinkling the blood of the bird sin offering above, and because the sprinkling was performed above, the sin offering was invalidated?

And since the latter clause

deals with a deviation

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

[sprinkling it above],

the first clause too

deals with one who deviated

in the sprinkling.

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

The Gemara rejects this:

“Is that necessarily so? This one may be as it is, and that one may be as it is!”

It is possible that in the first clause the deviation is in melika, not in the sprinkling, while in the latter clause the deviation is in sprinkling above. The interpretation established for the latter clause does not require that the first clause be interpreted in the same way.

We learned in the Mishna:

A bird burnt offering

that one performed according to the procedure of a sin offering is invalid.

The Gemara asks:

In what did he deviate?

Which rite did he perform for the burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering, thereby invalidating it?

If you say that he deviated in melika,

pinching one sign without separating the head, as in the procedure of a sin offering, then consider

what it teaches in the latter clause

[in the following Mishna]:

“And all of them,”

all bird sin offerings and bird burnt offerings in which one deviated in their performance and thereby invalidated them, although they are prohibited to eat,

do not impart ritual impurity in the throat,

since they are not considered the carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity when eaten in the throat; rather, their [invalid] melika removed them immediately from the status of carcass, as though they had been slaughtered properly,

and

likewise,

one commits misuse with them

even after melika, because the invalid melika of the sin offering did not permit the sin offering to be eaten by the priests, and any offering that never had a period when it was permitted to be eaten retains the prohibition of misuse that took effect upon it while it was still alive when it was consecrated [for the prohibition of misuse is removed only once the offering becomes permitted to be eaten]. This law—that one commits misuse after invalid melika—is stated with regard to all of them, including a bird burnt offering performed below like 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 in accordance with 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 procedure to those of a sin offering, it becomes a sin offering, is valid, and is permitted to be eaten by the priests, and consequently

one no longer commits 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 a case in which he deviated

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

in the pressing out of the blood.

That is, he first pinched the bird burnt offering according to its law, above, and separated the head from the body. Only when he came to press out the blood did he begin to deviate and perform it according to the procedure of a sin offering: he went down below, and instead of pressing the blood onto the wall, he sprinkled some of the blood on it according to the procedure of a sin offering, and afterward pressed out the blood and performed it for the sake of a sin offering. In this manner it is invalid even according to Rabbi Yehoshua and is not permitted to be eaten by the priests. Therefore, one continues to commit misuse with it even according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

The reason for the distinction Rabbi Yehoshua makes between melika performed according to the procedure of a sin offering and sprinkling and pressing out performed according to the procedure of a sin offering is that if one pinched one sign of a bird burnt offering below and for the sake of a sin offering, this melika removed from it the designation of burnt offering that it bore and imposed upon it the designation of sin offering. From then on it is considered a bird sin offering, because the entire rite of pinching one sign below is exclusively a “sin-offering procedure”: melika of a bird burnt offering below is not considered melika, since the place for pinching a bird burnt offering is only above, and pinching one sign is melika only in the case of a sin offering, not a burnt offering, which requires pinching both signs. Therefore, immediately upon cutting the first sign through melika 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 consequently valid for eating, and there is no longer any misuse.

But if he began to perform it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, pinching it above and separating the head from the body, a subsequent deviation according to the procedure of a sin offering—sprinkling its blood below before pressing it out—cannot remove the designation of burnt offering from it and impose the designation of sin offering upon it, because its performance began according to the procedure of a burnt offering.

Nevertheless, there is still a difficulty:

Consider the latter clause

[in the following Mishna]:

“A bird burnt offering that one performed below according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering—Rabbi Eliezer says: One commits misuse with it,”

because it has not become permitted for eating by the priests.

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

The Gemara asks:

In what did he deviate?

That is, in which rite did he perform it according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering?

If you say, in the pressing out of the blood,

in that he sprinkled its blood according to the procedure of a sin offering before pressing it out,

say

that

Rabbi Yehoshua said

that it is possible to remove the designation of burnt offering and impose the designation of sin offering only

when he deviated in melika,

when the performance began according to the procedure of a sin offering, not when he began by performing the procedure of a burnt offering and only afterward changed to the procedure of a sin offering.

Rather, what can you say? That the latter clause speaks of a case in which he began to deviate and perform it according to the procedure of a sin offering immediately,

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 melika.

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

first and latter clauses

of the Mishna

with regard to melika, and the middle clause

you establish

with regard to the pressing out of the blood!?

For we established the first clause of the Mishna, concerning a sin offering performed according to the procedure of a burnt offering, as referring to one who pinched and separated the head, contrary to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who validates a sin offering whose head was separated [that is, in accordance with the anonymous Mishna of the preceding chapter, which excluded Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon]. The middle clause you establish as referring to a bird burnt offering performed according to the procedure of a sin offering in the pressing out of the blood, 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 performed according to the procedure of a sin offering, in which the designation of burnt offering is removed and the designation of sin offering takes effect, you establish as referring to melika. Is it possible to establish the different parts of the Mishna according to different interpretations?

The Gemara answers:

Yes.

It is indeed preferable to establish the

first and latter clauses with regard to melika, and the middle clause with regard to the pressing out of the blood, in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua and not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer is shumati [excommunicated], and the halakha does not follow him.

Mishna:

A.

a.

And all of them,

the bird sin offerings and bird burnt offerings, although they became invalid because one deviated in their performance, nevertheless their melika was effective in removing them from the status of carcass. Therefore,

they do not

impart impurity to

one who eats

them when swallowing them

in the throat [

for 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 melika removed them from that status, although it did not permit them to be eaten].

Likewise,

one commits misuse with them,

with all the offerings invalidated above, because they did not become permitted for eating. This is the law with regard to all consecrated property: one commits misuse with it so long as it has not become permitted for eating.

Except for the bird sin offering that one performed

according to its law—

below, according to the procedure of a sin offering, for the sake of a sin offering.

That is, only when the offering is valid and becomes permitted for eating does the prohibition of misuse leave it.

b.

A bird burnt offering that one performed

not according to its law,

below, according to the procedure of a sin offering,

pinching one sign without separating the head, sprinkling and pressing out its blood, and performing its rites with the intention

for the sake of a sin offering—

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It remains a bird burnt offering, and is invalid, since it has not become permitted for eating by the priests; therefore

one commits misuse with it. Rabbi Yehoshua says:

It becomes a bird sin offering, since from the outset it was performed according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering; the designation of burnt offering is removed from it and the designation of sin offering takes effect upon it.

Therefore, it is valid and becomes permitted for the priests to eat, as is the law of a bird sin offering; therefore

one does not commit misuse with it.

Rabbi Eliezer said:

We can derive the matter through a kal va-chomer:

If, with regard to a sin offering,

which has a leniency,

that one does not commit misuse with it

when one performs it

for its own sake

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

when one changed its designation

and performed it for the sake of a burnt offering, he invalidated it [and it is not permitted to be eaten, and therefore]

one commits misuse with it, even according to Rabbi Yehoshua. If so,

even according to Rabbi Yehoshua]. If so,

a burnt offering,

which is more stringent than it,

with which one commits misuse

even when one performs it

for its own sake, when one changes its designation

from a burnt offering to a sin offering,

is it not all the more so that one should commit misuse with it!?

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer:

No,

you cannot derive such a kal va-chomer.

If you say, with regard to a sin offering whose designation one changed to that of a burnt offering,

that one commits misuse with it, this is because he

changed its designation,

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

something with which there is misuse;

therefore one commits misuse with it.

Can you say the same with regard to a burnt offering whose designation one changed to that of a sin offering, since he changed its designation to that of something with which there is no misuse?

Therefore, one does not commit misuse with it.