Zevachim 67a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But consider the most sacred offerings that one slaughtered in the southern area of the Temple courtyard,

not in accordance with their law, since they must be slaughtered in the northern area,

and he slaughtered them with the intention that they be offerings of lesser sanctity,

which may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard,

they prove my point, for here

in this case

he changed their designation

from most sacred offerings

to something that is not subject to misuse of consecrated property

since there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity that is eaten, except for their portions offered on the altar,

and

even so

one is liable for misuse of consecrated property with them

because they became disqualified due to having been slaughtered in the south. And if so,

you too should not be surprised with regard to a burnt offering, for although he changed

its

designation

to something

that is not subject to misuse of consecrated property

namely, to a bird sin offering, which is eaten,

one should nevertheless be liable for misuse of consecrated property with it.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,

you cannot prove it from here! For

if you say that with regard to the most sacred offerings that one slaughtered in the south and with the intention that they be offerings of lesser sanctity,

the reason one is liable for misuse of consecrated property with them is

that he changed their designation

of the most sacred offerings

to something that has

both

a prohibition

and

a permitted aspect,

since there is a prohibition against misusing consecrated property with the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that are offered on the altar,

can you say this with regard to a burnt offering

that he performed with the intention that it be a sin offering

, thereby changing its designation to something that is entirely permitted,

since a bird sin offering is entirely eaten by the priests, and no portions of it are offered on the altar.

Gemara: the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna.

It was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the north with the intention that it be a peace offering proves my point,

as I said,

for he changed its designation

from the designation of a guilt offering, which is a most sacred offering, to the designation of a peace offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity,

and one is liable for misuse of consecrated property with it

before the sprinkling of its blood [after the sprinkling there is no misuse of consecrated property with it, since a guilt offering is one of the offerings whose meat is eaten],

and you too should not be surprised with regard to a burnt offering, for although he changed its designation

by performing it with the intention that it be a sin offering,

one should be liable for misuse of consecrated property with it.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,

you cannot bring proof from here. For

if you say that with regard to a guilt offering he changed its designation

to that of a peace offering, but

he did not change its location,

as he slaughtered it in the northern area of the courtyard in accordance with its law.

Can you say this with regard to a burnt offering, whose designation he changed

and also

changed its location,

as he performed it below, in the place designated for a sin offering, instead of performing it above, in the place designated for a burnt offering?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south

not in its proper place, the north,

with the intention that it be a peace offering proves my point, for he changed its designation

from a guilt offering to a peace offering,

and changed its location

from the north to the south,

and one is liable for misuse of consecrated property with it. You too should not be surprised with regard to a burnt offering

that he performed with the intention that it be a sin offering,

for although he changed its designation

from a burnt offering to a sin offering,

and changed its location

from above to below,

one should be liable for misuse of consecrated property with it.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,

you cannot prove it from here either, for

if you say that with regard to a guilt offering he changed its designation

to a peace offering

and changed its location

to the south, but

he did not change his actions,

as he performed it in the manner of a guilt offering; therefore, one is liable for misuse of consecrated property with it.

Can you say this with regard to a burnt offering

that he performed with the intention that it be a sin offering,

for he changed its designation, changed its location, and changed its actions.

Rabbi Eliezer fell silent

and did not answer Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rava said: Why did

Rabbi Eliezer

not say to him: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south with the intention that it be a peace offering, with a change of ownership

meaning that he intended to perform it for another person, and such an intention is considered a change in the action,

proves my point,

as I said,

for

indeed

he changed its designation,

from a guilt offering to a peace offering,

and changed its location

from the north to the south,

and changed its actions

as we said, that a change of ownership is considered a change in the action,

and one is liable for misuse of consecrated property with it.

And Rava derives the following from here:

since Rabbi Eliezer did not say to him

Rabbi Yehoshua

this,

conclude from this that Rabbi Eliezer accepted the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua. And this is

meaning that Rabbi Eliezer accepted Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion and reasoning, as

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

in explaining Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning:

Rabbi Yehoshua would say: A bird burnt offering that was performed below, in the manner of a sin offering and with the intention that it be a sin offering—

once he pinched one sign

with the intention that it be a sin offering below, the “action of a sin offering”—cutting one sign below—preceded the action of a burnt offering, which is cutting two signs. In this way he removed the designation of a bird burnt offering from it and imposed upon it the designation of a bird sin offering. Therefore,

the burnt offering is drawn

the offering

and becomes

its actions those of a

bird sin offering.

That is, the performance of the burnt offering is regarded as the performance of a sin offering. The practical consequence is that the pinching does not disqualify it, it ceases to be subject to misuse of consecrated property, and its law is like that of consecrated offerings that died; however, it does not effect atonement, as will be explained below.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

if it is possible, through performing the action of another offering and with the intention that it be another offering, to remove the offering’s original designation and impose the other designation upon it,

then with regard to a bird sin offering as well, which one performed above in the manner of a burnt offering and with the intention that it be a burnt offering,

let us likewise say that

once he pinches one sign

above, the designation of a bird sin offering should be removed from it, since it was performed above and with the intention that it be a bird burnt offering [and cutting one sign is part of the action of a burnt offering], and let us say that

with regard to the other sign it is drawn away

from being a sin offering,

and becomes a bird burnt offering?!

And if you would say that this is indeed so,

that Rabbi Yehoshua would hold this way also with regard to a bird sin offering performed above with the intention that it be a burnt offering and in the manner of a burnt offering, so that the sin offering is drawn away and becomes a burnt offering,

but Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: This is the structure of the Mishna. What, is it not that this is the structure

of our Mishna,

and no more!

That is, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed only in the case described in our Mishna, but not with regard to a bird sin offering performed above in the manner of a burnt offering; there Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that it is disqualified!?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

This is what Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Bana’a:

This

is

the structure of the entire Mishna.

That is, Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer also with regard to a sin offering that one performed above in the manner of a burnt offering and with the intention that it be a burnt offering, and he deems it valid.

Rav Ashi said:

In fact, Rabbi Yehoshua does not disagree with regard to a bird sin offering that one performed as a burnt offering with the intention that it be a burnt offering; rather, he disqualifies it. For

granted, with regard to a bird burnt offering that one performed below in the manner of a sin offering and with the intention that it be a sin offering,

it is understandable that the designation of a burnt offering is removed from it and the designation of a sin offering takes effect upon it,

since this one,

a sin offering,

is rendered valid

through pinching

with

the cutting of

one sign, while this one,

the bird sin offering,

is rendered valid

through pinching

with

the cutting of

two signs,

thus, when he cut one sign below, he performed the action of a sin offering with it, since the action of

a bird burnt offering below does not exist.

On the other hand, it is not disqualified under the law of pinching a bird burnt offering below, because cutting one sign in a bird burnt offering is not considered the “action of a burnt offering.” Therefore, cutting the one sign of the burnt offering below does not disqualify it.

And now we can say:

once he pinched one sign

below, and by doing so the action of a sin offering preceded the disqualifying action of performing a burnt offering below, it is

drawn away

and leaves the status of a burnt offering

and becomes a bird sin offering.

However,

but

with regard to a bird sin offering that one performed above in the manner of a burnt offering and with the intention that it be a burnt offering, since the Master said: If one pinches it

for a bird sin offering

anywhere on the altar, it is valid.

Thus

once he pinches one sign,

although the pinching was above, it is nevertheless the pinching of a sin offering and does not remove the designation of a sin offering from it. Therefore, as soon as he cuts the first sign, it is

a bird sin offering that has become disqualified

because he performed the action of a sin offering with the intention that it be a burnt offering, and performing a sin offering not for its own sake disqualifies it. If so,

when he then pinches the other sign, how can it be drawn away and become a bird burnt offering

after it has already become disqualified as a bird sin offering performed not for its own sake!?

And now we return to explain the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava.

With regard to the matter itself: Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Yehoshua would say:

A bird burnt offering that one performed below in the manner of a sin offering and with the intention that it be a sin offering: once he pinches one sign, it is drawn away

the burnt offering

and becomes a bird sin offering.