Zevachim 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: And do not the most sacred offerings that were slaughtered in the south

contrary to their halakha, since their slaughter is in the north,

and were slaughtered for the sake of lesser sanctity offerings

whose slaughter may be performed anywhere in the Temple courtyard,

prove

here

he changed their designation

of the most sacred offerings

to something in which there is no misuse

[since there is no misuse involving the flesh of lesser sanctity offerings that are eaten, except for their sacrificial portions]

and

even so,

one is liable for misuse involving them

because they were disqualified on account of their slaughter in the south. And if so,

you too should not be surprised concerning the burnt offering, since even though he changed

its

designation

to something

in which there is no misuse

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

one should be liable for misuse involving it.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,

you cannot prove it from here! For

if you say that with regard to most sacred offerings that were slaughtered in the south and were slaughtered for the sake of lesser sanctity offerings,

that one is liable for misuse involving them, this is because

in that case he changed their designation

of the most sacred offerings

to something that contains

both

prohibition

and

permission,

since there is a prohibition of misuse involving the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity offerings.

Can

you say the same with regard to a burnt offering

that he made for the sake of a sin offering, changing its designation to something that is entirely permitted,

since a bird sin offering is eaten in its entirety by the priests, and no sacrificial portions are offered from it?

Gemara:

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: An asham that was slaughtered in the north for the sake of a peace offering proves

my position,

as he changed its designation

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

and one is liable for misuse involving it

before the sprinkling of its blood [after the sprinkling there is no misuse involving it, since an asham is one of the offerings that are eaten],

and you too should not be surprised concerning the burnt offering, since even though he changed its designation

by making it for the sake of a sin offering,

one should be liable for misuse involving it.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,

do not bring proof from here. For

if you say that with regard to an asham whose designation he changed

to that of a peace offering, but

he did not change its place,

as he slaughtered it in the north of the Temple courtyard, in accordance with its halakha,

can

you say the same with regard to a burnt offering, whose designation he changed

and also changed its place,

as he made it below, in the place of the sin offering, instead of making it above, in the place of the burnt offering?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: An asham that was slaughtered in the south

[not in its proper place, in the north]

for the sake of a peace offering proves that he changed its designation

from an asham to a peace offering

and changed its place

from the north to the south,

and one is liable for misuse involving it. You too should not be surprised concerning the burnt offering

that he made for the sake of a sin offering,

since even though he changed its designation

from a burnt offering to a sin offering

and changed its place

from above to below,

one should be liable for misuse involving it.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,

you cannot prove it sufficiently even from here, for

if you say that with regard to an asham whose designation he changed

to a peace offering

and changed its place

to the south, but

he did not change its actions,

as he performed it in the manner of an asham, therefore one is liable for misuse involving it.

Can

you say the same with regard to a burnt offering

that he made for the sake of a sin offering, changing its designation, changing its place, and changing its actions?

Rabbi Eliezer fell silent

and did not answer Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rava said: Why did Rabbi Eliezer fall silent

?

Let him say to him: An asham that was slaughtered in the south for the sake of a peace offering with a change of ownership

[that he intended to perform it for the sake of another person, and such a thought is considered a change in the act]

proves

my position,

for

indeed

he changed its designation,

from an asham to a peace offering,

and changed its place

from the north to the south,

and changed its actions

[as we have said, a change of ownership is considered a change in the act],

and one is liable for misuse involving it.

And Rava derives a precise inference from here:

Since he did not say to him

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Yehoshua

this,

conclude from it that Rabbi Eliezer accepted Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning. And this is

meaning that Rabbi Eliezer accepted Rabbi Yehoshua’s position and rationale, as

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

in explaining Rabbi Yehoshua’s rationale:

Rabbi Yehoshua would say: A bird burnt offering that was performed below, in the manner of a sin offering, for the sake of a sin offering—

once he pinched one סימן of it

for the sake of a sin offering below, the “act of the sin offering,” which is the cutting of one סימן below, preceded the act of the burnt offering, which is the cutting of two סימנים. Through this, he removed the designation of bird burnt offering from it and applied to it the designation of bird sin offering. Therefore,

the burnt offering is drawn

away from its former designation

and becomes

its actions like the actions of a

bird sin offering.

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

And we refute this:

If so,

if it is possible through the act of another offering and for the sake of another offering to uproot the original designation of an offering and apply the other designation to it,

then likewise, in the case of a bird sin offering that he performed above in the manner of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering,

let us say likewise, that

once he pinched one סימן of it

above, the designation of bird sin offering should be uprooted from it, since it was performed above and for the sake of a bird burnt offering [and the cutting of one סימן is part of the act of a burnt offering], and let us say that

with the other סימן it continues

to cease 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 for the sake of a burnt offering and in the manner of a burnt offering, so that the sin offering continues and becomes a burnt offering,

did Rabbi Yoḥanan not say in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: This is the formulation of the Mishna? Is it not that this is the formulation

of our Mishna,

and no more!

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

And we reject this:

No.

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

This

is

the formulation of the entire Mishna.

That is, Rabbi Yehoshua also disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a sin offering that he performed above in the manner of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering, and he deems it fit.

Rav Ashi said:

In fact, Rabbi Yehoshua does not disagree with regard to a bird sin offering that he made as a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; rather, he deems it disqualified. For

granted, with regard to a bird burnt offering that he performed below in the manner of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering,

the designation of burnt offering is properly uprooted from it and the designation of sin offering takes effect,

since this one,

the sin offering,

is rendered fit

through pinching

with

the cutting of

one סימן, whereas this one,

the bird sin offering,

is rendered fit

through pinching

with

the cutting of

therefore, when he cut one סימן below, he performed the act of a sin offering, since the act of

a bird burnt offering below does not exist.

Conversely, it is not disqualified on account of the law of pinching a bird burnt offering below, because the cutting of one סימן in a bird burnt offering is not considered the “act of a burnt offering”; therefore, the cutting of the one סימן of the burnt offering below does not disqualify it.

And now we can say:

Once he pinched one סימן of it

below, and thereby the performance of the act of the sin offering preceded the disqualifying act of performing a burnt offering below, it

is drawn

away from being a burnt offering

and becomes a bird sin offering.

The Griz discusses when it is drawn away and becomes a sin offering, and links this to the question of when the change occurs in the pinching. For if he pinches both signs below, it will not be drawn away and become a sin offering, since he did not perform it in the manner of a sin offering. Conversely, if he pinches only one sign below, why should this be considered a change in the action of a bird burnt offering into that of a bird sin offering? After all, he can continue and pinch the second sign above, in the manner of a bird burnt offering, and then the entire pinching will not have been performed in the manner of a bird sin offering! The Griz answered that, according to the one who says that with a bird burnt offering one must also cut most of the flesh after cutting the two signs, if he cut only one sign below and immediately afterward cut most of the flesh, this constitutes a change in the pinching of a bird burnt offering, and through this the change takes effect.

But [

however],

with regard to a bird sin offering that he performed above in the manner of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering, since the Master said: If he pinched it

for a bird sin offering

anywhere on the altar, it is fit.

Thus,

once he pinched one סימן of it,

even though the pinching was above, it is the pinching of a sin offering, and it does not uproot the designation of sin offering from it. If so, with the cutting of the first סימן it immediately becomes

a disqualified bird sin offering

because he performed the act of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, and “not for its sake” disqualifies a sin offering. If so,

when he then pinches the other סימן, how can it continue and become a bird burnt offering

after it has already been disqualified under the law of a bird sin offering performed not for its sake?!

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

The essential matter: Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Yehoshua would say—

a bird burnt offering that he performed below in the manner of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, once he pinched one סימן of it, is drawn

away from being a burnt offering

and becomes a bird sin offering.

In the work Mikdash David, the author discusses at length how the designation of a sin offering can take effect upon a burnt offering when the owners are not obligated to bring a sin offering. See also in Kehillot Yaakov to tractate Nedarim [section 7], which cites the statements of Sha'ar HaMelekh and Rema of Fano [according to Rashi in Nedarim 7a]. They explain that the rule stating that a sin offering cannot be brought as a voluntary offering means only that such an offering is disqualified for sacrifice; a person can nevertheless impose the designation of a sin offering upon an animal even when he is not obligated to bring one. However, Kehillot Yaakov explains that the basis of the rule that a sin offering cannot be brought as a voluntary offering is that a sin offering cannot be sacrificed voluntarily. Therefore, it is also impossible to consecrate an animal as a sin offering when one is not obligated to bring one. According to his explanation, it is possible to explain here that since this bird is already consecrated with the sanctity of an offering, as it was initially consecrated as a burnt offering, the change to a sin offering can properly take effect upon it even though he is not obligated to bring a sin offering. See the book Eizehu Mekoman.