Zevachim 67b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Adda bar Ahava from the Mishna in Tractate Kinnim:

ta shma

that this was not Rabbi Yehoshua’s position, from what we learned in the Mishna in the third chapter [Mishna 3] of Tractate Kinnim [and an anonymous Mishna in Tractate Kinnim is Rabbi Yehoshua’s, as will be explained below]:

Two women gave birth and became obligated to bring the offering of a woman after childbirth, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering.

And of those two women, one had already offered her sin-offering, and only the obligation of a burnt-offering remained upon her. And the other had offered her burnt-offering, and remained obligated to bring a sin-offering. Therefore, they bought a “nest,” containing two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and at the time of the purchase they designated that one “bird” of the pair would be

a sin-offering for this one,

for the woman obligated to bring a sin-offering, and the second “bird” of the pair would be

a burnt-offering for this one,

for the woman obligated to bring a burnt-offering.

And the priest erred, and

performed

the priest who offered

both of them,

the sin-offering bird and the burnt-offering bird,

above

the scarlet line, and performed them as burnt-offerings; behold,

half

of that nest is

valid.

That is the bird designated as the bird burnt-offering.

And half

of the nest, that bird which is a sin-offering, is

invalid.

And if the priest erred and

performed

the priest

both of them below,

then

half

[the sin-offering bird] is

valid, and half

[the bird

of the burnt-offering] is

invalid.

He performed

one

of them

above, and one

he performed

below,

and he did not know which bird was the sin-offering and which bird was the burnt-offering; then

both of them,

the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, are

invalid

because of the uncertainty. For

I say

perhaps

a sin-offering is offered above

as a burnt-offering, and is thereby invalidated, and perhaps

a burnt-offering is offered below,

and is thereby invalidated.

And now the Gemara discusses the words of the Mishna and infers from it contrary to the words of Rav Adda bar Ahava: Why is the one performed below invalid because of uncertainty, perhaps it is a burnt-offering? But according to your words, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, a burnt-offering that was performed below as the act of a sin-offering, for the sake of a sin-offering, is a valid sin-offering. If so, in either case, one can fulfill the obligation with it, because

even if it is the burnt-offering

that

was offered below, it can be drawn away

from being a burnt-offering

and become

from now

a bird sin-offering,

and the second woman, who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, can fulfill her obligation with it? And we answer:

I would say that Rabbi Yehoshua said

that the burnt-offering is drawn away and becomes a sin-offering

with one person,

with the owner of the offering himself, who fulfills his obligation of a sin-offering with it; but

with two people, did he say

Rabbi Yehoshua that one may draw away another person’s burnt-offering and make it his sin-offering?!

And the Gemara brings another proof against Rav Adda bar Ahava, from another Mishna in Tractate Kinnim:

ta shma

from that which we learned in Tractate Kinnim [3:4]: Two women who were obligated to bring bird-offerings: one, two sin-offerings and one burnt-offering; and the other, one sin-offering and two burnt-offerings. And together they had six birds. And the two women jointly took three nests, containing three pairs of two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and those three nests were:

the first—

a sin-offering and a burnt-offering,

which the two women designated between themselves at the time of taking the nests, explicitly, which bird and from which nest would be for this woman as a sin-offering, and which bird from which nest would be for this woman as a burnt-offering.

The second—a nest

“undesignated,”

for they did not designate the birds at the time of their joint purchase for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, nor did they designate which bird would be offered for this woman and which would be offered for that one.

And the third—a nest

“designated,”

in which they specified which bird from the nest would be for a burnt-offering and which would be for a sin-offering, but they did not specify for whom each bird would be offered.

The priest performed

the

entire lot above

for the sake of a burnt-offering, because he thought that all of them were burnt-offerings; then

half

[the burnt-offerings] is

valid, and half

[the sin-offerings] is

invalid.

And if he performed

the entire lot below,

because he thought that all of them were sin-offerings, then

half

[the sin-offerings] is

valid, and half

[the burnt-offerings] is

invalid.

He performed

half of them above,

taking one bird from each nest without knowing whether it was the burnt-offering or the sin-offering,

and half of them below,

performing below the remaining one from each nest without knowing what it was;

only

the

undesignated nest is valid.

For with the other two nests, one must be concerned that he performed the burnt-offering below and the sin-offering above for the sake of a burnt-offering, thereby invalidating them. But the undesignated nest, in which they did not specify which was for a sin-offering and which for a burnt-offering: the priest’s performance determines them as a sin-offering or a burnt-offering. Therefore, both birds in that nest are valid.

And it,

the undesignated nest,

is divided between them.

One of the two women fulfills her sin-offering obligation with the bird performed by the priest below, and the other fulfills her burnt-offering obligation with the bird the priest performed above.

And now they shall take another nest, and designate it for them, and say: Whichever of us fulfilled her sin-offering obligation with the first nest shall now fulfill her burnt-offering obligation with the second nest; and whichever of us fulfilled her burnt-offering obligation with the first nest shall fulfill her sin-offering obligation with the second.

And the Gemara infers:

whereas

the other nests, each of which contains two birds

“designated,”

one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering,

not

even a single bird was made valid through them.

And why

was the bird performed below not made valid as a sin-offering?

But

even if a burnt-offering was offered below, it can be drawn away and become a bird sin-offering?!

And if you would say

to answer and say that

this

Mishna is

not according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

it is impossible to say so.

For

can you really say so!?

But an anonymous Mishna in Tractate Kinnim is Rabbi Yehoshua’s.

And the proof that this is so is that we find at the end of Tractate Kinnim the following Mishna, and at its conclusion: “Rabbi Yehoshua said: This is what they said.” It is demonstrated that an anonymous Mishna in Tractate Kinnim follows the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

For

we learned this

there:

A woman who said

in a vow,

“It is incumbent upon me

to bring

a nest

[two turtledoves or two young pigeons] for a burnt-offering

“if I give birth to a male,”

and

she gave birth to a male.

She

brings two nests:

one nest

one

containing two birds for burnt-offerings in order

to

fulfill

her vow,

and one nest

one

containing two birds, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering

for her obligation,

in order to fulfill the obligation of the offering of a woman after childbirth. Thus, in these two nests there are three bird burnt-offerings and one bird sin-offering.

She gives them to the priest. And the priest must perform them

the

three

burnt-offerings

above,

and the one sin-offering

below.

The priest did not perform

the

same, but

changed, because he thought that she had brought two nests for her obligation, one for her childbirth and the other to become purified from the impurity of a woman with a discharge,

and

therefore

performed two above

[one from each nest] for the sake of a burnt-offering,

and two below

[one from each nest] as the act of a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering,

and did not consult

the woman, to determine for what purpose she had brought them; therefore he brought two as sin-offerings below, and it follows that he invalidated the bird burnt-offering that he performed below. Therefore,

she must bring one additional bird

for a burnt-offering,

and he shall offer it

the priest

above.

In what case is she able to fulfill her obligation by bringing only one additional bird? When the two nests were

of one species.

For then we say that in the first nest that the priest offered, one above and one below, she fulfilled the obligation of the childbirth offering, since the priest who offered it offered it for the sake of an obligation, because he thought that both nests were for an obligation; and in the second nest she fulfilled her vow only with the one bird that was above, while the burnt-offering bird that was performed below and invalidated because it was performed below is still lacking for the fulfillment of her vow.

But if the two nests were

of two species,

one two turtledoves and the other young pigeons, and uncertainty now arises whether the turtledove nest was the second one, which was voluntary, and the young bird performed below was invalidated, or perhaps the young pigeon nest was the second one, and the young bird performed below in it was invalidated: one cannot fulfill the obligation by bringing one additional turtledove or one additional young pigeon, for neither completes the other, since it is not of its species. Rather,

she shall bring two,

one a turtledove and the other a young pigeon, and with one of them she shall fulfill her vow, while the other shall be offered as a voluntary offering.

And if at the time she vowed

she specified her vow,

whether she was vowing to bring turtledoves or young pigeons, and afterward forgot what she had vowed, and the event was as above, that she was obligated both in a woman-after-childbirth nest and to bring her vow, she must bring three nests: one for her obligation as a woman after childbirth [which she may bring according to her choice, turtledoves or young pigeons], and two additional nests, one nest of turtledoves and one nest of young pigeons, to fulfill her vow because of the uncertainty, since she has forgotten what she vowed.

And if she brought only two nests to the priest, one for her obligation and the other to fulfill her vow, and the priest performed one from each nest above as a burnt-offering and one from each nest below as a sin-offering, then the burnt-offering bird in the second nest that she brought to fulfill her vow was invalidated, because it was performed as a sin-offering below.

Therefore, if the two nests that she brought to the priest were of the same species, then she lacks only one burnt-offering bird that was invalidated below. Hence it is sufficient for her to bring one additional bird of the same species that she brought to the priest. But she must likewise complete the uncertainty of her vow, for she does not remember whether she vowed turtledoves or young pigeons. Therefore she shall bring an additional nest for a burnt-offering, of a different species from what she has already brought.

That is,

she must bring three additional birds,

one bird of the species that she brought, to complete the bird invalidated by being performed below, and two birds of a species different from what she brought, in order to fulfill the obligation arising from the uncertainty of the vow.

In what case is it sufficient for her to bring three additional birds for burnt-offerings? When the first two nests that she brought to the priest were

of one species.

But if the two nests were

of two species,

and there is now uncertainty from which species the nest that fulfilled her obligation was brought first, and from which species she brought the nest to fulfill her vow, therefore

she shall bring four

additional birds for burnt-offerings: two of them turtledoves and two young pigeons. And she shall say: One of these four that is of the same species as the invalidated bird shall complete it for the fulfillment of my vow. Its fellow of the same species, and likewise the two of the other species, shall be offered as voluntary offerings. And if my vow was of the other species, and I did not fulfill my obligation at all, then the two birds of the other species that remain among the four shall be offered for the fulfillment of my vow.

And if she designated her vow,

that she became obligated through a vow to bring a nest containing two birds for burnt-offerings together with the burnt-offering of her obligation, this is like one who became obligated to bring together a large offering of three birds of the same species; and as long as she does not bring three birds of the same species, she does not fulfill her vow.

And this woman specified her vow, turtledoves or young pigeons, but afterward forgot what she had specified.

And she brought two nests to the priest, and the priest performed two above as burnt-offerings and two below as sin-offerings, as above. It follows that the bird in the second nest was invalidated because it was a burnt-offering, and he performed it below as the act of a sin-offering.

Therefore, she did not fulfill her vow at all, since she did not bring a large offering of three burnt-offerings of the same species, because the third bird was invalidated.

And she cannot now bring two nests, one of turtledoves and the other of young pigeons, and stipulate that one of them shall fulfill her vow and the other shall be a voluntary offering, since she is obligated to bring together three burnt-offerings of the same species. Therefore—