Zevachim 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Adda bar Ahava from the Mishna in tractate Kinnim:

ta shma

that this is not Rabbi Yehoshua’s position, from what we learned in the Mishna in the third chapter [Mishna 3] of tractate Kinnim [and an unattributed 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 as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering.

Of these two women, one had already offered her sin-offering and remained obligated only to bring a burnt-offering. The other had offered her burnt-offering and remained obligated to bring a sin-offering. Therefore, they purchased a “nest,” containing two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and at the time of purchase 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 that the second “bird” of the pair would be

a burnt-offering for this one,

for the woman obligated to bring a burnt-offering.

The priest erred, and

performed

the priest who offered

both of them,

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

above

the crimson line, and performed them as burnt-offerings. Thus,

half

of that nest

is valid.

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

And half

of the nest, the bird that is the 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.

If 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

due to the uncertainty. For

I say

that perhaps

the sin-offering was offered above

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

the burnt-offering was offered below,

and was thereby invalidated.

The Gemara now analyzes the words of the Mishna and infers from it a ruling contrary to Rav Adda bar Ahava: Why is the one performed below rendered invalid due to uncertainty, in case it is a burnt-offering? According to your statement, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, a burnt-offering performed below as a sin-offering, with the intent that it be a sin-offering, becomes a valid sin-offering. If so, in either event she can fulfill her obligation with it, because

even if the burnt-offering

is the one that was

offered below, let it be withdrawn

from its status as a burnt-offering

and become

now

a bird sin-offering,

so that 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 withdrawn and becomes a sin-offering

in the case of one person,

when it belongs to the owner of the offering herself, who fulfills her obligation to bring a sin-offering with it. But

in the case of two people, did he say

that Rabbi Yehoshua permits one to withdraw another person’s burnt-offering and make it her sin-offering?!

The Gemara brings another proof against Rav Adda bar Ahava from an additional Mishna in tractate Kinnim:

ta shma

from that which we learned in the Mishna in tractate Kinnim [3:4]: Two women who were obligated to bring bird-offerings: One was obligated to bring two sin-offerings and one burnt-offering, and the other was obligated to bring one sin-offering and two burnt-offerings. Together they required six birds. The two women jointly purchased three nests, containing three pairs of two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and those three nests were as follows:

The first

a sin-offering and a burnt-offering,

which the two women explicitly designated among themselves at the time they purchased the nests: which bird and from which nest would be this woman’s sin-offering, and which bird from which nest would be this woman’s burnt-offering.

The second was a nest

“undesignated,”

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

And the third was a nest

“designated,”

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

The priest performed

the

entire group above

with the designation of burnt-offerings, because he thought that all of them were burnt-offerings. Thus,

half

of the burnt-offerings

is valid, and half

of the sin-offerings

is invalid.

And if he performed

all of them below,

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

half

of the sin-offerings

is valid, and half

of the burnt-offerings

is invalid.

If 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 bird from each nest without knowing which it was,

only

the

undesignated nest is valid.

For with regard to the other two nests, there is concern that he performed the burnt-offering below and the sin-offering above with the designation of a burnt-offering, thereby invalidating them. But in the undesignated nest, in which they had not specified which bird was to be a sin-offering and which a burnt-offering, the priest’s performance determines whether they are sin-offerings or burnt-offerings. 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 that the priest performed below, and the other fulfills her burnt-offering obligation with the bird that the priest performed above.

They must now take an additional nest, designate it for their respective offerings, 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.

The Gemara infers:

But

the other nests, each of which contained two birds

“designated,”

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

not

even a single bird was rendered valid through them.

And why

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

But

even if the burnt-offering was offered below, let it be withdrawn and become a bird sin-offering?!

And if you would say

to answer and say that

this

Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

this cannot be said.

For,

can you really say that!?

But an unattributed Mishna in tractate Kinnim is Rabbi Yehoshua’s.

The proof that this is so is that we find the following Mishna at the end of tractate Kinnim, and at its conclusion it states: “Rabbi Yehoshua said: This is what they said.” It is therefore evident that an unattributed Mishna in tractate Kinnim follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

For

we learned there

the following:

A woman who said

in a vow,

“It is incumbent upon me

to bring

a nest

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

if I give birth to a male,”

and

she gave birth to a male.

She

brings two nests:

one

nest

containing two birds as burnt-offerings in order

to

fulfill

her vow,

and one

nest

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

for her obligation,

in order to fulfill her obligation to bring the offering of a woman after childbirth. It follows that these two nests contain 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

following, but rather

he deviated, 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 who experienced a flow of blood.

And

therefore

he performed two above

[one from each nest] with the designation of burnt-offerings,

and two below

[one from each nest] as sin-offerings, with the designation of sin-offerings,

and did not consult

the woman to ascertain the purpose for which she had brought them. He therefore performed two as sin-offerings below, with the result that he invalidated the bird burnt-offering that he performed below. Consequently,

she must bring one more bird

as a burnt-offering,

and offer it

the priest

above.

This applies—that she fulfills her obligation by bringing only one additional bird—when the two nests

were of one species.

In that case, with the first nest, in which the priest offered one bird above and one below, she fulfilled her obligation to bring the childbirth offering, since the priest offered it for the sake of a mandatory offering, having thought that both nests were mandatory offerings. With the second nest, she fulfilled her vow only through the one bird offered above; she still lacks, for the fulfillment of her vow, the burnt-offering bird that was performed below and was invalidated because it was performed below.

But if the two nests

were of two species,

one consisting of two turtledoves and the other of young pigeons, uncertainty now arises as to whether the turtledove nest was the second one, which was voluntary, and the bird performed below was invalidated, or whether the young-pigeon nest was the second one, in which case the bird performed below was invalidated. She cannot fulfill her obligation by bringing one additional turtledove or one additional young pigeon, since one does not complete the other, as it is not of the same species. Rather,

she must bring two,

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

And if, at the time she vowed,

she specified her vow,

stating whether she was vowing to bring turtledoves or young pigeons, but afterward forgot what she had vowed, and the incident occurred as described above, so that she was obligated both to bring a woman-after-childbirth offering and to fulfill her vow, she must bring three nests: one for her obligation as a woman after childbirth [which she may bring as she wishes, either turtledoves or young pigeons], and two additional nests, one of turtledoves and one of young pigeons, to fulfill her vow due to 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, the burnt-offering bird in the second nest that she brought to fulfill her vow was invalidated, because it was performed below as a sin-offering.

Therefore, if the two nests that she brought to the priest were of the same species, she lacks only one burnt-offering bird, which was invalidated because it was performed below. Thus, it is sufficient for her to bring one additional bird of the same species that she brought to the priest. Nevertheless, she must also resolve the uncertainty regarding her vow, since she does not remember whether she vowed to bring turtledoves or young pigeons. Therefore, she must bring an additional nest as burnt-offerings, of a species different from the one she already brought.

That is,

she must bring three more birds,

one bird of the species that she brought, to replace the bird invalidated when it was performed below, and two birds of a different species from the one she brought, in order to fulfill her vow due to the uncertainty.

This applies—that it is sufficient for her to bring three additional birds as 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 as to which species constituted the first nest, the one that fulfilled her obligation, and which species constituted the nest that she brought to fulfill her vow, therefore

she must bring four

additional birds as burnt-offerings: two of them turtledoves and two of them young pigeons. She shall say: One of these four that is of the same species as the bird that was invalidated shall replace it for the fulfillment of my vow. Its fellow of the same species, as well as 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, the two birds of the other species that remain among the four shall fulfill my vow.

And if she designated her vow,

obligating herself by a vow to bring a nest containing two birds as burnt-offerings together with the burnt-offering of her mandatory offering, this is like someone who obligated herself to bring a large offering of three birds of the same species. As long as she does not bring three birds of the same species, she does not fulfill her vow.

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

She brought two nests to the priest, and the priest performed two above as burnt-offerings and two below as sin-offerings, as described above. It follows that the bird in the second nest was invalidated because it was a burnt-offering, and he performed it below as 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 be applied to her vow and the other be a voluntary offering, since she is obligated to bring three burnt-offerings of the same species. Therefore—