## Zevachim Daf 66b

###### Zevachim 66b:1
[Zevachim 66b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** According to the mishna, a bird sin offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** rite **did** the priest **change** the procedure? **If we say that he changed** the **pinching** by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall **we say that** the mishna **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that** the priests would **sever** the head completely even **in** the sacrifice of **a bird sin offering?**


###### Zevachim 66b:2
[Zevachim 66b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:2)

וְלָא אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And** what is wrong with this conclusion? **Have we not** already **explained that** the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?**


###### Zevachim 66b:3
[Zevachim 66b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:3)

לָא; דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another explanation: **No,** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the priest **changed** the procedure **in** the rite of **sprinkling** by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 66b:4
[Zevachim 66b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:4)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה, הָאָמַר מָר: מְלִיקָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה? וּמִדְּסֵיפָא בְּהַזָּאָה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בְּהַזָּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This, too, stands to reason** that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred **from** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** in **the latter clause:** If **one sacrificed** a bird sin offering **above** the red line **according to the procedure of any of** the offerings, it is **disqualified, and** this applies **even** if he sacrificed it **according to the procedure of a sin offering** and **for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what** rite **did** the priest **change** the location of the procedure? **If we say that he changed** the **pinching,** performing it above the red line, **didn’t the Master** already **say** with regard to a bird sin offering that **pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed** the location of the **sprinkling? And since** the ruling of **the latter clause** is stated **with regard to sprinkling,** by inference, the ruling of **the first clause** is **also** stated **with regard to sprinkling.**


###### Zevachim 66b:5
[Zevachim 66b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:5)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds to this proof: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is.** Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Zevachim 66b:6
[Zevachim 66b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:6)

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כּוּ׳. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ According to the mishna, **a bird burnt offering** that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** rite **did** the priest **change** the procedure?


###### Zevachim 66b:7
[Zevachim 66b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:7)

אִילֵּימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הָאָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that **he changed** the **pinching** of the bird’s nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then **from** the fact **that the latter clause,** i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), **teaches: All of** the offerings enumerated above **do not render** one who swallows their meat **ritually impure** when it is **in the throat, and** one who benefits **from them** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, by inference, **we** must **say** that the mishna **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, doesn’t he say** later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is **not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property?


###### Zevachim 66b:8
[Zevachim 66b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:8)

וְאֶלָּא בְּמִיצּוּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be referring to a change **in** the procedure of **squeezing** out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.


###### Zevachim 66b:9
[Zevachim 66b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:9)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **say the last clause** of the subsequent mishna: In the case of **a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below** the red line **according to the procedure of a sin offering,** and **for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says:** One who benefits **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** One who benefits **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, **with regard to what** rite **did** the priest **change** the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?


###### Zevachim 66b:10
[Zevachim 66b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:10)

אִילֵּימָא בְּמִיצּוּי, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; בְּמִיצּוּי מִי אָמַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that he changed the **squeezing,** this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to **say that Rabbi Yehoshua says** that one is not liable for misuse specifically **when** the priest **changed** the **pinching,** as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but **does he say** this **in** a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the **squeezing** procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.


###### Zevachim 66b:11
[Zevachim 66b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:11)

וְאֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה? רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this final clause must be referring to a change **with regard to** the **pinching.** But can it be that **the first clause** concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering **and the last clause** concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change **with regard to** the **pinching, but the middle clause** concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change **with regard to** the **squeezing?**


###### Zevachim 66b:12
[Zevachim 66b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:12)

אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Indeed, the first clause and the last clause** are referring to a change **with regard to** the **pinching, and the middle clause** is referring to a change **with regard to** the **squeezing.**


###### Zevachim 66b:13
[Zevachim 66b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן; חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And all of** the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they **do not render** one who swallows their meat **ritually impure** when the meat is **in the throat.** This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. **But** nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of **them** is liable for **misusing** consecrated property. This is the *halakha* in all cases **except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below** the red line **according to the procedure of** the **sin offering** and **for the sake of a sin offering.** Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.


###### Zevachim 66b:14
[Zevachim 66b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:14)

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **a bird burnt offering that** one improperly **sacrificed below** the red line **according to the procedure of** the **sin offering,** and one did so **for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says:** One who derives benefit from **it** is liable for **misusing** consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** One who derives benefit from **it** is **not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.


###### Zevachim 66b:15
[Zevachim 66b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ; עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna recounts the dispute between the *tanna’im*. **Rabbi Eliezer said: And if** in the case of **a sin offering that** was sacrificed **for its sake,** one is **not** liable for **misusing it,** and nevertheless, **when one changed its designation** and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for **misusing it,** then in the case of **a burnt offering, where** one is liable for **misusing it** even when it was sacrificed **for its sake, when one changed its designation** and sacrificed it not for its sake **is it not right that** he is liable for **misusing it?**


###### Zevachim 66b:16
[Zevachim 66b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/66b:16)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,** that *a fortiori* inference is not correct, as **if you said with regard to a sin offering** for **which one changed its designation** and sacrificed it **for the sake of a burnt offering** that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, **because he changed its designation to an item for which there is** liability for **misuse. Would you say in** the case of **a burnt offering** for **which one changed its designation** and sacrificed it **for the sake of a sin offering** that there is liability for misuse, **as** in that case **he changed its designation to an item for which there is no** liability for its **misuse?**