## Zevachim Daf 67a

###### Zevachim 67a:1
[Zevachim 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:1)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וַהֲרֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָם לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן; אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הָעוֹלָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁינָּה שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to him:** The case of **offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south** of the Temple courtyard **and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove** that the fact that one changed the offering’s designation to an item that is not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse is not a relevant factor. **As** in this case, one **changed their designation to an item that is not subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse and,** nevertheless, one is liable for **misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering,** concerning which **even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to** the *halakhot* of **misuse,** the *halakha* is **that** one would be liable for **misusing it.**


###### Zevachim 67a:2
[Zevachim 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:2)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָם לְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר וְהֶיתֵּר; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ הֶיתֵּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,** that is no proof, as **if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south** of the Temple courtyard, **and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity,** that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is **that** one who slaughtered them **changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted** elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. **Would you say** the *halakha* is the same **in** the case of **a burnt offering** for **which one changed its designation to an item that** is **permitted in its entirety,** i.e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?


###### Zevachim 67a:3
[Zevachim 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ, וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ; וְאַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הָעוֹלָה – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ, שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua **is taught** in a *baraita*, where it is recounted in greater detail: **Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua:** The case of **a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the north** of the Temple courtyard **for the sake of a peace offering will prove** my point, **as** here the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation** to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, **and** yet one is liable for **misusing it. And you too should not be puzzled about the** bird **burnt offering** that was sacrificed as a sin offering, concerning **which even though** the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation** to an item for which there is no liability for misuse, the *halakha* is **that** one is liable for **misusing it.**


###### Zevachim 67a:4
[Zevachim 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:4)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאָשָׁם – שֶׁאִם שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ לֹא שִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to a guilt offering** sacrificed as a peace offering, **as although** the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation, he** still **did not change its location** but sacrificed it in the north of the Temple courtyard, which is the appropriate location for both guilt offerings and peace offerings, **shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** a bird **burnt offering** sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, **where** the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation and** also **changed its location?**


###### Zevachim 67a:5
[Zevachim 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:5)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ, וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ; אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הָעוֹלָה – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to him: A guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south** of the Temple courtyard **for the sake of a peace offering will prove** my point, **as** here the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation and** also **changed its location, and** yet one is liable for **misusing it. You too should not be puzzled about the** bird **burnt offering** that was sacrificed below the red line as a sin offering, concerning **which even though** the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation and** also **changed its location,** the *halakha* is that one is liable for **misusing it.**


###### Zevachim 67a:6
[Zevachim 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:6)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאָשָׁם – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ, וְלֹא שִׁינָּה אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ וְאֶת מַעֲשֶׂיהָ, וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say** that this this is the *halakha* **with regard to a guilt offering** sacrificed as a peace offering, in **which** case the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation and changed its location, but** he **did not change its procedure, shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** a bird **burnt offering** sacrificed entirely according to the procedure of a sin offering, in **which** case the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation and procedure and** also **changed its location?**


###### Zevachim 67a:7
[Zevachim 67a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא, וְנֵימָא לֵיהּ: אָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים בְּשִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים – שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ, וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ, וְשִׁינָּה אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* ends here, and it would appear that Rabbi Eliezer had no response to this claim. **Rava said:** Why? **Let him say to** Rabbi Yehoshua that **a guilt offering that one slaughtered in the south** of the Temple courtyard **for the sake of a peace offering with a deviation with regard to** the offering’s **owner,** i.e., he slaughtered it for the sake of someone other than the offering’s owner, will prove my opinion; **as** this is tantamount to a case where the one who performed the slaughter **changed its designation and changed its location and** also **changed its procedure,** yet one is liable for its misuse.


###### Zevachim 67a:8
[Zevachim 67a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:8)

מִדְּלָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ הָכִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: נְחֵית רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּלַק בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד, נִמְשֶׁכֶת וְנַעֲשֵׂית חַטַּאת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava concluded: **Since he did not say this to him, learn from it** that at this stage **Rabbi Eliezer grasped Rabbi Yehoshua’s** line of **reasoning; as Rav Adda bar Ahava says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua would say** the following reasoning: 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, once he pinched one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [*siman*],** i.e., either the gullet or the windpipe, the offering **is removed** from its status as a burnt offering **and becomes a bird sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 67a:9
[Zevachim 67a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:9)

אִי הָכִי, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי – שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָעוֹלָה; מִכִּי מָלֵיק בַּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד, תִּימָּשֵׁךְ וְתֶהֱוֵי עוֹלַת הָעוֹף! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בְּנָאָה: כָּךְ הִיא הַצָּעָה שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה! מַאי, לָאו כָּךְ הִיא הַצָּעָה – וְתוּ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** then in the case of **a bird sin offering that one sacrificed above** the red line **according to the procedure of a burnt offering, too, as soon as he pinches one *siman* it should be removed** from its status as a sin offering **and become a bird burnt offering. And if you would say** that **indeed** that is so, this is difficult: **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Bena’a** that **this is** the accurate **presentation of the mishna? What,** does he **not** mean that **this is** the accurate **presentation** in the sense that Rabbi Yehoshua’s principle applies specifically to the case stated in the mishna, namely, that of a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering, **and** to **nothing more?**


###### Zevachim 67a:10
[Zevachim 67a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:10)

לָא; כָּךְ הַצָּעָה שֶׁל כּוּלָּהּ מִשְׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** what Rabbi Bena’a means is that **this is** the accurate **presentation of the entire mishna.** Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a bird burnt offering sacrificed entirely as a sin offering, he holds similarly that a bird sin offering sacrificed entirely as a burnt offering assumes the status of a burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 67a:11
[Zevachim 67a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:11)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כֵּיוָן דְּהָא הֶכְשֵׁירָהּ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד וְהָא הֶכְשֵׁירָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין; וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְמַטָּה לֵיתַהּ; כֵּיוָן דְּמָלַק בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד – נִמְשֶׁכֶת וְנַעֲשֵׂית חַטַּאת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The two cases are different. **Granted,** Rabbi Yehoshua’s principle applies to **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. Since** the method of **preparing** this bird sin offering is **by** pinching **one *siman*, and** the method of **preparing that** bird burnt offering is **by** pinching **two *simanim*, and** since **there** can be **no bird burnt offering below** the red line, therefore **once he pinched one *siman*** below the red line, the offering **is removed** from its status as a burnt offering **and becomes a bird sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 67a:12
[Zevachim 67a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:12)

אֶלָּא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: מְלִיקָה – בְּכׇל מָקוֹם כְּשֵׁירָה; מִכִּי מָלֵק בַּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד – אִיפַּסְלָא; כִּי הֲדַר מָלֵיק בְּאִידַּךְ סִימָן – הֵיכִי מִמַּשְׁכָה וְהָוְיָא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** one cannot say this with regard to **a bird sin offering** that was sacrificed as a burnt offering. **Since the Master said** with regard to the bird sin offering: **Pinching is valid everywhere** on the altar, it follows that **as soon as one pinched one *siman*** for the sake of a burnt offering it was **disqualified,** like any other sin offering pinched for the sake of a different type of offering. Consequently, **when he then pinched the other *siman*** according to the procedure of a burnt offering, **how could it** then **be removed** from its status as a sin offering **and become a bird burnt offering?**


###### Zevachim 67a:13
[Zevachim 67a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/67a:13)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּלַק בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד, נִמְשֶׁכֶת וְנַעֲשֵׂית חַטַּאת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself,** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua would say:** 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, once he pinched one *siman*,** the offering **is removed** from its status as a burnt offering **and becomes a bird sin offering.**