Mishnah
Mishnah

Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 7:4

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲרֵי קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָן לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הָעוֹלָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁשְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, שֶׁכֵּן שִׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָן בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁנָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ הֶתֵּר:

[Regarding] the <i>Olah</i> of a bird whose blood was applied below [the altar's midpoint], following the procedure of a<i>Chattat</i> and for the sake of a <i>Chattat</i> - Rabbi Eliezer says it is subject to <i>Me'ilah</i>. Rabbi Yehoshua says it is not subject to <i>Me'ilah</i>. Rabbi Eliezer said: If a <i>Chattat</i> which does not subject one to <i>Me'ilah</i> [when performed] for its own sake, [yet] does subject one to <i>Me'ilah</i> if [performed] for the sake of something else, is it not logical that an <i>Olah</i> which does subject one to <i>Me'ilah</i> [when performed] for its own sake, should [certainly make one] subject to <i>Me'ilah</i> [when performed] for the sake of something else? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, you refer to a <i>Chattat</i> which was [performed] for the sake of an <i>Olah</i> [and is subject to <i>Me'ilah</i>] because he changed its objective to something which is subject to <i>Me'ilah</i>; will you say [the same] for an <i>Olah</i> where he changed his objective to a <i>Chattat</i> [considering] he has changed the objective to something not subject to <i>Me'ilah</i>? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Consider,<i>Kodshai Kodashim</i> [sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. They may be slaughtered only on the north-west corner of the altar, and consumed only within the Temple compound by male priests, or burnt entirely] that were slaughtered on the south [side of the altar and] that were slaughtered for the sake of sacrifices of <i>Kodashim Kalim</i> [sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. They may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard and consumed by most anyone, anywhere in Jerusalem] - these prove the point, because he changed their objective to something that is not subject to <i>Me'ilah</i> and yet one is subject to <i>Me'ilah</i> over them. Thus you should not be surprised [with regard to] a <i>Chattat</i> [where] even though one has changed its objective to something that does not make one subject to <i>Me'ilah</i>, one can still be subject to <i>Me'ilah</i> [over it]. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, you refer to <i>Kodshai Kodashim</i> that were slaughtered on the south [side of the altar] and were slaughtered for the sake of <i>Kodashim Kalim</i>, and that he changed their objective to something that comprises both forbidden and permitted things; would you say the same thing regarding a <i>Olah</i> whose objective was changed to something that is entirely permitted?

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 7:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse