Today’s daf follows a fierce debate between two sages from the mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, about whether one type of sacrifice can ever truly transform into a different sacrifice.
To understand their debate, we first need to review some details about bird sacrifices from the previous chapter. In chapter 6 of Zevachim, we learned that there are two types of bird sacrifices: a burnt offering and a sin offering. Each type involves a slightly different procedure in terms of location, manner of slaughter, what is done with the blood and what is done with the meat:
• Location: A bird sin offering is slaughtered on the southwest corner of the altar, while a bird burnt offering is slaughtered on the southeast corner.
• Manner of slaughter: Bird offerings are slaughtered through a process known as melikah, where the neck is pinched by cutting it with a fingernail. A bird sin offering is slaughtered through melikah,but its head isnot fully severed, whereas the head of a bird burnt offering is fully severed from the body after melikah.
• Blood: The blood of a bird sin offering is sprinkled below the red line dividing the altar and the rest is squeezed out onto the base, whereas the blood of a burnt bird offering is squeezed onto the wall of the altar above the red dividing line.
• Meat: The meat of a bird sin offering is eaten by the priests, whereas the meat of a burnt bird offering is fully burned on the altar.
The first mishnah of chapter 7 deals with two categories of possible mistakes in offering these two kinds of sacrifices — mistakes of procedure and mistakes of intention. For the most part, each type of bird sacrifice is only valid if done with proper intention and in accordance with its designated procedure. The exception is a burnt offering done with the correct procedure for a burnt offering but with the intention for a sin offering. In that case, it is still permissible to burn it on the altar even though it won’t fulfill the owner’s obligation.
The mishnah under discussion on today’s daf adds another ritual category: me’ilah, which is when one becomes liable for misusing consecrated property (such as a sacrifice).
The mishnah tells us that in all of the above cases of mistakes, even though they render the sacrifice invalid, one is still liable for me’ilah if one benefits from it — that is, if someone eats, sells or otherwise benefits from the offering.This is also true of a properly done burnt offering, which is not permitted for human use. The only case exempt from me’ilah concerns is a properly done sin offering, which is not liable for me’ilah because the priests are permitted to eat it and others are therefore also permitted to benefit from it.
This sets the stage for a the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the mishnah beginning at the bottom of yesterday’s daf:
A bird burnt offering that was sacrificed below (the red line) according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is subject to me’ilah. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not subject to me’ilah.
In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua thinks that treating a burnt offering as a sin offering, in both intention and action, is sufficient to actually give it the status of a sin offering. Therefore, like a properly offered sin offering, it is not subject to concerns of me’ilah. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that we can never fully transform one type of offering into another — this sacrifice retains its status as a burnt offering (albeit an invalid one) and therefore remains subject to concerns of me’ilah.
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua go back and forth with this argument multiple times, both in the mishnah and in a beraita brought by the Gemara. Rabbi Eliezer’s arguments paint a picture where sacrifices retain their more stringent elements and rules even in the face of mistakes — if a sacrifice was subject to me’ilah at any point, it never really leaves that status behind.
Rabbi Yehoshua rejects his different proofs, arguing that the act of treating a burnt offering like a sin offering or vice versa is particularly significant. He gets the last word, insisting that we cannot compare our case to other cases of mixing up types of offerings (like sacrifices of highest sanctity with sacrifices of lower sanctity). The fact that this burnt bird offering is treated like a sin offering in all ways — its location, its intention and its sacrificial procedure — makes it a stronger case, and is sufficient to shift its status.
This argument raises interesting questions of identity when it comes to ritual. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua push us to ask which is most salient: the way something is originally labeled, the way it is later thought of, or the way it is actually treated?
Read all of Zevachim 67 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 20, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
