Zevachim 66: Sin/Burnt Offerings: Proper, Improper Procedures and Changing Status

Today's daf offers one and a half new Mishnayot.  It also introduces Perek VII.   The first Mishna teaches us:

• if a priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in the right place below the red line, according to procedure regarding pinching and sprinkling, with the proper intent, it is fit
• if a priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in the right place below the red line, but according to the procedures for a burnt offering in any way, then the sacrifice is disqualified.
• a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for its sake is fit
• if a priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit but did not satisfy the owner's obligation
• the offering is disqualified if there is a mismatch in procedure or place 

The second Mishna shares new teachings that move us in a new direction.  We have been learning about the basic rules of sacrifice.  This Mishna moves us into a discussion about how one might derive benefit from these procedures:

• all of the offerings in the previous Mishna differ from the carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds because they do not render one who eats their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat
• this is because when the nape of the birds' necks are pinched, like in the slaughter of animals they cannot assume the status of a carcass
• they are all forbidden to priests who cannot misuse consecrated property
• the one exception is the bird sin offering that one sacrificed in the proper place and with the proper intent 
• this is because it was sacrificed properly and thus permitted to partake of - there is no misuse of consecrated property
• When a bird burnt offering improperly sacrificed below the red line but according to the procedure of the sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, "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 Eliezer)
• Rabbi Yehoshua says that one who derives benefit from is is not liable because the entire sacrificial prices was conduced properly for a sin offering and thus the offering assumes the status of a sin offering
• Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua continue to explain their positions
• Rabbi Yehoshua says sarcastically, "Would you say in the case of a burnt offering changed to and sacrificed as a sin offering should have liability for its misuse?"
• He argues that a person might change the designation of an offering simply to avoid the consequences that would accompany that offering's original state