Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 7 Mishnah 4

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. 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? 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? 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. 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? With regard to any of those people disqualified from performing the Temple service who pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the offering’s meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered.

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: