cellio | daf bit: Zevachim 47

There are different types of animal offerings, including the olah (burnt offering) and the chatat (sin offering). The purpose of an offering is (apparently) "fixed" at the time the priest slaughters it, and these start out the same way -- so what happens if the person intended to bring a chatat but the priest thought he was doing an olah? According to the mishna it is the intent of the priest that matters, but the g'mara reports a baraita (a teaching contemporary with the mishna) that disagrees, saying that the owner's intent is what matters. The baraita gives the following support for its position: if Reuven stored away something that most people would not keep (trash, something worthless, etc), and Shimon took it and carried it on Shabbat, then Shimon is liable for transgressing Shabbat even though he considers the item worthless -- he is liable because Reuven thought it had worth. So Reuven's intention can be imposed on Shimon (who acted), and similarly we say that the owner's intention is imposed on the priest who is doing the offering. (47a)

The baraita implies something I did not previously know (and have not confirmed). I thought that carrying anything between domains on Shabbat is a problem; this implies that you can carry worthless things. I wonder what the actual halacha is.

Today's daf is 48.