Zevachim 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

All the sacrificial offerings that were slaughtered

slaughtered

not for their sake,

for example, when the slaughterer contemplated, while slaughtering, that he was slaughtering an olah offering for the sake of a shelamim offering,

are valid

those offerings, so that all their subsequent rites may be performed, their blood may be sprinkled and their sacrificial portions burned upon the altar .

Except that

because of the thought of the officiant who performed the rite not for its sake

they have not fulfilled the obligation of the owners —

for the owners brought them in order to achieve acceptance through them —

as their obligation .

And the owners must bring another offering in order to fulfill their obligation , .

Except for

the

Paschal offering and the hatat,

for if they were slaughtered not for their sake, they are entirely invalid [their blood is not sprinkled upon the altar, their sacrificial portions are not offered, and their flesh is not eaten].

This disqualification of the offering

the Paschal offering

that was slaughtered not for its sake applies only when it was slaughtered

at its appointed time,

on the eve of Passover after midday. But if one slaughtered the Paschal offering not for its sake during the rest of the year, it is valid, since during the rest of the year it is offered as a peace-offering, and peace-offerings slaughtered not for their sake are valid.

But an offering

sin-offering

is disqualified when slaughtered not for its sake

at all times,

since it is always offered as a sin-offering. Therefore, it is always subject to disqualification if slaughtered not for its sake.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

the offering

guilt-offering

that was slaughtered not for its sake is disqualified! And this is how Rabbi Eliezer would teach the Mishna:

The Paschal offering

that was slaughtered not for its sake

at its appointed time

is disqualified, whereas

the sin-offering and the guilt-offering

that were slaughtered not for their sake

at all times

are disqualified!

And thus

Rabbi Eliezer said

to explain his reasoning:

The sin-offering comes

to atone

for a sin, and the guilt-offering

also

comes

to atone

for a sin.

Therefore, their laws should be compared:

Just as a sin-offering is disqualified

when it is slaughtered

not for its sake, so a guilt-offering is disqualified

when it is slaughtered

not for its sake!

Yosei ben Honi says:

Just as a Paschal offering and a sin-offering that were slaughtered for the sake of other offerings are disqualified, so too other offerings

slaughtered

on the fourteenth of Nisan

for the sake of a Paschal offering,

and those slaughtered throughout the year

for the sake of a sin-offering

are

disqualified!

His reasoning will be explained in the Gemara.

Shimon, brother of Azarya, says:

All offerings [apart from a Paschal offering at its appointed time and a sin-offering] that were slaughtered not for their sake are, if

they were slaughtered for the sake of

an offering whose sanctity is

higher than theirs,

then they are

valid.

But if one slaughtered them

for the sake of

an offering that is

lower than theirs,

then they are

entirely disqualified,

and they may not be burned on the altar.

How so, in what manner is it considered to have been slaughtered for the sake of an offering of higher sanctity, and in what manner for the sake of one lower than it?

A.

Offerings of the most sacred order,

such as an elevation-offering and a guilt-offering,

that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity,

such as peace-offerings and a thanksgiving-offering, are

disqualified, because they were slaughtered for the sake of an offering lower

than they are.

Offerings of lesser sanctity that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order

are

valid.

[The Gemara will explain whether they also count for their owners to fulfill their obligation.]

B.

The firstborn and the tithe-offering that one slaughtered for the sake of peace-offerings

are

valid,

since peace-offerings are higher than the firstborn and tithe-offering in that they require four applications of blood on the altar [as opposed to only one application of blood for the firstborn and tithe-offering]. Peace-offerings also require placing of hands, the bringing of libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh, none of which applies to the firstborn or tithe-offering at all.

Peace-offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn or for the sake of a tithe-offering

are

disqualified,

because they were slaughtered for the sake of an offering lower than they are.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “All offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid, except that they do not count for their owners to fulfill their obligation.”

And we raised a difficulty:

Why do I need the Mishna to state

the contrasting term

“except”

that they do not count

for the owners,

let it teach

briefly: They are valid

but do not count for their owners to fulfill their obligation?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that the superior level of their sanctity is not diminished at all as a result of the change made when they were slaughtered not for their sake. Only

for the owners do they not count to fulfill their obligation; but they retain their sanctity, and it is forbidden to make another change in them

—that is, it is forbidden to perform another sacrificial rite upon them with a changed designation.

And this is in accordance with Rava, for Rava said: An elevation-offering that one slaughtered not for its sake—it is forbidden to cast its blood not for its sake. If you wish, say that the reason is based on logic; if you wish, say that it is based on a verse. If you wish, say that the reason is based on logic: And is it because he changed its designation once at the time of slaughter that he may go back and change it during all these additional rites, changing it and continuing on? After all, the offering is not entirely disqualified; it merely does not effect atonement for the owners. Since it is considered a valid offering, it is forbidden to have an intention during its rites that it be not for its sake. If you wish, say that the reason is based on a verse: as it is written: “You shall safeguard the utterance of your lips, and you shall perform as you vowed to the Lord”

And this is in accordance with Rava, as Rava said: If one slaughtered a burnt-offering not for its own designation, it is forbidden to sprinkle

its blood not for its own designation. If you wish, say that the reason is based on reasoning; if you wish, say that it is based on a verse:

“If you wish, say it is a logical consideration; if you wish, say it is a scriptural derivation.”

If you wish, say it is a logical consideration:

your God, a freewill offering

and so on.

because he changed it

once, at the time of slaughter, he may return and change

all these

designations during additional services,

continuing to make changes in it?

After all, the offering is not entirely disqualified; it merely does not effect atonement for the owners. Since it is considered a valid offering, it is forbidden to think during its service that it is being offered not for its own designation.

If you wish, say it is a scriptural derivation:

as it is written:

“You shall safeguard and perform what emerges from your lips, just as you vowed to the Lord

your God, a voluntary offering,”

and so on.