Zevachim 2a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

All the sacrificial offerings that were slaughtered

were slaughtered

not for their sake,

for example, when the slaughterer thought, at the time that he slaughtered a sin-offering, that he was slaughtering it for the sake of a peace-offering,

are valid

those sacrificial offerings, to continue all their service, to sprinkle their blood and to burn their fats upon the altar.

But

because of the thought of the one performing the service not for their sake,

they have not ascended for the owners —

who brought them in order to gain acceptance through them —

for the sake of obligation,

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

Except for

the offering of

the Paschal offering and the sin-offering,

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

This invalidity of the offering

the Paschal offering

that was slaughtered not for its own 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 own 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 own sake are valid.

But an offering

a sin-offering

is invalidated when slaughtered not for its own sake

at every time,

since it is always offered as a sin-offering, and therefore it always has the invalidity that applies when it is slaughtered not for its own sake.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

the offering

the guilt-offering

that was slaughtered not for its own sake is invalid! And this is how Rabbi Eliezer would teach it:

The Paschal offering

that was slaughtered not for its own sake

at its appointed time

is invalid, whereas

the sin-offering and the guilt-offering

that were slaughtered not for their own sake

at every time

are invalid!

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 invalid

when it is slaughtered

not for its own sake, so a guilt-offering is invalid

when it is slaughtered

not for its own sake!

Yossi ben Honi says:

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

invalid!

His reasoning will be explained in the Gemara.

Shimon, the brother of Azariah, says: All offerings [apart from a Paschal offering at its appointed time and a sin-offering ] that were slaughtered not for their own sake—if he slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is higher than theirs, they are

valid. But if he slaughtered

for the sake of

an offering that is

lower than theirs, they are

entirely invalid,

and they are not burned on the altar.

How so, in what manner is it considered slaughtered for the sake of one higher than it, and in what manner for the sake of one lower than it? a. Offerings of the highest sanctity, such as a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering, that he slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, such as peace-offerings and a thanksgiving-offering, are i nvalid, because he slaughtered them for the sake of an offering lower than they are. Offerings of lesser sanctity that he slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the highest sanctity are valid.

for the designation of

an offering that is

of lesser sanctity than theirs

they are

entirely disqualified,

and their portions are not burned on the altar.

[And the Gemara will explain whether they also fulfilled the owners’ obligation.]

b.

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

are

valid.

For peace-offerings are higher than the firstborn and the tithe in that they require four placements of blood on the altar [as opposed to only one placement of blood in the case of the firstborn and the tithe], and peace-offerings also require leaning, the bringing of libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh, none of which applies at all to the firstborn and the tithe.

Peace-offerings that he slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn and for the sake of a tithe

are

invalid,

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

Gemara:

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

And we raised the question:

Why do I need it to teach

the contrasting word

“

except”

that they did not fulfill

the owners’ obligation?

Let it teach briefly: they are valid

but did not fulfill the owners’ obligation?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that the level of their sanctity does not descend at all as a result of the change made through slaughtering not for their own sake; only

it is the owners for whom they did not fulfill the obligation, but they remain in their sanctity, and it is forbidden to make another change in them

—that is, it is forbidden to perform another sacrificial service upon them with a change.

And this is in accordance with Rava, for Rava said: An offering that one slaughtered not for its own sake—it is forbidden to sprinkle its blood not for its own sake. And if you wish, say that the reason is based on logic; if you wish, say that it is based on Scripture. If you wish, say: It is based on logic: And is it because he changed it that he changed it once, at the time of slaughtering, that he may return and change all these additional services, continue changing it and proceed? But the offering does not become entirely invalid; it is invalid only with regard to not effecting atonement for the owners. Since it is considered a valid offering, it is forbidden to think during its service not for its own sake.

“except”

“that they do not count

for the owners,”

let it teach

more briefly: “They are valid”

“but do not count for the owners’ obligation?”

And we answer:

This teaches us

that their degree of sanctity is not diminished at all as a result of the change made by slaughtering them not for their own designation. Only

they do not count for the owners’ 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 service on them with a different designation.

If you wish, say: It is based on Scripture:

as it is written, “You shall guard what issues from your lips, and do what you vowed to the Lord

your God as a freewill offering.”

And so on.

If you wish, say it is a logical consideration:

Is it possible that

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.