Zevachim 2a

1 ‎[1] **MISHNA:** **All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake,** i.e., during the slaughtering the slaughterer’s intent was to sacrifice a different offering, **are fit,** and one may continue their sacrificial rites and partake of their meat where that applies. **But** these offerings **did not satisfy the obligation of the owner,** who is therefore required to bring another offering. This is the *halakha* with regard to all offerings **except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering.** In those cases, if the owner sacrificed them not for their own sake, they are unfit. But there is a difference between the two exceptions. **The Paschal offering** is unfit only when sacrificed not for its sake **at its** appointed **time,** on the fourteenth day of Nisan after noon, while **the sin offering** is unfit **any time** that it is sacrificed not for its sake.

‎[2] **Rabbi Eliezer says: The guilt offering too** is unfit when sacrificed not for its sake. According to his opinion, the correct reading of the mishna is: **The Paschal offering** is unfit only **at its** appointed **time,** while **the sin offering and the guilt offering** are unfit **at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said** in explanation: **The sin offering is brought for** performance of **a transgression and the guilt offering is brought for** performance of **a transgression. Just as a sin offering is unfit** when sacrificed **not for its sake, so too, the guilt offering is unfit** when sacrificed **not for its sake.**

‎[3] **Yosei ben Ḥoni says:** Not only are the Paschal offering and the sin offering unfit when slaughtered not for their sake, but also other offerings **that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering and for the sake of a sin offering are unfit.**

‎[4] **Shimon, brother of Azarya, says** that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if **one slaughtered them for the sake of** an offering whose level of sanctity is **greater than theirs, they are fit;** if one slaughtered them **for the sake of** an offering whose level of sanctity is **less than theirs, they are unfit.**

‎[5] **How so? Offerings of the most sacred order,** e.g., sin offerings and burnt offerings, **that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity,** e.g., peace offerings, **are unfit. Offerings of lesser sanctity that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit.** Likewise, there is a distinction between different offerings of lesser sanctity. **The firstborn** animal **and the** animal **tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering are fit,** as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. **Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn** animal **or for the sake of** an animal **tithe are unfit.**

‎[6] **GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna **to teach** this *halakha* using the language: **But they did not [*ella shelo*] satisfy** the obligation of the owner? **Let it teach** simply: **And they did not [*velo*] satisfy the obligation of the owner.** What does the word: But [*ella*], add?

‎[7] The Gemara responds: By adding **this** word, the mishna **teaches us** that the only deficiency with regard to these offerings **is that they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, but they retain their sanctity, and it is** still **prohibited to deviate** from the protocol **of their** sacrificial process, i.e., the remaining rites must be performed with proper intent.

‎[8] **And** this *halakha* is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says:** With regard to **a burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake,** it is still **prohibited to sprinkle its blood** on the altar **not for its sake.**

‎[9] The Gemara adds: **If you wish, propose a logical argument** to support this statement, and **if you wish, cite a verse** as proof. The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, propose a logical argument:** Just **because** one **deviated** from protocol **in its** sacrifice once, i.e., in its slaughter, could it be that **he should continue to deviate** from protocol **in all** the rest of the sacrificial rites? One deviation does not justify additional deviations.

‎[10] And **if you wish, cite a verse: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed [*nadarta*] freely [*nedava*] to the Lord your God,** even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The Gemara interprets the words *nadarta* and *nedava* exegetically: Can **this** verse be referring to **a gift** offering [***nedava***]?

Commentaries

Version Info

Version: William Davidson Edition - English

License: CC-BY-NC