Quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 18:28

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר

Others state that Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughters a sin-offering in the name of Nahshon's sin-offering, it is invalid, for Nahshon's sin-offering is [as] a burnt-offering. Now let him state a nazirite's sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since that is in fact what he means to imply by 'Nahshon's sin-offering'.');">¹⁷</span> - He mentions the original sin-offering [of that nature].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nahshon was the first to bring a sin-offering which was not for sin. Hence his is mentioned as an example of all sin-offerings of that nature');">¹⁸</span> Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So amended in margin and Sh. M.; cur, edd. Rab.');">¹⁹</span> said: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat in the name of a sin-offering of blood [or] i the name of a sin-offering for idolatry, it is valid. [If one slaughters it] in the name of a nazirite's sin-off or a leper's sin-offering, it is invalid, [for] these are [in fact] burnt-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above. But in the first clause the others too are on account of sin.');">²⁰</span> Raba asked: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat in the name of a sin-offering on account of the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred flesh, what is the law? Do we say, [the latter entails] kareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²¹</span> just as the former;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is valid.');">²²</span> or perhaps the latter is not fixed like itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the transgressor is too poor he can bring two birds instead of an animal, which is not permitted in the case of the former.');">²³</span> R'Aha son of Raba recited all these cases as invalid. What is the reason? - And he shall kill it for a sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 33.');">²⁴</span> [intimates that it must be killed] for the sake of that sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in the name of any other.');">²⁵</span> Said R'Ashi to R'Aha the son of Raba: How then do you recite Raba's question?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When is Raba in doubt?');">²⁶</span> - We recite it in reference to change in respect of owner, he answered him, and we recite it thus: Raba said: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat on behalf of a [wrong] person who is liable to a sin-offering for blood or a sin-offering for idolatry, it is invalid; [but if he slaughters it] on behalf of a person who is liable to a naz sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering, it is valid. And as for the question, this is what Raba asked: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat on behalf of a person who is liable to a sin-offering on account of the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred flesh, what is the law? Do we say, [the latter entails] kareth li itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is invalid.');">²⁷</span> or perhaps the latter is not fixed like itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is valid,');">²⁸</span> The question stands over. It was stated: If one slaughtered it for its own sake with the intention of sprinkling its blood for the sake of something else,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring this intention at the time of slaughtering.');">²⁹</span> R'Johanan said: It is invalid; while Resh Lakish said: It is valid. R'Johanan said [that] it is invalid [because] [effective] intention can be expressed at one service in respect to another service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is effective to render the animal unfit.');">³⁰</span> and we learn [by analogy] from the intention of piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. There this is certainly the case; v. infra 27b.');">³¹</span> While Resh Lakish said [that] it is valid, [because] an [effective] intention cannot be expressed at one service in respect to another, and we do not learn from the intention of piggul. Now they are consistent with their views. For it was stated:

Explore quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 18:28. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.