Zevachim 18

חד לעיברה זמנו ועיברה שנתו וחד לעיברה זמנו ולא שנתו וחד ללא עיברה לא זמנו ולא שנתו

One refers to [an animal] whose time [for slaughtering] is overpassed and whose year has passed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was lost until it was too late for slaughtering as a Passover-offering, and is also more than a year old.');">¹</span>

וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא היכא דעיברה שנתו וזמנו דאידחי מפסח לגמרי אבל עיברה זמנו ולא שנתו דחזי לפסח שני אימא לא

another [is required] for [an animal] whose time [for slaughtering] is overpassed but whose year is not passed; and the third is required for an animal neither whose time [for slaughtering] nor whose year is passed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it is slaughtered before Passover as a peace-offering it is valid, though it was eligible for a Passover-offering.');">²</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא הני תרתי משום דאידחי להו ממילתייהו אבל היכא דלא עבר לא זמנו ולא שנתו דחזי לפסח אימא לא צריכי:

Now [all three texts] are necessary.

אמר רב משמיה דמבוג חטאת ששחטה לשום חטאת נחשון כשירה דאמר קרא (ויקרא ו, יח) זאת תורת החטאת תורה אחת לכל החטאות

For if the Divine Law wrote one text [only], I would say that it applies only [to an animal] whose year is passed and also its time [for slaughtering], since it is completely disqualified from a Passover-offering.

יתיב רבא וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רב משרשיא לרבא רבי שמעון אומר כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשירות ועלו לבעלים לשום חובה

But if its time [for slaughtering] is passed but not its year, I would say that it is not [va if slaughtered as a peace-offering], since it is eligible for the second Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. IX, 9 seq.');">³</span>

לפי שאין המנחות דומות לזבחים שהקומץ מחבת לשם מרחשת מעשיה מוכיחין עליה שהיא מחבת חריבה לשם בלולה מעשיה מוכיחין שהיא חריבה

While if the Divine Law stated these two, [I would argue that they are valid if slaughtered as a peace-offering] because they have been disqualified from their own purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was to be slaughtered at the first Passover.');">⁴</span>

אבל בזבחים אינו כן שחיטה אחת לכולן קבלה אחת לכולן זריקה אחת לכולן

But if neither its time [for slaughtering] nor its year has passed so that it is eligible for the [first] Passover, I would say that it is not so.

טעמא דמעשיה מוכיחין הא אין מעשיה מוכיחין לא אמאי לימא (ויקרא ו, ז) זאת תורת המנחה תורה אחת לכל המנחות

Hence [all three texts] are nece Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering as the sin-offering of Nahshon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, brought at the dedication of the altar; V. Num. VII, 12 seq.');">⁵</span>

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב משמיה דמבוג חטאת ששחטה על מנת שיתכפר בה נחשון כשירה אין כפרה למתים

it is valid, fo Scripture saith, This is the law of the sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 18.');">⁶</span>

ולימא מת בעלמא

[which teaches that] there is one law for all sin-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They all stand in the same category. Hence although Nahshon's sin-offering was not on account of sin at all, yet by slaughtering an ordinary sin-offering as such one is not deemed to have changed its purpose, and therefore it is valid.');">⁷</span>

הא קמ"ל טעמא דמת הא דחי דומיא דנחשון פסולה ומאי ניהו חטאת נזיר וחטאת מצורע

Raba sat and reported this discussion, whereupon R'Mesharshia raised an objection to Raba: R'Simeon said: All meal-offerings whose fistfuls were taken under a different designation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. II, 2. The priest, in taking the fistful, declared that he took it for the sake of a different type of meal-offering.');">⁸</span>

הני עולות נינהו

are valid and acquit their owners of their obligation, because meal-offerings are dissimilar from [blood] sacrifices.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב משמיה דמבוג חטאת ששחטה על שמחוייב חטאת כנחשון כשירה חטאת נחשון עולה היא

For when one takes a fistful of a griddle [meal-offering] in the name of a stewing-pan [meal-offering], its preparation proves that it is a griddle [meal-offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His declaration is manifestly untrue and of no account, since one can see what meal-offering it is. - For the various types of meal-offerings mentioned here V. Lev. II, 4 seq.');">⁹</span>

איכא דאמר אמר רב משמיה דמבוג חטאת ששחטה לשם חטאת נחשון פסולה חטאת נחשון עולה היא

[If one takes a fistful of] a dry meal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is brought on account of sin, v. Lev. V, 11f.');">¹⁰</span>

ולימא חטאת נזיר וחטאת מצורע עיקר חטאת נקט

in the name of [a meal-offering] mingled [with oil],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was not brought on account of sin, v. Lev. II, 1 seq.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב חטאת חלב ששחטה לשם חטאת דם לשם חטאת עבודה זרה כשירה

its preparation proves that it is a dry [meal-offering].

לשם חטאת נזיר לשם חטאת מצורע פסולה הני עולות נינהו

But in the case of [animal] sacrifices it is not so, for there is the same slaughtering for all, the same receiving for all, [and] the same sprinkling for all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In these acts there is nothing to indicate the nature of the sacrifice. Consequently a false declaration is effective to invalidate them.');">¹²</span>

בעי רבא חטאת חלב ששחטה לשם חטאת דטומאת מקדש וקדשיו מהו מי אמרינן כרת כמותה

Thus it is only because its preparation proves its nature; hence if its preparation did not prove its nature, this would not be so.

או דילמא אין קבוע כמותה

Yet why?

רב אחא בריה דרבא מתני כולהו לפסולא מ"ט (ויקרא ד, לג) ושחט אותה לחטאת לשם אותה חטאת

let us say [that] This is the law of the meal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 7.');">¹³</span>

א"ל רב אשי לרב אחא בריה דרבא [בעיא דרבא] היכי מתניתו לה

[intimates that] there is one law for all meal-offerings? - Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering in order that Nahshon might be forgiven through it, it is valid, [for] no atonement [is required] for the dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering slaughtered for a wrong person is invalid, provided that he is likewise liable to a sin-offering. This condition is obviously unfulfilled here: hence the sacrifice is valid.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר ליה אנן בשינוי בעלים מתנינן לה [והכי מתנינן לה] אמר רבא חטאת חלב ששחטה על מי שמחוייב חטאת דם וחטאת עבודת כוכבים פסולה על מי שמחוייב חטאת נזיר וחטאת מצורע כשירה

Then, let him speak of any dead person? - He informs us this: The reason [that it is valid] is that he [Nahshon] is dead.

ובעיין לה הכי בעי רבא חטאת חלב ששחטה על מי שמחוייב חטאת דטומאת מקדש וקדשיו מהו מי אמרי' כרת כמותה או דילמא אין קבוע כמותה

Hence [if one slaughtered it] for a living person similar to Nahshon, it is invalid.

תיקו:

And who are meant?

איתמר שחטה לשמה לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה רבי יוחנן אמר פסולה וריש לקיש אמר כשירה

[Those who are liable to] a nazirite's sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not brought on account of sin at all, just as Nahshon's sin-offering was not on account of sin.');">¹⁵</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר פסולה מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה וילפינן ממחשבת פיגול

But these are [as] burnt-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: A nazirite's sin-offering is the same as a burnt-offering, since it is not brought on account of sin, and it is stated supra ');">¹⁶</span>

ור"ל אמר כשירה אין מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה ולא ילפינן ממחשבת פיגול

- Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughters a sin-offering for a [wrong] person who is liable to a sin-offering such as Nahshon's, it is valid, [for] Nahshon's sin-offering was [as] a burnt-offering.

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: