Zevachim 229

פסח בשאר ימות השנה דאינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו פסח בשאר ימות השנה שלמים נינהו

a Passover-offering, though not fit [if slaughtered] during the rest of the year under its own designation, is nevertheless fit [if slaughtered] under a different designation! - A Passover-offering during the rest of the year is a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence when one slaughters it as such, he is slaughtering it for its own sake.');">¹</span> Shall we say that the following supports him [R'Hilkiah]?

לימא מסייע ליה יכול שאני מוציא אף עולת מחוסר זמן בבעלים ואשם נזיר ואשם מצורע

[It was taught:] You might think that I also exclude<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the implication of the text, 'and hath not brought it unto the door' etc.');">²</span> a burnt-offering which is premature in relation to its owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. one brought by a leper or a woman after childbirth before they were fit.');">³</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ג) שור מ"מ כשב מ"מ עז מ"מ ואילו חטאת שיירא

or a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disqualified for some other reason. - I might think that these do not entail liability when sacrificed without, since they were not eligible within.');">⁴</span> therefore it says, an ox', [implying] in all cases; 'or lamb', [implying, in all cases; goat', [implying] in all cases.

במאי עסקינן אילימא בזמנו מאי איריא אשם אפילו חטאת נמי אלא שלא לזמנו

Thus he omits a sin-offering. Now what are we discussing?

ובמאי אילימא לשמו אשם אמאי חייב אלא לאו שלא לשמו לעולם בזמנו ושלא לשמו

If we say, [when it is sacrificed] in its time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for its own sake.');">⁵</span> why particularly a guilt-offering; even a sin-offering too [entails liability]?

ורבי אליעזר היא דאמר מקשינן אשם לחטאת

Hence must mean [when it is] not [sacrificed] in its proper time; and in which [case]? If we say, [when he sacrifices it] for its own sake, why is he liable for a guilt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not eligible within.');">⁶</span>

ותנא טפל וה"ה עיקר

Hence it must surely mean [when he sacrifices it] under a different designation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus what is not fit within under its own designation is fit under a different designation.');">⁷</span> - In truth it means in the proper time and under a different designation, and this is in accordance with R'Eliezer, who maintained: We assimilate the guilt-offering to the sin-offering; and he teaches the derived case, and the same law applies to the principal case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer maintains that a guilt-offering too is disqualified if slaughtered under a different designation, which he infers from the sin-offering');">⁸</span>

ת"ש יכול שאני מרבה עולת מחוסר זמן בגופה וחטאת בין בגופה בין בבעלים

Come and hear: You might think that I include a burnt-offering which is intrinsically premature<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if one sacrifices it before it is eight days old.');">⁹</span> and a sin-offering [which is premature] either intrinsically or through its owners;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. a leper's and a nazirite's sin-offering, sacrificed before it is due. - I might think that if one sacrifices these without, he is liable.');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד כל שאינו ראוי לבא בפתח אהל מועד אין חייבין עליהן ואילו אשם שיירא

therefore it says, And hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting': Whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the tent of meeting, you are not liable on its account. But [the Tanna] omits a guilt-offering.

במאי עסקינן אילימא לשמו אשם נמי ליפטריה אלא לאו שלא לשמו

Now what are we discussing? If we say, [when it is sacrificed] for its own sake, let him not be liable in the case of a guilt-offering too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not eligible.');">¹¹</span>

לעולם שלא לשמו ור"א היא דמקיש אשם לחטאת תנא עיקר וכ"ש לטפל

Hence it must surely mean [when one does] not [sacrifice it] for its own sake!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus this supports R. Hilkiah and refutes R. Huna.');">¹²</span> - This agrees with R'Eliezer, who assimilates the guilt-offering to the sin-offering; and he teaches the principal case [the sin-offering], and all the more [does it apply to] the derived case.

ת"ש דכי אתא רב דימי אמר תנא דבי ר' ליואי יכול שאני מוציא אף עולת מחוסר זמן בבעלים אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע (מנין ונסיב להו תלמודא לחיובא ולא ידענא מאי היא)

Come and hear, for when R'Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 46, n. 1.');">¹³</span> he said: The school of Bar Liwai taught: You might think that I also exclude a burnt-offering which is premature through its owner, and a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering [etc.].

מאי תלמודא אמר רבינא שור מכל מקום כשב מכל מקום עז מכל מקום הא מאי רומיא כדאמרת

Now, he [the Tanna] thus infers that one is liable, but I do not know how he infe it. Said Rabina: [The reference is:] 'an ox', in all cases; 'a sheep', in all cases; 'a goat', in all cases.

אמר ר"נ משום [דרמי] דתנא דבי ר' ליואי אדתני לוי אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע ששחטן שלא לשמן כשירין ולא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה

But a sin-offering. And what are we discussing [etc.]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning then follows as above. - The text is in some disorder, and the emendations of Sh.M. and Margin have been adopted.');">¹⁴</span>

שחטן מחוסר זמן בבעלים או שהיו בני שתי שנים ושחטן פסולין

What difficulty is this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do you cite this to refute R. Huna?');">¹⁵</span> Perhaps [it is to be explained] as you stated [in the previous discussion]? - Said R'Nahman [b.

ומשני רב דימי לא קשיא כאן לשמו כאן שלא לשמו

Isaac]: Because this teaching of the school of Bar Liwai contradicts what Levi taught, viz. : As to a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering, one slaughtered them under a different designation they are valid, but do not free their owners of their obligations. If one slaughtered them before they were due from their owners, or if they were two years old when they were slaughtered, they are unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if slaughtered without under such conditions, they do not entail liability, in accordance with the general rule that what is unfit within does not entail liability without. Thus it contradicts the earlier teaching.');">¹⁶</span>

רב אשי רמי מתני' אברייתא ומשני כאן לשמו וכאן שלא לשמו

[And R'Dimi answered:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. deletes bracketed words.');">¹⁷</span> There is no difficulty: In the one case [he slaughtered it] for its own sake; in the other it was not [slaughtered] for its own sake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The school of Bar Liwai means that he is culpable if he slaughtered it under a different designation; while Levi teaches that they are unfit');">¹⁸</span>

לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרב הונא

R'Ashi pointed out a contradiction between our Mishnah and the Baraitha,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah states that one is not liable in the case of a leper's guilt-offering, whereas the Baraitha states that one is.');">¹⁹</span> and he reconciled them; one means [where he slaughters it] for its own sake;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then he is not liable.');">²⁰</span>

אמר לך רב הונא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהפריש שתי אשמות לאחריות דחד מינייהו מעיקרא עולה היא

the other [where he does] not [slaughter it] for its own sake. Shall we say that this refutes R'Huna? - R'Huna can answer you: The case we discuss here is that of one who set aside two [animals for] guilt-offerings, as security,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case one is lost, the other should be sacrificed.');">²¹</span> so that one of them was a burnt-offering from the outset,