Zevachim 24
יש דחוי בדמים
that rejection applies to monetary sanctity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This animal was sanctified from the very outset only for its value. i.e., that the money for which it would be sold should be expended for a sacrifice; nevertheless it becomes permanently ineligible for the altar. This excludes the possible view that only an animal that was fit in the first place to be dedicated to the altar can be rendered permanently ineligible.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
וצריכי דאי אשמעינן קמייתא משום דהוא דחי נפשיה בידים אבל הכא דממילא אידחי כישן דמי
then apostatized, yet subsequently retracted, since it was [once] rejected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sacrifices are not accepted from apostates, cf. Hul. 5b.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
בעי רבי ירמיה אכל חלב והפריש קרבן והורו בית דין שחלב מותר וחזרו בהן מהו מי הוי דחוי או לא הוי דחוי
It was stated likewise: R'Jeremiah said in R'Abbahu's name in R'Johanan's name: If a man ate heleb, set aside an offering, became insane and then regained his sanity, since it [the offering] was [once] rejected, it remains so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An insane person cannot offer.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אמר שמעון בן עזאי מקובלני מפי שבעים ושנים זקן כו': למה לי למתנא שבעים ושנים זקן דכולהו בחדא שיטתא הוו קיימי:
For had he informed us of the first only, [you might have said that] the reason is that he made himself ineligible [to offer a sacrifice] with his own hands; but in the latter case where he was involuntarily disqualified, he is [merely] as one who fell asleep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he had to sacrifice. This gap in his intelligent consciousness does not of course permanently disqualify him.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
לא הוסיף בן עזאי אלא העולה:
Again, had he informed us the latter case only, you might argue that the reason is because his recovery is not dependent on himself; but in the former case [apostasy] it is not so, since it lies with him to retract - Thus both are required.
אמר רב הונא מאי טעמא דבן עזאי (ויקרא א, יג) עולה הוא אשה ריח ניחוח לה' היא לשמה כשרה שלא לשמה פסולה
R'Jeremiah asked: If one ate heleb, set aside a sacrifice, then the Beth din<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ההוא לאחר הקטרת אימורים הוא דכתיב
Does this constitute [permanent] rejection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when they ruled that heleb is permitted, the sacrifice became rejected, since a sin-offering can be brought only when one is liable.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
תרי הוא כתיבי
Said a certain old man to him: When R'Johanan commenced [his rulings] on rejected [sacrifices], he commenced with this very case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that it is permanently rejected.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת
the person was disqualified, but the sacrifice was not rejected<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal separated still belonged to the category of sin-offerings, save that its owner was not fit to bring it.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
חטאת תוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן קדשים ושחטן שלא לשמן פסול אף אני אביא עולה שהיא קדשים ושחטה שלא לשמה פסולה
- Because they all held this view unanimously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M. emends: they were all present at the same sitting (when they stated this) . This apparently is Rashi's reading too.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
בן עזאי
R'Huna said: What is Ben 'Azzai's reason? - It is a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 17.');"><sup>15</sup></span> 'it is' implies that [when it i slaughtered] in its own name it is valid; when not in its own name, it is invalid. But 'it is' is written in the case of the guilt-offering too? - That is written after the burning of the emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, ');"><sup>16</sup></span> But in this case too it is written after the burning of the emurim? - 'It is' is written twice [in connection with the burnt-offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one already quoted, and the other in Ex. XXIX, 18. Though there too it is after the burning of the emurim, yet since its teaching is unnecessary in that respect, as one text is sufficient for that, you must apply its teaching as intimating that when not slaughtered in its own name it is unfit,');"><sup>17</sup></span> Yet 'it is' is written twice in the case of the guilt-offering too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 19 and VII, 5.');"><sup>18</sup></span> - Rather, Ben 'Azzai infers it a fortiori: If sin-offering is invalid when one slaughters it under a different designation, though it is not entirely burnt, how much the more is a burnt-offering [invalid in such circumstances], seeing that it is entirely burnt - As for the sin-offering, [it may be argued] the reason is that it makes atonement! Then let the Passover-offering prove it. As for the Passover-offering, the reason is because its time [for slaughtering] is fixed! Then let the sin-offering prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the feature peculiar to the one is not that peculiar to the other, and the feature peculiar to the other is not that peculiar to the first. Their common characteristic that they are sacred sacrifices, and if one slaughters them under a different designation they are invalid; so will I adduce the burnt-offering too, which is a sacred sacrifice, and if one slaughters it for a different purpose, it is invalid. [No:] their common feature is that an aspect of kareth is involved in them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');"><sup>19</sup></span> - Ben'Azzai