## Zevachim Daf 9b

###### Zevachim 9b:1
[Zevachim 9b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:1)

חַד לְעִיבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וְחַד לְעִיבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא שְׁנָתוֹ, וְחַד לְלֹא עִיבְּרָה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא שְׁנָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One** verse teaches this *halakha* in a case where **its time** of sacrifice, Passover eve, **has passed, and its** first **year has** also **passed,** disqualifying it for sacrifice as a Paschal offering. **And one** verse teaches the *halakha* in a case where **its time** of sacrifice **has passed, but not its** first **year. And** the third **one** teaches a case where **neither its time** of sacrifice **nor its** first **year has passed,** but it was sacrificed before Passover eve.


###### Zevachim 9b:2
[Zevachim 9b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:2)

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חַד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דְּעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ וּזְמַנּוֹ – דְּאִידְּחִי מִפֶּסַח לִגְמָרֵי; אֲבָל עִיבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא שְׁנָתוֹ, דַּחֲזֵי לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** all these verses **are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written** only **one** of the verses, **I would say** that it is referring to a case **where** both **its** first **year and its time** of sacrifice **have passed.** Only such a Paschal offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering, **as it was completely rejected from** its status as **a Paschal offering. But** in a case where **its time** of sacrifice **has passed, but its** first **year** has **not** passed, in **which** case it is still **fit to** be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on the **second *Pesaḥ*, I would say** that it is **not** sacrificed as a peace offering.


###### Zevachim 9b:3
[Zevachim 9b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:3)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִידְּחִי לְהוּ מִמִּילְּתַיְיהוּ; אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא עִבֵּר לֹא זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא שְׁנָתוֹ, דַּחֲזֵי לְפֶסַח – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** only **these two** verses, one might assume that only these Paschal offerings are sacrificed as peace offerings, **as they were** both **rejected from their status** as Paschal offerings. **But** in a case **where neither its time** of sacrifice **nor its** first **year have passed,** in **which** case it is still **fit to** be sacrificed as **a Paschal offering** on Passover eve, **I would say** that it is **not** sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, all three verses **are necessary.**


###### Zevachim 9b:4
[Zevachim 9b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:4)

אָמַר רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָבוֹג: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשׁוּם חַטַּאת נַחְשׁוֹן – כְּשֵׁירָה; דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת״ – תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הַחַטָּאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that** one **slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering of Nahshon,** i.e., a sin offering similar to those brought by the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7), not to atone for a sin but as a gift, is **fit** and satisfies its owner’s obligation; **as the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering”** (Leviticus 6:18), indicating that there is **one law for all the sin offerings.**


###### Zevachim 9b:5
[Zevachim 9b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:5)

יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא; אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁירוֹת, וְעָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava sat and stated this *halakha*** of Mavog. **Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to Rava** from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says: All meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake** but for the sake of another type of meal offering **are fit, and satisfied the obligation of the owner,** in contrast to animal offerings, which if slaughtered not for their sake do not satisfy their owners’ obligations.


###### Zevachim 9b:6
[Zevachim 9b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:6)

לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַמְּנָחוֹת דּוֹמוֹת לִזְבָחִים. שֶׁהַקּוֹמֵץ מַחֲבַת לְשֵׁם מַרְחֶשֶׁת – מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁהִיא מַחֲבַת, חֲרֵיבָה לְשֵׁם בְּלוּלָה – מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין שֶׁהִיא חֲרֵיבָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **because meal offerings are not similar to slaughtered offerings. As, if one removes a handful** from a meal offering prepared in a shallow **pan for the sake of** a meal offering prepared in **a deep pan,** his intention is demonstrably incorrect, as **its** mode of **preparation proves that it is** a meal offering prepared in a shallow **pan.** Likewise, if one removes a handful from **a dry** meal offering **for the sake of** a meal offering **mixed** with oil, his intention is demonstrably incorrect, as **its** mode of **preparation proves that it is a dry** meal offering. The demonstrably incorrect nature of the intention prevents it from affecting the status of the meal offering in any way.


###### Zevachim 9b:7
[Zevachim 9b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:7)

אֲבָל בִּזְבָחִים אֵינוֹ כֵּן – שְׁחִיטָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן, קַבָּלָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן, זְרִיקָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to slaughtered offerings this is not so.** There is **one** mode of **slaughter for all of** the offerings, **one** mode of **collection** of the blood **for all of them,** and **one** mode of **sprinkling for all of them.** Therefore, improper intention affects the status of the offering; if a rite is performed for the sake of the wrong type of offering, the offering does not satisfy its owner’s obligation.


###### Zevachim 9b:8
[Zevachim 9b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:8)

טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין, הָא אֵין מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין – לָא; אַמַּאי? לֵימָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה״ – תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Mesharshiyya inferred from the *baraita*: **The reason** a meal offering satisfies its owner’s obligation even when one removed a handful for the sake of another type of meal offering **is that its** mode of **preparation proves** its true nature. **But** if **its** mode of **preparation does not prove** its nature, it does **not** satisfy its owner’s obligation. **Why** not? If Mavog’s derivation is correct, **let us say** likewise that the verse: **“This is the law of the meal offering”** (Leviticus 6:7), indicates that there is **one law for all of the meal offerings,** regardless of their mode of preparation.


###### Zevachim 9b:9
[Zevachim 9b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:9)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָבוֹג: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ נַחְשׁוֹן – כְּשֵׁירָה; אֵין כַּפָּרָה לְמֵתִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** Mavog’s statement **was stated, it was stated like this: Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered on the condition that Nahshon,** the prince of Judah, **be atoned for by it is fit;** this is not considered a change of owner, as **there is no atonement for the dead.**


###### Zevachim 9b:10
[Zevachim 9b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:10)

וְלֵימָא מֵת בְּעָלְמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** if this was Mavog’s statement, why did he mention Nahshon? **Let him state** this *halakha* in reference to **a dead** person **in general.**


###### Zevachim 9b:11
[Zevachim 9b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:11)

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּמֵת; הָא דְּחַי דּוּמְיָא דְּנַחְשׁוֹן – פְּסוּלָה. וּמַאי נִיהוּ? חַטַּאת נָזִיר וְחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** statement of Mavog **teaches us** that **the reason** for the fitness of a sin offering slaughtered for the atonement of Nahshon **is that he is dead. Consequently,** if it was slaughtered for the sake of **a living** person obligated to bring a sin offering **similar to** that of **Nahshon,** it is **unfit. And what is that?** It is **a nazirite’s sin offering or a leper’s sin offering,** which are brought not to atone for a sin but to become ritually pure. Consequently, if one sacrifices a standard sin offering for the sake of one obligated to bring the sin offering of a nazirite or a leper, it is considered a change of owner, and the offering is unfit.


###### Zevachim 9b:12
[Zevachim 9b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:12)

הָנֵי עוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: Why is the offering disqualified? **These** sin offerings of a nazirite and a leper **are** equivalent to **burnt offerings,** since they are not brought for atonement. Sacrificing a sin offering for the sake of one obligated to bring a burnt offering is not considered deviation with regard to the owner and does not disqualify it (see 3b).


###### Zevachim 9b:13
[Zevachim 9b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:13)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָבוֹג: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת כְּנַחְשׁוֹן – כְּשֵׁירָה; חַטַּאת נַחְשׁוֹן – עוֹלָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, if** Mavog’s statement **was stated, it was stated like this: Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered for one who is obligated to bring a sin offering similar to** that of **Nahshon** is **fit; Nahshon’s sin offering is** equivalent to **a burnt offering.**


###### Zevachim 9b:14
[Zevachim 9b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:14)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמַר, אָמַר רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָבוֹג: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטַּאת נַחְשׁוֹן – פְּסוּלָה; חַטַּאת נַחְשׁוֹן – עוֹלָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There is** one **who says** that **Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering of Nahshon** is **unfit.** This is because **a sin offering of Nahshon is** equivalent to **a burnt offering,** and he is therefore considered to have deviated from the type of offering.


###### Zevachim 9b:15
[Zevachim 9b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:15)

וְלֵימָא: חַטַּאת נָזִיר וְחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע! עִיקַּר חַטָּאת נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** why did Mavog mention a sin offering of Nahshon, which one cannot bring at all? **Let him say** this *halakha* with regard to **a nazirite’s sin offering and a leper’s sin offering,** which are also equivalent to burnt offerings. The Gemara explains: Mavog **cited the primary sin offering,** the first case of an individual sin offering recorded in the Bible.


###### Zevachim 9b:16
[Zevachim 9b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:16)

אָמַר רַב: חַטַּאת חֵלֶב שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטַּאת דָּם, לְשֵׁם חַטַּאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – כְּשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: A sin offering** brought for consuming forbidden **fat that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering** brought for consuming **blood,** or **for the sake of a sin offering** brought for engaging in **idol worship, is fit;** it is not considered deviation from the type of offering.


###### Zevachim 9b:17
[Zevachim 9b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:17)

לְשֵׁם חַטַּאת נָזִיר, לְשֵׁם חַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע – פְּסוּלָה; הָנֵי עוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if it was slaughtered **for the sake of a nazirite’s sin offering,** or **for the sake of a leper’s sin offering,** it is **unfit; these** sin offerings **are** equivalent to **burnt offerings,** as they are not brought for atonement.


###### Zevachim 9b:18
[Zevachim 9b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:18)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: חַטַּאת חֵלֶב שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת דְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כָּרֵת כְּמוֹתָהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma:** In the case of **a sin offering** brought for consuming forbidden **fat that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering** brought **for** the **defiling of** the **Temple or its sacrificial** foods, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that the offering is fit, as the latter type of sin offering atones for a transgression punishable by ***karet*** when committed intentionally, **similar to** the transgression of consuming forbidden fat?


###### Zevachim 9b:19
[Zevachim 9b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:19)

אוֹ דִילְמָא, אֵין קָבוּעַ כְּמוֹתָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** is it unfit, as a sin offering brought for defiling the Temple is a sliding-scale sin offering, the contents of which vary with the financial situation of the transgressor (see Leviticus 5:3–13), and **not a set** sin offering, which is always an animal, **like** a sin offering brought for consuming forbidden fat?


###### Zevachim 9b:20
[Zevachim 9b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:20)

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ לִפְסוּלָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת״ – לְשֵׁם אוֹתָהּ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches** a version of Rav’s statement according to which in **all of** the cases he mentioned, including one where the sin offering was slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering brought for consuming blood or for engaging in idol worship, the offering is **unfit. What is the reason?** It is derived from the verse: **“And slaughter it [*otah*] for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:33), that a sin offering must be slaughtered **for the sake of that [*otah*] sin offering,** and no other.


###### Zevachim 9b:21
[Zevachim 9b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בַּעְיָא דְּרָבָא הֵיכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: How do you teach Rava’s dilemma?** Rava appears to assume that if one slaughters a sin offering for the sake of some other types of sin offering it remains fit. How is this compatible with your version of Rav’s statement, according to which slaughter for the sake of any other type of sin offering disqualifies it?


###### Zevachim 9b:22
[Zevachim 9b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:22)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנַן בְּשִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ [וְהָכִי מַתְנֵינַן לָהּ], אָמַר רָבָא: חַטַּאת חֵלֶב שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב חַטַּאת דָּם וְחַטַּאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – פְּסוּלָה. עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב חַטַּאת נָזִיר וְחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע – כְּשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa **said to him: We teach** Rava’s dilemma **with regard to deviation** with regard to the **owner** rather than from the type of offering. **And this is how we teach it:** First, **Rava says: A sin offering** brought for consuming forbidden **fat that one slaughtered for** the sake of one **who is obligated** to bring **a sin offering** for consuming **blood, or** for the sake of one who is obligated to bring **a sin offering** for engaging in **idol worship,** is **unfit.** Since the other person is also obligated to bring a sin offering, this is considered deviation with regard to the owner. But if it was slaughtered **for one who is obligated** to bring **a nazirite’s sin offering or a leper’s sin offering,** it is **fit,** as these sin offerings are not brought for atonement. Deviation with regard to the owner disqualifies an offering only if the other owner is obligated to bring a similar offering.


###### Zevachim 9b:23
[Zevachim 9b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:23)

וּבָעֲיִין לַהּ הָכִי – בָּעֵי רָבָא: חַטַּאת חֵלֶב שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת דְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כָּרֵת כְּמוֹתָהּ; אוֹ דִילְמָא, אֵין קָבוּעַ כְּמוֹתָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** then **we pose the dilemma like this: Rava raises a dilemma:** In the case of **a sin offering** brought for consuming forbidden **fat that one slaughtered for** the sake of **one who is obligated** to bring **a sin offering for** the **defiling of** the **Temple or its sacrificial** foods, **what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that the offering is unfit, as the one who defiled the Temple or its sacrificial foods is obligated to bring a sin offering for a transgression punishable by ***karet*, similar to** the transgression of the owner? **Or perhaps** it remains fit, as a sin offering brought for defiling the Temple is **not a set** sin offering **like** a sin offering brought for consuming forbidden fat?


###### Zevachim 9b:24
[Zevachim 9b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:24)

תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Zevachim 9b:25
[Zevachim 9b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:25)

אִיתְּמַר: שְׁחָטָהּ לִשְׁמָהּ, לִזְרוֹק דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** If one **slaughtered** a sin offering **for its sake** with intent **to sprinkle its blood not for its sake** but for the sake of another type of offering, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that the offering is **unfit, and Reish Lakish says** it is **fit.**


###### Zevachim 9b:26
[Zevachim 9b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:26)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פְּסוּלָה – מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְיָלְפִינַן מִמַּחְשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says** it is **unfit,** as in his opinion **one can have intention from** one **rite to** affect another **rite,** i.e., one can disqualify an offering by performing one rite with improper intent about a subsequent rite that he has not yet performed. **And we derive** this *halakha* **from intent of *piggul*,** i.e., intent while performing one of the main rites to consume the offering after the appointed time, which disqualifies the offering.


###### Zevachim 9b:27
[Zevachim 9b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:27)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר כְּשֵׁירָה – אֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְלָא יָלְפִינַן מִמַּחְשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says** that it is **fit,** as in his opinion **one cannot have intention from** one **rite to** affect another **rite, and we do not derive** *halakhot* with regard to deviation from the type of offering **from intent of *piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 9b:28
[Zevachim 9b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/9b:28)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ – דְּאִיתְּמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish each **follow [*ve’azdu*] their** general line of **reasoning** in this matter; **as it was stated:**