Commentary for Zevachim 1:5

כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן – as for example, that it was slaughtered as a burnt offering for the sake of a peace-offering.

Introduction Today’s mishnah discusses sacrifices that are offered by the priest with the intent of their being a different type of sacrifice from that which the person bringing them intended them to be. For instance a shelamim (peace offering) is offered with the intent of its being an olah (burnt offering). There are two issues at stake: 1) Does the owner get the credit for having brought the sacrifice? 2) Can the sacrifice even be eaten?

כשרים – and he will sprinkle their blood and offer sacrifices on the altar for their sake. For through their holiness they exist and it is forbidden to change them.

All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-. For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה (they do not go to the owner’s credit in fulfillment of an obligation) – and one must another for his obligation or fo his vow and slaughter it for its sake. For Scripture stated (Deuteronomy 23:24): “You must fulfill what has cross your lips and perform what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, [having made the promise with your own mouth];” if it is a voluntary [gift], it is now a vow, and if it is vow, it is not a voluntary [gift], but rather, this is what he said: if according to what you have vowed you have performed, that it was slaughtered for the sake of a vow and for the sake of the owners, it will be a votive offering, and the owner has fulfilled the obligation of his vow. But if not, that the sacrifice was slaughtered for the sake of the owners, it will be a free-will offering, meaning to say, that it is fit, as if he brought it as a free-will offering. But, he did not fulfill his vow, for it did not count for the owners for the sake of an obligation. And especially the sacrifice of an individual which has owners, but communal sacrifices that were not offered for their sake, they counted for the community for the sake of the obligation, for the slaughter decides the purpose for what they are appropriate for him. And especially when he slaughtered them explicitly not for their sake, then we say that they did not count for the owners for he sake of an obligation, But if he merely slaughtered them, they counted for the owners for an obligation.

[This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.

חוץ מן הפסח – for regarding the Passover offering, it is written (Deuteronomy 16:1): “and offer a Passover sacrifice [to the LORD your God],” util all your actions will be for the sake of the Passover sacrifice, and further I is written (Exodus 12:1וחטא7): “and you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice [to the LORD’],”that the sacrifice will be for the sake of the Passover offering, and these two Biblical verses, one to invalidate if it was done not for the sake of the Passover offering, and one to invalidate if it was not done for the sake of its owners.

Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-. [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.

וחטאת – for regarding the sin-offering, there are two Biblical verses written, it is written (Leviticus 4:33): “and It shall be slaughtered as a purification offering,” that the slaughtering should be for the sake of a sin-offering, and it is written (Leviticus 4:25): “The priest shall take [with his finger] some of the blood of the purification offering [and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering],” until the reception of the blood and its sprinkling will be for the sake of the sin-offering, (Leviticus 4:31): “Thus the priest shall make expiation for him,[and he shall be forgiven],” for him, but not on his colleague, which is identical to that it will be for the sake of the owners. “For the sin of which he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:28, 35), that it will be for the sake of that sin. And it (i.e., the Torah) didn’t say to us that a sin-offering that is not for its own sake is invalid, but rather, that when he slaughtered it for the sake of other Holy Things, but if he he slaughtered it for non-sacred things it is appropriate/fit, but it does not count for the owners for the sake of the obligation, as it is written (Leviticus 22:15): “But [the priests] must not all ow the Israelites to profane the sacred donations,” Holy Things profane holy things, but non-sacred things do not profane holy things.

הפסח בזמנו – is invalid when it is not for its sake all the time of its being slaughtered, which means from the middle of the day on the Eve of Passover until the evening. But prior to that and after that, we hold that the Passover offering on the other days of the year is a peace-offering. And all of its laws are like that of peace-offerings.

אף השא – as the reason will be explained further one, the sin-offering comes [as atonement for] a sin, etc. as it is written ((Leviticus 7:7): “The reparation offering is like the purification offering.” But the Rabbis hold it is a sin-offering, which is witten concerning it as an exclusion, which is invalid. But the guilt offering, that doesn’t have an exclusion written concerning I is fit. But if you waya that regarding the guilt offering it is written that it is “a reparation offering” (Leviticus 7:5). But, it is not stated other than after the offering of those portions of the sacrifice on the altar, abut if he comes to exclude that which is not for its own sake that it is invalid, prior to the offering of the parts of the sacrifice on the altar, it should have been written [in the Torah]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

הנשחטים לשם פסח – all of the rest of the sacrifices which were offered on the fourteenth of Nisan for the sake of the Passover offering are invalid. And similarly, that were offered for the sake of a sin-offering at aall times are invalid. For just as they are invalid for the sake of others. But he disputes the first Teacher of our Mishnah who sated ((see the beginning of Mishnah 1 of this chapter): “All of the sacrifices that were offered not fortheir sake are valid. But he said, as long as they are not slaughtered for the sake of the Passover offering nor for the sake of the sin-offering.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with sacrifices offered “not for their own name”, meaning in order for them to be different from what they were supposed to be.

שמעון אחי עזריה—he is called thus, on account that Azariah engaged in practical matters and would provide for the needs of his brother Shimon who was engaged with Torah, and between them, they made a condition that part of the reward for the study by Shimon would go to Azariah.

Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Yose ben Honi points out the mirror image rule to that which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that if a pesah or a hatat were offered with the wrong intent, they are disqualified. Here we learn that if a different sacrifice is offered with the intent of its being a pesah or a hatat it is disqualified. Concerning the pesah, this must be on the fourteenth of Nissan, the only day that the pesah can be offered. The hatat rule is true any time.

שחטן – for the rest of the sacrifices.

Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. Shimon the brother of Azariah (an unusual way of referring to someone) has a different rule. The sacrifices are divided into two main groups most sacred sacrifices (hatat, asham and olah) and lesser sacrifices (shelamim, pesah, bekhor and tithe). If the sacrifice is a lesser sacrifice and it is offered with the intent of its being a higher sacrifice then it is valid. However, if it is a most sacred sacrifice and it is offered with the intent of it being a lesser sacrifice, then it is invalid because he has reduced its sanctity.

לשם גבוה מהן – as will be explained further on. They are fit.

If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid. Technically, the bekhor (firstling), the tithe and shelamim are all lesser sacrifices. However, we see here that the sanctity of the bekhor and the tithe is actually lower than that of the shelamim. Thus if a priest offers a bekhor or tithe (lesser sanctity) in order for it to be a shelamim, then the sacrifice is valid (and can be eaten) because he has raised its sanctity. But if he offers a shelamim with the thought that it is a tithe or bekhor, then it is invalid.

שלם נמוך המן – for the sake of a sacrifice which is less from them in holiness.

פסולים – as it is written (Leviticus 22:15): “But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites to profane the sacred donations that they set aside for the LORD,” what is higher than them are not degraded/desecrated; that which is lower than them, they degrade/desecrate them. But the Halalkha is not either according to Rabbi Yossi ben Honi nor like Shimon the brother of Azariah.

בכור ומעשר – [the tithing of cattle. Which are lower than peace-offerings, for the peace offering require the giving of four (i.e., two gifts of blood on the altar which are four,, which are one in the northeastern corner and one in the southwestern corner. And it is found that the blood is spread around the four directions of the altar -see Tractate Zevakhim Chapter 10, Mishnah 2), and placing of the hands and libations, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder. But this is not the case with the firstling and the tithe, whose blood requires only one gift, and there is no laying of the hands nor libations that are practiced with them, nor the waving of the breast and shoulder.

רבי יהושע מכשזיר – for he considers it like the Passover offering [that is slaughtered] on the rest of the days of the year, since its time is not until twilight/

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. The pesah must be offered on the fourteenth of Nisan, during the second half of the day. It cannot be offered in the morning, at least not according to most opinions. Therefore, according to Rabbi Joshua, a pesah that was offered before it should have been offered, and was slaughtered for it to be a different sacrifice, can be eaten because we learned in mishnah one that a pesah that is slaughtered under a different name is only disqualified if it is slaughtered at the time when a pesah can be slaughtered. Ben Batera holds that the pesah can be slaughtered any time of the day on the fourteenth. Therefore, if one slaughters a pesah in the morning of the fourteenth under the name of a different sacrifice, then it is disqualified because it has been slaughtered when it could have counted as a pesah.

בן בתירא פוסל – since for part of the day is appropriate, it is for him like the Passover offering at its appropriate time. And the Halakha is according to Ben Beteira.

Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him. Shimon ben Azzai relates here a tradition that is very close to the tradition found in the beginning of mishnah one. There we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. According to mishnah one, all other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point.

שבעים ושתים זקן – to inform you that they sat in one academy/Yeshiva and all of them taught/ruled as one person; therefore it teaches זקן/elder (in the singular) and it does not teach זקנים/elders (in the plural).

כל הזבחים הנאכלים – but not the burnt offering.

ולא הוסיף בן עזאי – {Ben Azzai] did not add to the words of the Sages to invalide other than the Passover offering and the sin-offering, other than the burnt offering.

קבל והלך וזרק – either or is taught. When he slaughtered it not for their own sake, or received he blood in a bowl out of which the sprinkling is done, or he brought the blood to the [golden] altar, or sprinkled/cast it. Each of these four [acts] of Divine service that he did not for their sake, with regard to the Passover offering or with the sin-offering, he has invalidated. But with the rest of the offerings, they did not count for the owners for the sake of their obligation, even if he did one of these four [acts] of Divine service for their own skae and not for their own sake together, whether he advanced the thought for their own sake to the thought not for their own sake, whether that he advanced the thought not for their own sake to the thought for their own sake, in every matter, it is invalid.

A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name,
Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified.
What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim.
‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah.
For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling.
Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles.
Rabbi Elazar says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].
Section one: This section expands upon the halakhah that we learned in mishnah one, that a pesah or a hatat that were offered with the intent of their being a different sacrifice are disqualified. Here we learn two new halakhot. First of all, if any of the other essential parts of the sacrifice are done with the intent of the sacrifice being something else other than a pesah or a hatat, the sacrifice is invalid. The four essential elements of sacrifices are: slaughtering, receiving the blood, carrying it to the altar and sprinkling it on the altar.
Sections 2-4: The second new law we learn is that if one of these actions is done with the proper intent, but another of the actions is done with the improper intent, the sacrifice is invalid. The mishnah now illustrates this. If the sacrifice is supposed to be a pesah and it is first done in the name of it being a pesah and then later on the priest is confused and performs one of the later actions with the intent of it being a shelamim, the sacrifice is invalid. The same is true if at first he has the wrong intention and then when performing one of the later actions he has the correct intention. In either case the sacrifice is disqualified.
Section five: This supports what was stated above in section one any of the four essential aspects of the sacrifice can also serve as potential disqualifiers, if the intention is incorrect.
Section six: Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the statement in section five and holds that if the sacrifice’s blood is carried to the altar with the wrong intent, it is not disqualified because carrying is not essential to all sacrifices. Theoretically, one could slaughter a sacrifice right next to the altar and then sprinkle the blood without having to carry the blood from the point of slaughter to the altar.
Section seven: If the person is carrying the blood from the point at which he slaughtered it to the altar and while doing so he has the intention that it should be a different sacrifice, then the sacrifice is disqualified. However, if he slaughtered it next to the altar and received the blood in a vessel right there and then brought the blood elsewhere, an action that he did not need to do, and while carrying it he intended to offer it as another sacrifice, then the sacrifice is not disqualified, at least according to Rabbi Elazar. This carrying of the blood was unnecessary and therefore his intents at that moment do not factor into determining the validity of the sacrifice.

אבל אפשר שלא בהלוך – therefore, it is not considered to become ineligible. But the Sages state, that evefn though it is possible without conveying [the blood], one’s thought invalidates it. For Divine service which is possible to nullify is called Divine service, and conveying the blood is Divine Service, which is invalid with a foreigner (i.e., a non-Kohen), as it is written (Leviticus 1:5: “[The bull] shall be slaughtered [before the LORD;] and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer [the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” from reception and onwards is the command of the priesthood.

המהלך במקום שהוא צריך להוליך – this conveying, thought invalids it. How so? They received it [the blood] outside there from the altar and brought it inside, that they came close to the side of the altar. This is the conveying that needs to be done, and the thought/intention invalidates it. If they received it inside near the altar and brought it outside, that is a conveying that is unnecessary and thought/intention does not invalidate it. If he then went back and brought it inside, this is the conveying that is needed. But the Halakha is not according to either Rabbi Eleazar nor according to Rabbi Shimon.