זבחים 2 — parallel

2:1

MISHNAH ALL SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME ARE VALID, SAVE THAT THEY DO NOT FREE THEIR OWNERS OF THEIR OBLIGATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SIN-OFFERING. [THIS HOLDS GOOD OF] A PASSOVER-OFFERING IN ITS PROPER TIME; AND A SIN-OFFERING AT ALL TIMES. R. ELIEZER SAID: ALSO THE GUILT-OFFERING [IS INVALID]. [AND THE LAW HOLDS GOOD OF] A PASSOVER-OFFERING IN ITS PROPER TIME, AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING AT ALL TIMES. R. ELIEZER ARGUED: THE SIN-OFFERING COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, AND THE GUILT-OFFERING COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN: AS A SIN-OFFERING [ SLAUGHTERED] NOT IN ITS OWN NAME IS INVALID, SO IS THE GUILT-OFFERING INVALID [SLAUGHTERED] NOT IN ITS OWN NAME. JOSE B. HONI SAID: [SACRIFICES] SLAUGHTERED IN THE NAME OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING OR A SIN-OFFERING ARE INVALID. SIMEON THE BROTHER OF ‘AZARIAH SAID: 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; IF ONE SLAUGHTERED LESSER SACRIFICES UNDER THE DESIGNATION OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES, THEY ARE VALID. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A FIRSTLING OR TITHE IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING, IT IS VALID; IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A PEACE-OFFERING IN THE NAME OF A FIRSTLING OR TITHE, IT IS INVALID. GEMARA. Why must [the Tanna] teach, SAVE THAT THEY DO NOT FREE [THEIR OWNERS OF THEIR OBLIGATION]; let him teach, ‘and they do not free their owners of their obligation?’ — He informs us this: they merely do not free their owners of their obligation. yet they retain their [original] sanctity, and no alteration therein is permitted, in accordance with Raba's dictum. For Raba said: If a burnt-offering was slaughtered under a different designation, its blood must not be sprinkled under a different designation . If you wish, I can say [this follows] from reason, and if you wish I can say, from Scripture. If you wish, I can say [this follows] from reason: because he made an alteration therein [once], is he to go on making alterations therein? And if you wish, I can say [it follows] from Scripture: That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do; according as thou hast vowed a freewill-offering unto the Lord thy God etc.: is this a freewill-offering —

—

2:2

surely it is a vow? The meaning however is this: if you have acted in accordance with your vow, let it be the fulfilment of your vow; but if not, let it count as a freewill-offering. Now as a freewill-offering is it permitted to make a change in it? Rabina said to R. Papa: You were not with us in the evening within the Sabbath limit of Be Harmack, when Raba pointed out a contradiction in two important laws, and then reconciled them. What are these important laws? — We learnt: ALL SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME etc. Thus it is only when they are slaughtered for another purpose; but if no purpose is defined, they even acquit their owners of their obligation, which proves that an undefined purpose is the same as its own purpose [defined]. But the following contradicts it: ‘Every Get which was written not in the name of the woman [for whom it is intended] is invalid; and [in point of fact if it is written with] an undefined purpose it is also invalid? And he answered it: Sacrifices, where no purpose is defined, stand [to be slaughtered] for their own purpose. whereas a woman, if nothing is defined, does not stand to be divorced. Now, how do we know that sacrifices slaughtered with undefined purpose are valid? Shall we say, because we learned: ALL SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME etc., while he [the Tanna] does not teach, ‘which were not slaughtered under their own designation’. But surely in the case of the Get too, he also teaches: Every Get which was written not in the name of the woman, is invalid , and does not teach , ‘which was not written in the name of the woman is invalid’! — Rather, it follows from what we learned: How is ‘in its own name and not in its own name’ meant? In the name of the Passover-offering and in the name of a peace-offering. Thus it is [invalid] only because he stated ‘in the name of the Passover-offering and in the name of a peace-offering’ but, [if he slaughtered it] in the name of the Passover-offering and [sprinkled its blood] with undefined purpose, it is fit; which proves that with purpose undefined it is as in its own name! — Perhaps it is different there, because one may argue: Whoever does anything, does it with the original [expressed] intention! — Rather, it follows from the second clause: [How is] ‘not in its own name and in its own name’ [meant]? In the name of a peace-offering [first] and [then] in the name of the Passover-offering. Thus it is [invalid] only because he stated, ‘In the name of a peace-offering and in the name of the Passover-offering’; but [if he slaughtered it] without a defined purpose [and sprinkled the blood] in the name of the Passover-offering,it is valid! — Perhaps it is different there, because we say: the end illumines the beginning. Alternatively, [perhaps] because he teaches ‘in its own name and not in its own name’ [in the first clause], he also teaches ‘not in its own name and in its own name’ [in the second clause]! Rather, it follows from this: A sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things: For the sake of the sacrifice, for the sake of the sacrificer, for the sake of the Divine Name, for the sake of fire-offerings, for the sake of a savour, for the sake of pleasing, and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering for the sake of sin. R. Jose said: Even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart,it is valid, because it is a regulation of the Beth din. Thus the Beth din made a regulation that one should not state its purpose, lest he come to state a different purpose. Now if you think that an undefined purpose [renders] it invalid, would the Beth din arise and make a regulation which would invalidate it? Now how do we know in the case of a Get that an undefined purpose [renders] it invalid? Shall we say from what we learned: If one was passing through the street and heard the voice of scribes dictating: ‘So-and-so divorced So-and-so of such a place,’ whereupon he exclaimed , ‘That is my name and my wife's name,’ it [the Get so written] is invalid for divorcing therewith! — Yet perhaps that is [to be explained] as [did] R. Papa. For R. Papa said: We are discussing scribes engaged in practising, So that it was not written for the purpose of divorcement at all! — Rather [it follows] from this:

—