how do we know [it of] the sin-offerings of idolatry, hearing a voice, swearing clearly with the lips and the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, where [‘for a sin-offering’] is not written? (1) — The sinoffering of idolatry is inferred from the sinoffering of forbidden fat, since it entails kareth, just as the latter does. While all the others are inferred [by analogy] through a common characteristic. (2) Our Rabbis taught: The Passover-offering, in its season, (3) [if slaughtered] in its own name, is valid; if not [slaughtered] in its own name, it is invalid. During the rest of the year, [if slaughtered] in its own name, it is invalid; if not [slaughtered] in its own name, it is valid. (4) (Mnemonic: Shalew Kab'AYZan, Memaher, Beza, BA.) Whence do we know it? — Said Samuel's father: Scripture saith, And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord be of the flock: (5) [this teaches that] whatever comes of the flock is to be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. (6) Then say, [if sacrificed as] a peace-offering, it is [valid]; but [if sacrificed as] anything else, it is not valid? (7) Said R. Ela in R. Johanan's name: ‘For a sacrifice’ includes every sacrifice. (8) Then say, For whatever purpose it is slaughtered, let it be such? (9) — If it were written, ‘for peace-offering and a sacrifice’, [it would be] as you say; since however it is written, ‘for a sacrifice of peaceofferings’, [its implication is,] for whatever purpose it is slaughtered, let it be a peaceoffering. Yet say, ‘for a sacrifice’ is a generalization, while ‘of peace-offerings’ is a particularization; how [in the case of] a generalization and a particularization, the generalization includes only what is contained in the particularization; [hence if it is sacrificed as] a peace-offering, it is [valid], but [if it is offered as] anything else, it is not [valid]?’Unto the Lord’ is again a generalization. (10) To this R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod demurred: But the last generalization is dissimilar from the first, [for] the first generalization includes sacrifices but nothing else, whereas the last generalization, ‘unto the Lord’, implies whatever is the Lord's, even [if he slaughtered it] for fowl — [offerings], (11) and even for meal-offerings? — This is in accordance with the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael who applies the rule to a generalization and a particularization of this nature, [and maintains that even in such a case, where you have] a generalization, a particularization and a generalization [in this sequence,] you must be guided by the particularization: as the particularization is explicitly something that is not in its own name, and it is valid, (12) so whatever that is not in its own name is valid. Then [say:] as the particularization is explicitly something which can come as a vow or a freewilloffering, (13) so everything which can come as a vow or as a freewill-offering [is included]; [hence, if he slaughters the Passover-offering out of its season as] a burnt-offering or as a peace-offering it is [valid], [but if he slaughters it then as] a sin-offering or a guiltoffering, it is not [valid]! — Rather, ‘For a sacrifice’ is an extension. (14) Then say, for whatever it is slaughtered, let it be such! (15) — Said Rabin:

---

(1). ↑ The sin-offering of idolatry: And when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments, etc.; and if one person sin through error, etc. (Num. XV, 22, 27). The Talmud relates this to idolatry in ignorance. The text: And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, etc. . ‘. .’ or if any one touch an unclean thing (and then, according to the Rabbinic interpretation, enters the Sanctuary or eats sacred food). . . or if any one swears clearly with his lips, etc. (Lev. V, 1-4).
(2). ↑ They are inferred by analogy through the feature common to the sin-offering of forbidden fat, that of a Nazirite, and that of a leper. The only feature they have in common is that they are sinofferings, and both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of owner disqualify them. Therefore the others here enumerated, which have the same feature, viz., that they are sin-offerings, are likewise disqualified by change of sanctity or change of owner.
(3). ↑ The time for killing it is from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan until nightfall.
(4). ↑ This refers to an animal dedicated for a Passover-offering which was lost when it was required and found later. It is then to be sacrificed as a peace-offering.
(5). ↑ Lev. III, 6.
(6). ↑ Since a Passover-offering comes of the flock it is included in this deduction. Further, that can only mean after its season, for it has already been deduced supra that if it is offered for anything but itself in its season it is invalid.
(7). ↑ Whereas it is simply stated, ‘if not slaughtered in its own name, it is valid’, which implies that it is valid if sacrificed as any offering.
(8). ↑ For these words (one word in the original) are superfluous, hence they are interpreted as an extension.
(9). ↑ E.g., if it is slaughtered as a burnt-offering, it is a burnt-offering. — Actually it is a peace-offering under all circumstances.
(10). ↑ In such cases the generalization includes everything that is similar to the particularization; hence, anything that comes of the flock.
(11). ↑ I.e., if he slaughtered it as the sin-offering of a bird.
(12). ↑ As explained above,
(13). ↑ Both are votive offerings. A vow is technically where one vows to bring a sacrifice, without specifying the animal at the time; a freewilloffering is a vow to bring a particular animal for an offering.
(14). ↑ Rashi: it is not interpreted under the rule of generalization, etc., but as an extension, in which case even cases not similar to itself are included. The rule of generalization, etc., is applied only where the natural sense of the passage yields a generalization and a particularization, without anything in the text being superfluous. Here, however, ‘for a sacrifice of peace-offerings’ is regarded as altogether superfluous, and therefore it is held to be an extension.
(15). ↑ As above.