One refers to [an animal] whose time [for slaughtering] is over-passed and whose year has passed; (1) another [is required] for [an animal] whose time [for slaughtering] is overpassed but whose year is not passed; and the third is required for an animal neither whose time [for slaughtering] nor whose year is passed. (2) Now [all three texts] are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote one text [only], I would say that it applies only [to an animal] whose year is passed and also its time [for slaughtering], since it is completely disqualified from a Passover-offering. But if its time [for slaughtering] is passed but not its year, I would say that it is not [valid, if slaughtered as a peace-offering], since it is eligible for the second Passover. (3) While if the Divine Law stated these two, [I would argue that they are valid if slaughtered as a peaceoffering] because they have been disqualified from their own purpose. (4) But if neither its time [for slaughtering] nor its year has passed, so that it is eligible for the [first] Passover, I would say that it is not so. Hence [all three texts] are necessary. Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughtered a sinoffering as the sin-offering of Nahshon (5) it is valid, for Scripture saith, This is the law of the sin-offering, (6) [which teaches that] there is one law for all sin-offerings, (7) Raba sat and reported this discussion, whereupon R. Mesharshia raised an objection to Raba: R. Simeon said: All meal-offerings whose fistfuls were taken under a different designation (8) are valid and acquit their owners of their obligation, because meal-offerings are dissimilar from [blood] sacrifices. For when one takes a fistful of a griddle [meal-offering] in the name of a stewing-pan [meal-offering], its preparation proves that it is a griddle [meal-offering]. (9) [If one takes a fistful of] a dry meal-offering (10) in the name of [a mealoffering] mingled [with oil], (11) its preparation proves that it is a dry [meal-offering]. But in the case of [animal] sacrifices it is not so, for there is the same slaughtering for all, the same receiving for all, [and] the same sprinkling for all. (12) Thus it is only because its preparation proves its nature; hence if its preparation did not prove its nature, this would not be so. Yet why? let us say [that] This is the law of the meal-offering (13) [intimates that] there is one law for all mealofferings? — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughtered a sinoffering in order that Nahshon might be forgiven through it, it is valid, [for] no atonement [is required] for the dead. (14) Then, let him speak of any dead person? — He informs us this: The reason [that it is valid] is that he [Nahshon] is dead. Hence [if one slaughtered it] for a living person similar to Nahshon, it is invalid. And who are meant? [Those who are liable to] a Nazirites sinoffering or a leper's sin-offering. (15) But these are [as] burnt-offerings? (16) — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughters a sinoffering for a [wrong] person who is liable to a sin-offering such as Nahshon's, it is valid, [for] Nahshon's sin-offering was [as] a burntoffering. Others state that Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughters a sinoffering in the name of Nahshon's sinoffering, it is invalid, for Nahshon's sinoffering is [as] a burnt-offering. Now let him state a Nazirites sin-offering or a leper's sinoffering? (17) — He mentions the original sin-offering [of that nature]. (18) Raba (19) said: If one slaughters a sinoffering of forbidden fat in the name of a sinoffering of blood [or] in the name of a sinoffering for idolatry, it is valid. [If one slaughters it] in the name of a Nazirites sinoffering or a leper's sin-offering, it is invalid, [for] these are [in fact] burnt-offerings. (20) Raba asked: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat in the name of a sin-offering on account of the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred flesh, what is the law? Do we say, [the latter entails] kareth, (21) just as the former; (22) or perhaps the latter is not fixed like itself? (23) R. Aha son of Raba recited all these cases as invalid. What is the reason? — And he shall kill it for a sin-offering (24) [intimates that it must be killed] for the sake of that sin-offering. (25) Said R. Ashi to R. Aha the son of Raba: How then do you recite Raba's question? (26) — We recite it in reference to change in respect of owner, he answered him, and we recite it thus: Raba said: If one slaughters a sinoffering of forbidden fat on behalf of a [wrong] person who is liable to a sin-offering for blood or a sin-offering for idolatry, it is invalid; [but if he slaughters it] on behalf of a person who is liable to a Nazirites sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering, it is valid. And as for the question, this is what Raba asked: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat on behalf of a person who is liable to a sinoffering on account of the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred flesh, what is the law? Do we say, [the latter entails] kareth like itself; (27) or perhaps the latter is not fixed like itself? (28) The question stands over. It was stated: If one slaughtered it for its own sake with the intention of sprinkling its blood for the sake of something else, (29) R. Johanan said: It is invalid; while Resh Lakish said: It is valid. R. Johanan said [that] it is invalid [because] an [effective] intention can be expressed at one service in respect to another service, (30) and we learn [by analogy] from the intention of piggul. (31) While Resh Lakish said [that] it is valid, [because] an [effective] intention cannot be expressed at one service in respect to another, and we do not learn from the intention of Piggul. Now they are consistent with their views. For it was stated:

---

(1). ↑ I.e., it was lost until it was too late for slaughtering as a Passover-offering, and is also more than a year old.
(2). ↑ I.e., if it is slaughtered before Passover as a peace-offering it is valid, though it was eligible for a Passover-offering.
(3). ↑ V. Num. IX, 9 seq.
(4). ↑ Which was to be slaughtered at the first Passover.
(5). ↑ Which Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, brought at the dedication of the altar; V. Num. VII, (12) seq.
(6). ↑ Lev. VI, 18.
(7). ↑ They all stand in the same category. Hence although Nahshon's sin-offering was not on account of sin at all, yet by slaughtering an ordinary sin-offering as such one is not deemed to have changed its purpose, and therefore it is valid.
(8). ↑ V. Lev. II, 2. The priest, in taking the fistful, declared that he took it for the sake of a different type of meal-offering.
(9). ↑ His declaration is manifestly untrue and of no account, since one can see what meal-offering it is. — For the various types of meal-offerings mentioned here V. Lev. II, (4) seq.
(10). ↑ Which is brought on account of sin, v. Lev. V, 11f.
(11). ↑ Which was not brought on account of sin, v. Lev. II, (1) seq.
(12). ↑ In these acts there is nothing to indicate the nature of the sacrifice. Consequently a false declaration is effective to invalidate them.
(13). ↑ Lev. VI, 7.
(14). ↑ A sin-offering slaughtered for a wrong person is invalid, provided that he is likewise liable to a sin-offering. This condition is obviously unfulfilled here: hence the sacrifice is valid.
(15). ↑ Which are not brought on account of sin at all, just as Nahshon's sin-offering was not on account of sin.
(16). ↑ Rashi: A Nazirites sin-offering is the same as a burnt-offering, since it is not brought on account of sin, and it is stated supra 7a that if one slaughters a sin-offering in the name of a different person who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is valid. Sh. M. cites a reverse interpretation: These are as burnt-offerings; hence his action is tantamount to slaughtering a sin-offering as a burnt-offering, which is obviously invalid. What then does Rab inform us?
(17). ↑ Since that is in fact what he means to imply by ‘Nahshon's sin-offering’.
(18). ↑ Nahshon was the first to bring a sin-offering which was not for sin. Hence his is mentioned as an example of all sin-offerings of that nature (Sh. M.).
(19). ↑ So amended in margin and Sh. M.; cur, edd. Rab.
(20). ↑ As above. But in the first clause the others too are on account of sin.
(21). ↑ V. Glos.
(22). ↑ Hence it is valid.
(23). ↑ For if the transgressor is too poor he can bring two birds instead of an animal, which is not permitted in the case of the former.
(24). ↑ Lev. IV, 33.
(25). ↑ Not in the name of any other.
(26). ↑ When is Raba in doubt?
(27). ↑ Hence it is invalid.
(28). ↑ Hence it is valid,
(29). ↑ Declaring this intention at the time of slaughtering.
(30). ↑ It is effective to render the animal unfit.
(31). ↑ V. Glos. There this is certainly the case; v. infra 27b.