מתני׳ כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרים אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה חוץ מן הפסח והחטאת הפסח בזמנו והחטאת בכל זמן MISHNA: All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake, i.e., during the slaughtering the slaughterer’s intent was to sacrifice a different offering, are fit, and one may continue their sacrificial rites and partake of their meat where that applies. But these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, who is therefore required to bring another offering. This is the halakha with regard to all offerings except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering. In those cases, if the owner sacrificed them not for their own sake, they are unfit. But there is a difference between the two exceptions. The Paschal offering is unfit only when sacrificed not for its sake at its appointed time, on the fourteenth day of Nisan after noon, while the sin offering is unfit any time that it is sacrificed not for its sake.
רבי אליעזר אומר אף האשם הפסח בזמנו והחטאת והאשם בכל זמן אמר רבי אליעזר החטאת באה על חטא והאשם בא על חטא מה חטאת פסולה שלא לשמה אף האשם פסול שלא לשמו Rabbi Eliezer says: The guilt offering too is unfit when sacrificed not for its sake. According to his opinion, the correct reading of the mishna is: The Paschal offering is unfit only at its appointed time, while the sin offering and the guilt offering are unfit at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said in explanation: The sin offering is brought for performance of a transgression and the guilt offering is brought for performance of a transgression. Just as a sin offering is unfit when sacrificed not for its sake, so too, the guilt offering is unfit when sacrificed not for its sake.
יוסי בן חוני אומר הנשחטין לשם פסח ולשם חטאת פסולין Yosei ben Ḥoni says: Not only are the Paschal offering and the sin offering unfit when slaughtered not for their sake, but also other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering and for the sake of a sin offering are unfit.
שמעון אחי עזריה אומר שחטן לשם גבוה מהן כשרין לשם נמוך מהן פסולין Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose level of sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose level of sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.
כיצד קדשי קדשים ששחטן לשם קדשים קלים פסולין קדשים קלים ששחטן לשם קדשי קדשים כשרין הבכור והמעשר ששחטן לשם שלמים כשרין שלמים ששחטן לשם בכור ולשם מעשר פסולין: How so? Offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., sin offerings and burnt offerings, that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace offerings, are unfit. Offerings of lesser sanctity that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit. Likewise, there is a distinction between different offerings of lesser sanctity. The firstborn animal and the animal tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering are fit, as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn animal or for the sake of an animal tithe are unfit.
גמ׳ למה לי למיתנא אלא שלא עלו ליתני ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach this halakha using the language: But they did not [ella shelo] satisfy the obligation of the owner? Let it teach simply: And they did not [velo] satisfy the obligation of the owner. What does the word: But [ella], add?
הא קמ"ל לבעלים הוא דלא עלו לשם חובה אבל בקדושתייהו קיימי ואסור לשנויי בהו The Gemara responds: By adding this word, the mishna teaches us that the only deficiency with regard to these offerings is that they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, but they retain their sanctity, and it is still prohibited to deviate from the protocol of their sacrificial process, i.e., the remaining rites must be performed with proper intent.
וכדרבא דאמר רבא עולה ששחטה שלא לשמה אסור לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה And this halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: With regard to a burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake, it is still prohibited to sprinkle its blood on the altar not for its sake.
איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא איבעית אימא סברא משום דשני בה כל הני לישני בה וליזיל The Gemara adds: If you wish, propose a logical argument to support this statement, and if you wish, cite a verse as proof. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose a logical argument: Just because one deviated from protocol in its sacrifice once, i.e., in its slaughter, could it be that he should continue to deviate from protocol in all the rest of the sacrificial rites? One deviation does not justify additional deviations.
איבעית אימא קרא (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית כאשר נדרת לה' אלהיך נדבה וגו' האי נדבה And if you wish, cite a verse: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed [nadarta] freely [nedava] to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The Gemara interprets the words nadarta and nedava exegetically: Can this verse be referring to a gift offering [nedava]?