Study Zevachim folio 4B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And although two of these distinctions are not precise, the other two are in any event precise distinctions, based upon which a distinction can be drawn.
The Talmud explains why two of the distinctions are not precise: What is different about deviation with regard to the owner, such that its disqualification does not concern the offering itself? It is that this merely constitutes a change of thought. Deviation from the type of offering is also mere
The Talmud explains the difficulty with the second distinction, the case where the owner died: And according to Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Mari, who says that disqualification by deviation with regard to the owner applies even after the owner’s death, there is no distinction in this regard between dev
Rather, Rav Ashi says that the halakha that it is prohibited to sprinkle the blood for the sake of one other than the owner is derived from a verse. The verse states: “And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4), teaching that the sacrificial rite that atones for the owner, na
The Talmud asks: But does this verse come to teach this halakha? Isn’t it necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him [alav],” R' Shimon says: This indicates that in a case where one consecrated an animal as an offeri