חטאת דעבודה זרה דשמיעת הקול ובטוי שפתים וטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דלא כתיב בהו מנלן

From where do we derive these halakhot with regard to a sin offering brought for idol worship, which has unique halakhot, as detailed in Numbers 15: 27–31, and with regard to which the term: For a sin offering, is not written? Likewise, from where do we derive them with regard to the sin offerings that are brought for the hearing of the voice, and for an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, which also have unique halakhot (Leviticus 5: 1–13), and with regard to which the term: For a sin offering, is not written either?

חטאת דעבודה זרה אתיא מחטאת חלב שכן כרת כמותה והנך כולהי אתיין במה הצד

The Gemara answers: With regard to a sin offering brought for idol worship, these halakhot are derived from the halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, as idol worship is also punishable by karet, similar to consumption of forbidden fat. And with regard to all these other sin offerings, which are brought for transgressions not punishable by karet, these halakhot are derived by analogy from the common element of the aforementioned three sources, namely, a standard sin offering, the sin offering of a nazirite, and the sin offering of a leper.

תנו רבנן פסח בזמנו לשמו כשר שלא לשמו פסול ובשאר ימות השנה לשמו פסול שלא לשמו כשר

§ The Sages taught: When a Paschal offering is sacrificed at its appointed time, on Passover eve after noon, if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is fit; if it is sacrificed not for its sake, it is unfit, as stated in the mishna. And when an offering consecrated as a Paschal offering is sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year, if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is unfit; if it is sacrificed not for its sake, it is fit.

(שלו קבאיצן ממהר בצא בא סימן)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im mentioned in this discussion: Shin , lamed, vav; kuf, beit, alef, yod, tzadi, nun; mem, mem, heh, reish; beit, tzadi, alef; beit, alef.

מנא הני מילי אמר אבוה דשמואל אמר קרא ואם מן הצאן קרבנו לזבח שלמים לה׳ דבר הבא מן הצאן יהא לזבח שלמים

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, i. e., that if a Paschal offering is sacrificed during the rest of the year it is fit if sacrificed not for its sake? Shmuel’s father says: The verse states: “ And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord is of the flock” (Leviticus 3:6), indicating that an offering that is brought only from the flock will be a sacrifice of peace offerings. The Paschal offering fulfills this criterion.

אימא שלמים אין מידי אחרינא לא אמר רבי אילא אמר רבי יוחנן לזבח לרבות כל זבח

The Gemara challenges: Say that if it is sacrificed for the sake of a peace offering, yes, it is fit, but if it is sacrificed for the sake of some other offering, it is not fit. Rabbi Ila says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The redundant expression“ for a sacrifice” in Leviticus 3: 6 is stated to include any type of sacrifice.

אימא כל דשחיט להוי כמותה

The Gemara asks: If so, say that a Paschal offering should be rendered as any offering for which one slaughters it; for example, if it is slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering, it should be rendered a burnt offering.

אי הוה כתיב לשלמים וזבח כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב לזבח שלמים לכל דשחיט ליה שלמים להוי

The Gemara answers: If the phrase: For peace offerings and a sacrifice, was written in the verse, it would be as you say. Now that it is written: “ For a sacrifice of peace offerings, ” it indicates that for whatever type of offering one slaughters it, it will be a peace offering.

אימא לזבח כלל שלמים פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שלמים אין מידי אחרינא לא

The Gemara challenges: Say that:“ For a sacrifice, ” is a generalization and:“ Of peace offerings, ” is a detail, and according to the principles of biblical hermeneutics, wherever there is a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is specified in the detail. Accordingly, if the offering is sacrificed for the sake of a peace offering, yes, it is fit; but if it is sacrificed for the sake of another offering, it is not fit.

לה׳ הדר וכלל

The Gemara answers: With the term: “ Unto the Lord, ” the verse then generalized again. Therefore, the verse is formulated as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, as the Gemara will explain.

מתקיף לה רב יעקב מנהר פקוד הא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא כללא קמא מרבי זבחים ותו לא כללא בתרא לה׳ כל דלה׳ ואפילו לעופות ואפילו למנחות

Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this suggestion: But the latter generalization is dissimilar to the former generalization. The former generalization:“ For a sacrifice, ” includes only slaughtered offerings and nothing more, whereas the latter generalization: “ Unto the Lord, ” includes any offering unto the Lord. And accordingly, even if the Paschal offering was sacrificed for the sake of bird offerings, or even for the sake of meal offerings, it should be fit, as these are brought“ unto the Lord. ”

הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בכללי ופרטי דריש כי האי גוונא

The Gemara responds to this objection: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught generalizations and details even in examples like this case.

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש שהוא שלא לשמו וכשר אף כל שהוא שלא לשמו וכשר

The Gemara explains: Since“ unto the Lord” is a second generalization, the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a case where a Paschal offering was sacrificed not for its own sake, and nevertheless it is fit, so too, in any case where it was sacrificed not for its sake but for the sake of another offering, it is fit.

אי מה הפרט מפורש דבר הבא בנדר ובנדבה אף כל הבא בנדר ובנדבה עולה ושלמים אין חטאת ואשם לא

The Gemara asks: If the verse is referring only to actions similar to the detail, then just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a peace offering, which is a matter that is brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering, so too, a Paschal offering should be fit only if it was sacrificed for the sake of any offering that is brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Accordingly, if it was sacrificed for the sake of a burnt offering or a peace offering, yes, it is fit, as these are brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering; but if it was sacrificed for the sake of a sin offering or a guilt offering, it is not fit, as these are not brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering.

אלא לזבח רבויא הוא

The Gemara therefore rejects the exegetical method of generalizations and details in favor of that of amplifications and restrictions: Rather, the term:“ For a sacrifice, ” is not a generalization, but an amplification, which includes any type of offering. Therefore, if a Paschal offering is sacrificed for the sake of any type of offering during the rest of the year, it is fit.

אימא לכל דשחיט ליה להוי כוותיה

The Gemara challenges: If so, say that it adds that a Paschal offering should be rendered as any offering for which one slaughters it. Why does Shmuel’s father interpret that it is rendered a peace offering specifically?

אמר רבי אבין

Rabbi Avin says: