Zevachim Daf 10 זבחים דַף 10

On the previous Daf, Amoraim discuss: שחטה לשמה לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה – if one shechted [a חטאת] for its own sake with the intent to throw its blood not for its own sake, Rebbe Yochanan says the korban is פסול, because מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה – one is able to have intent from one avodah to another avodah. He holds we derive from פיגול, where a korban shechted with the intent to do זריקה the next day immediately becomes פיגול. Reish Lakish says the korban remains valid, because his intent during one avodah about another does not impact the korban. He holds we cannot derive this from פיגול, where his intent about זריקה outside its correct time is not a function of זריקה being an avodah, but a consumption of the מזבח. They argue similarly regarding an animal shechted with intent to do זריקה, or burn its חלב, for avodah zarah. Rebbe Yochanan says the animal is forbidden in benefit as an idolatrous sacrifice, because מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה even for idolatry, by deriving חוץ מבפנים – “outside” sacrifices (i.e., idolatry) from “inside” sacrifices (i.e., korbanos inside the Mikdash). Reish Lakish says the animal is permitted, holding אין מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה, and does not derive חוץ from פנים.

In the Mishnah, Rebbe Eliezer said that just as a חטאת, which comes to atone for sins, is פסול when shechted שלא לשמה, so is an אשם, which also comes to atone for sins. In a Baraisa, Rebbe Yehoshua responds that an אשם’s laws cannot be derived from a chatas, שכן דמה למעלה – because its blood is applied above the red line of the מזבח, as opposed to an אשם. He proceeds to argue that an אשם also cannot be derived from pesach, שכן זמנו קבוע – whose time is fixed to a specific date, nor from a צד השוה between the two (because both have an aspect of כרת: a חטאת atones for a כרת violation, and a failure to bring a pesach incurs כרת). After another possible source is rejected, Rebbe Eliezer finally explains that the passuk says "כחטאת כאשם" – as the chatas, so the asham. This hekesh teaches that just as a חטאת is פסול when it is offered שלא לשמה, so too an אשם is פסול when it is offered שלא לשמו.

Rebbe Yehoshua had told Rebbe Eliezer that אשם cannot be derived from חטאת, because a חטאת’s blood is applied למעלה – above the מזבח’s red line. The Gemara asks that Rebbe Eliezer should have responded that an אשם’s blood should also be applied למעלה, deriving this as well from חטאת!? The Gemara attempts to derive from עולה, and then from חטאת העוף, that the blood of an אשם is applied למטה, but concludes that it cannot even be derived from a צד השוה. Instead, the Gemara darshens: הכהן המחטא אותה – the Kohen throws “it” (the blood), teaching: אותה דמה למעלה – its (the חטאת’s) blood is applied above, ואין דמו של אחר למעלה – but the blood of another [korban] is not applied above. The word "אותה" written by the shechitah of a חטאת does not teach that all other korbanos are valid when shechted שלא לשמה (contrary to Rebbe Eliezer’s own opinion about an אשם), since a pesach is certainly disqualified שלא לשמו, proving that this "אותה" is not exclusive. In contrast, the "אותה" of applying the חטאת’s blood למעלה is exclusive: Although an עולת עוף’s blood is also applied למעלה, the blood of all other shechted korbanos is applied למטה. Alternatively, Rebbe Eliezer holds that a חטאת’s blood is exclusively applied on the קרן – horn of the מזבח.