Zevachim Daf 9 זבחים דַף 9

A Baraisa darshens "אם" כבש – “if” a lamb (in the pesukim of shelamim), לרבות פסח שעיברה שנתה – to include a pesach whose first year has passed (and is too old to be a pesach), ושלמים הבאים מחמת פסח – and a shelamim which comes because of a pesach (i.e., the חגיגה brought with the pesach), in all the mitzvos of shelamim, thus requiring semichah, נסכים, and waving the חזה ושוק. The Gemara objects that there are two other sources for treating a pesach like a shelamim during the year, and explains the necessity of all three derashos: one would have taught that עיברה זמנו ועיברה שנתו – [a pesach] whose time [for offering] had passed and its first year had passed becomes a שלמים. This could have been because דאידחי מפסח לגמרי – it was completely pushed away from being used as a pesach, but not if it is still within its first year, since it still can be used as a pesach sheni. Therefore, the second derashah teaches this also become a שלמים. The third derashah teaches that even if neither its time nor first year passed, and it is still eligible for the pesach in ניסן, it still becomes a שלמים if it was shechted for the sake of a שלמים.

Rav said in the name of Mavog that if a חטאת was shechted for the sake of the חטאת of  נחשון (i.e., the חטאות brought by the נשיאים during the Mishkan’s dedication), it is valid, because "זאת תורת החטאת" – this is the law of the chatas teaches: תורה אחת לכל החטאות – there is one law for all the חטאות (although this חטאת is not for atonement, this intent is still not considered for a “different” korban). However, this derashah is refuted, and another suggested version of Mavog’s statement is also rejected. Therefore, his statement is revised to be that if a חטאת was shechted על שמחוייב חטאת כנחשון – for the sake of someone liable to a chatas like Nachshon’s, it is valid, because נחשון’s chatas was like an עולה (since it is not for a sin). Alternatively, the statement was that a chatas shechted for the sake of Nachshon’s חטאת is disqualified, since his חטאת was like an עולה. This ruling could have been taught about the חטאת of a מצורע or נזיר, but Rava picked the first חטאת ever brought.

Rav said that a חטאת for חלב which was shechted as a חטאת for דם, or for avodah zarah, is valid, but if it was shechted as a חטאת נזיר or חטאת מצורע, it is invalid, since these are like עולות. Rava asked, what if a חטאת חלב was shechted for the sake of a חטאת of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו? Is it a similar חטאת, since it is likewise brought for a כרת violation, or is it different, since it is not קבוע – fixed (since a poor person brings birds or flour)? Rav Acha brei d’Rava taught that all the above cases, even חטאות shechted for a חטאת נזיר or חטאת מצורע, are פסול, because the passuk says: ושחט אותה לחטאת – and he shall slaughter it for a chatas, indicating it must be לשם אותה חטאת – for the sake of that very chatas. He explained that Rava’s inquiry was about שינוי בעלים – change of owner, saying that a חטאת חלב shechted for someone liable to a חטאת דם is invalid (since it was shechted for someone else with a similar obligation), but not if it was shechted for someone liable to a חטאת נזיר or מצורע, which are like עולה liabilities. Rava asked about a חטאת shechted for someone liable to a חטאת for טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. The question remains unresolved.