Zevachim 11

So far, the entire tractate of Zevachim has been based on one mishnah we read back on the first page about the fitness of sacrifices made with the intention of offering a different kind of sacrifice. In the course of that discussion, Shimon, brother of Azarya, suggested a generic rule:

If one slaughtered them for the sake of (an offering whose level of sanctity is) greater than theirs, they are fit; for the sake of (an offering whose level of sanctity is) less than theirs, they are unfit.

In essence, there are two tiers of sacrifices: a higher-sanctity group and a lower-sanctity group. If you were aiming for something higher than what you actually performed, the sacrifice is fit. But if your intention was for a lower sacrifice, it’s not. Today’s daf confirms Shimon’s rule and provides a bit of a rationale.

But there’s another issue: As the mishnah discusses, just because something is fit doesn’t mean the sacrifice has done its job. Being fit means that the animal can still be offered and eaten, but if the intention was incorrect, the specific purpose for which the sacrifice was brought has not been satisfied and you have to try again. Uncertain where Shimon stands on this question, on today’s daf Rabbi Zeira asks outright: Does Shimon agree with the mishnah that a sacrifice brought with the wrong intention does not satisfy God? 

Abaye, and some say Rabbi Zerika, said: Come and hear: A firstborn animal and the animal tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings are fit. Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn animal or for the sake of the animal tithe are unfit.

This first comment the Talmud makes is to recall the continuation of Shimon’s comments in the mishnah, which confirm his general principle: Firstborn animals and animal tithes rank below peace offerings on the holiness scale, and as a result are fit if they are offered with the intention of bringing a peace offering. But the reverse situation, in which a peace offering is slaughtered with the intention of offering a firstborn animal or an animal tithe, is not. 

The Talmud continues:

And if it enters your mind (that offerings sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity are) fit and propitiate God, does a firstborn propitiate? Rather, conclude that such offerings are fit but do not propitiate. And since in the latter clause they are fit but do not propitiate, in the former clause as well, they are fit but do not propitiate.

A firstborn animal sacrifice intended to be a peace offering is fit because it is aimed at being a more holy sacrifice. However, as the rabbis point out, while it may be fit, it does not satisfy God.

Extrapolating from this, we apply the rule generally and conclude that aiming higher in sanctity doesn’t get the offerer off the hook for their obligations.

This is a helpful way of thinking about this, although the Gemara argues we could have gotten this point from Shimon’s initial, general statement, which would make his elaboration in the mishnah redundant. If so, the example of the firstborn animal must serve to make a supplemental point:

Lest you say that higher and lower sanctity applies only to offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, but not with lesser and lesser sanctity. 

Rabbi Shimon’s first statement distinguishes between two levels of sanctity: greater and lesser, without any distinction among sacrifices in either category. Without his second statement, one might have thought that the hierarchy of holiness principle applies only when aiming at one grouping or the other. The second statement teaches us that not all lower-sanctity sacrifices are the same, but that there’s a hierarchy among them. So long as you’re aiming higher — between the groups or within them — your sacrifice is fit.

Read all of Zevachim 11 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 25, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.