Zevachim 5B

מה לתודה, שכן טעונה לחם!

The Talmud rejects this as well: What is unique about a thanks offering? It is unique in that it requires a meal offering of 40 loaves of bread.

עולה ושלמים יוכיחו. וחזר הדין. לא ראי זה כראי זה, ולא ראי זה כראי זה; הצד השוה שבהן ⁠– שהן קדשים, ושחטן שלא לשמן כשר ואינו מרצה; אף אני אביא אשם ⁠– שהוא קדש, ושחטו שלא לשמו כשר ואינו מרצה.

The Talmud answers: If so, a burnt offering and a peace offering can prove the point, as loaves are not brought with them. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from a combination of the two sources: The aspect of this case, a burnt offering and a peace offering, is not like the aspect of that case, a thanks offering, and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings, and if one slaughtered them not for their sake, they are fit but do not propitiate God. So too, I should include a guilt offering in this halakha, as it is an offering, and therefore if one slaughtered it not for its sake, it is fit but does not propitiate God.

מה להצד השוה שבהן, שהן באין בנדר ובנדבה!

The Talmud rejects this as well: What is unique about the common element of a thanks offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering? It is unique in that these offerings are brought either as a vow offering or as a gift offering, whereas a guilt offering is brought only to fulfill an obligation.

אלא אמר רבא: ״זאת התורה וגו׳״⁠ – הקישו הכתוב לשלמים; מה שלמים שהן קדשים, ושחטן שלא לשמן כשרים ואין מרצין; אף אני אביא אשם שהוא קודש כו׳.

Rather, Rava says: The verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37), juxtaposes a guilt offering with a peace offering, indicating that just as peace offerings are offerings and if one slaughtered them not for their sake, they are fit but do not propitiate, so too, I should include a guilt offering, as it is an offering, and therefore if it is slaughtered not for its sake, although it is fit, it does not satisfy the obligation of its owner.