Zevachim 7B

מקיבעא לא מכפרא, מקופיא מכפרא.

The Talmud answers: A sin offering does not atone for violating a positive mitzva by its essence, since prohibitions and positive mitzvot are not of the same type, but it atones for it incidentally.

ואמר רבא: עולה ששחטה שלא לשמה ⁠– אסור לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה.

And Rava says: As for a burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake, it is still prohibited to sprinkle its blood not for its sake.

איבעית אימא קרא, איבעית אימא סברא. איבעית אימא קרא: ״מוצא שפתיך תשמר וגו׳״. איבעית אימא סברא: משום דשני בה כו׳, כדריש פירקא.

Why is this so? If you wish, cite a verse; and if you wish, propose a logical argument. The Talmud elaborates: If you wish, cite a verse: “That which has gone out of your lips you should observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to YHWH your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The derivation from this verse was explained in 2a. If you wish, propose a logical argument: Just because one deviated from protocol in its slaughter, should he continue to deviate from protocol in the rest of the sacrificial process? This is as it was stated at the beginning of the chapter (2a).

ואמר רבא: עולה הבאה לאחר מיתה; שחטה בשינוי קודש ⁠– פסולה, בשינוי בעלים ⁠– כשרה, דאין בעלים לאחר מיתה.

And Rava says: With regard to a burnt offering that is brought by its owner’s heirs after his death, if one slaughtered it with a deviation from the type of offering, i.e., for the sake of another type of offering, it is unfit, i.e., it does not satisfy the owner’s obligation, and the heirs must therefore bring another offering. But if it was slaughtered with a deviation with regard to the owner, i.e., for the sake of another person, it is fit, as the offering has no legal owner after the owner’s death.