Parallel
זבחים 5:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
As for the thanksgiving-offering [it is not ‘accepted’] because it requires loaves [as an accompaniment]! Then let the burnt-offering and peace-offerings prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of the one is not that of the other, and that of the other is not that of the first. The factor common to all is that they are holy [sacrifices], and if one slaughters them not in their own name, they are valid and are not accepted; so also do I adduce the guilt-offering which is holy, and hence if one slaughters it not in its name it is valid and is not accepted. [No] the factor common to them all [it may be asked] is that they come as a vow or as a freewill-offering! — Rather said Raba: [Scripture saith,] ‘This is the law etc.,’ thus Scripture assimilated it [the guilt-offering] to peace-offerings. As the peace-offerings are holy [sacrifices], and if slaughtered not in their own name are valid and are not accepted, so do I adduce the guilt-offering too which is holy etc. What reason do you see to assimilate it to peace-offerings: assimilate it to the sin-offering? — Surely the Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] ‘it’. [Mnemonic: Hagesh Basar] R. Huna and R. Nahman were sitting, and R. Shesheth sat with them. They sat and said: Now Resh Lakish had experienced a difficulty, what about the guilt-offering which does not come after death? But R. Eleazar could have answered him that the guilt-offering too comes after death? — Said R. Shesheth to them: In what way is a guilt-offering brought? As a remainder! Then the remainder of a sin-offering too is indeed offered. [This, however, is no argument;] in the case of a sin-offering though the remainder thereof is offered, yet the Divine Law expressed a limitation in the word ‘it’ [hu]! — But in connection with the guilt-offering too hu [it] is written? — That is written after the burning of the emurim, as it was taught: But in the case of a guilt-offering, ‘it is’ [hu] is stated only after the burning of the emurim, and in fact if the emurim are not burnt at all it [the offering] is valid. Then what is the purpose of ‘it’? — For R. Huna's teaching in Rab's name. For R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a guilt-offering was transferred to pasture and one then slaughtered it without a defined purpose, it is valid. Thus, if it was transferred, it is so, but if it was not transferred, it is not so. What is the reason? Scripture says, ‘it is’, intimating, it must be in its essential form. R. Nahman and R. Shesheth sat, and R. Adda b. Mattenah sat with them. Now they sat and debated: Now as to what R. Eleazar said: ‘We find in the case of sacrifices that come after the death [of their owners] that they are valid, yet are not accepted’, let Resh Lakish say to him, Let these too come and be accepted? — Said R. Adda b. Mattenah to them: As for [the offering of] a woman after confinement,if she gave birth, did her children give birth? To this R. Assi demurred: Yet who is to say if she had been guilty of [the neglect of] many affirmative precepts she would not be atoned for? And since she would be forgiven if she had been guilty of neglecting affirmative precepts, then her heirs too may thus be atoned for! — Are we then to say that they [the heirs] acquire it? But surely R. Johanan said: If one leaves a meal-offering to his two sons and dies, it is offered, and the law of partnership does not apply to it. If however you think that they acquire a title to it, surely the Divine Law saith, And when a soul [bringeth a meal-offering]! Will you then say that they do not acquire it? Surely R. Johanan said: If one leaves an animal [dedicated for a sacrifice] to his two sons, and dies,it is offered, but they cannot effect substitution with it. Now it is well if you say that they acquire it; for that reason they cannot effect substitution with it, because they become partners,
—