Zevachim — Daf 5a

לא ידע במאי כתב רחמנא זאת התורה ואי כתב רחמנא זאת התורה הוה אמינא ליפסלו כתב רחמנא מוצא שפתיך

רמי ריש לקיש על מעוהי בי מדרשא ומקשי אם כשרים הם ירצו ואם אין מרצין למה באין

אמר לו ר' אליעזר מצינו בבאין לאחר מיתה שהן כשרין ואין מרצין דתנן האשה שהביאה חטאתה ומתה יביאו יורשין עולתה עולתה ומתה לא יביאו יורשין חטאתה

א"ל מודינא לך בעולה דאתיא לאחר מיתה אשם דלא אתי לאחר מיתה מנלן

א"ל הרי מחלוקתך בצידו רבי אליעזר אומר אף האשם

אמר זהו שאומרין עליו אדם גדול הוא קאמינא אנא משנה שלימה ואת אמרת לי ר' אליעזר

אלא אמר ריש לקיש אפתח אנא פתחא לנפשאי (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך וגו' האי נדבה נדר הוא כו' כדלעיל

יתיב רבי זירא ורבי יצחק בר אבא ויתיב אביי גבייהו ויתבי וקאמרי קשיא ליה לריש לקיש אשם דלא אתי לאחר מיתה ונסיב לה תלמודא מוצא שפתיך אימא הבא בנדר ובנדבה לייתי ולא לירצי אשם לא לייתי כלל

אמר להו אביי ריש לקיש מהכא פתח (ויקרא ד, לג) ושחט אותה לחטאת אותה לשמה כשרה שלא לשמה פסולה הא שאר קדשים שלא לשמן כשירין יכול ירצו ת"ל מוצא שפתיך

ואימא הבא בנדר ונדבה לייתי ולא לירצי אשם (נמי) ארצויי נמי לירצי

אמר אביי אשם דמירצי לא מצית אמרת קל וחומר מעולה ומה עולה שאינה מכפרת אינה מרצה אשם שמכפר אינו דין שאינו מרצה

מה לעולה שכן כליל

שלמים יוכיחו

מה לשלמים שכן טעונין נסכין ותנופת חזה ושוק

עולה תוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן קדשים ושחטן שלא לשמן כשירין ואין מרצין אף אני אביא אשם שהוא קודש ושחטו שלא לשמו כשר ואינו מרצה

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן ישנו בציבור

תודה תוכיח

I do not know to what this refers,1 therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘this is the law’ etc. While if the Divine Law wrote ‘this is the law’ [only], I would say that they become invalid;2 therefore the Divine Law wrote, ‘that which is gone out of thy lips’ etc. Resh Lakish lay face downward3 in the Beth Hamidrash, and raised a difficulty: If they are valid, let them be accepted;4 while if they are not accepted,5 for what purpose do they come?6 — Said R. Eleazar to him: We find that those [sacrifices] which come after the death [of their owners] are valid, yet they are not accepted.7 For we learnt: If a woman brought her sin-offering [after childbirth] and then died, her heirs must bring her burnt-offering; [if she brought] her burnt-offering, her heirs do not bring her sin-offering.8 I agree in the case of a burnt-offering,9 he replied, since it comes after death;10 but in the case of a guilt-offering which does not come after death,11 whence do we know [that it is valid]?12 — He replied, Lo, [support to] your contention is [available] close at hand: R. ELIEZER SAYS, ALSO THE GUILT-OFFERING [IS INVALID].13 Thereupon he exclaimed: Is this he who is spoken of as a great man? I speak to you of an explicit Mishnah, and you answer me with R. Eliezer's view!14 Rather, said Resh Lakish: I will find a solution myself: ‘That which is gone out of thy lips etc:’ is this a freewill-offering — surely it is a vow, 15 etc. as above.16 R. Zera and R. Isaac b. Abba were sitting, and Abaye sat with them. They sat and debated: Resh Lakish had a difficulty about the guilt-offering, which does not come after death, and he adduced an exegesis on ‘that which goeth out of thy lips’. Yet say, That which may come as a vow or as a freewill-offering must be brought17 but do not propitiate,18 but a guilt-offering is not to be brought at all?19 Said Abaye to them: Resh Lakish solved [the difficulty] from the following text: And he shall kill it for a sin-offering:20 only it [when slaughtered] in its own name is valid and [when slaughtered] not it its own name is invalid;21 but other sacrifices [slaughtered] not in their own name are valid. You might think then that they are ‘accepted’. Therefore it states, ‘that which goeth out of thy lips’.22 Then say, That which comes as a vow or a freewill-offering must be brought but is not ‘accepted’, whereas a guilt-offering is even ‘accepted’ too?23 — Said Abaye: You cannot maintain that a guilt-offering is [in such circumstances] accepted, [as the reverse follows] from a burnt-offering, a fortiori: if a burnt-offering, whose purpose is not to make atonement, is not ‘accepted,24 then how much more is a guilt-offering , whose purpose is to make atonement, not ‘accepted’. As for a burnt-offering [you might argue] ‘ the reason [that it is not ‘accepted’] is because it is altogether burnt! Then let peace-offerings prove it.25 As for peace-offerings, [you might argue] [they are not ‘accepted’ ] because they require libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder, Then let a burnt-offering prove it.26 And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of the former is not that of the latter and the characteristic of the latter is not that of the former. The factor common to both is that they are holy [sacrifices] ‘ and if slaughtered not in their own names they are valid, yet not ‘accepted’, so also do I adduce the guilt-offering which is holy, hence if one slaughters it not in its name it is valid and not accepted. [No: ] The factor common to both [it may be argued] is that they are [also] brought as public offerings!27 — Then let the thanksgiving-offering prove it,28 both animals before her death) before it was offered, and it is a traditional law that such is not sacrificed but left to die. — Yet the burnt-offering is offered, though no propitiation is required on behalf of a dead woman. The present case is similar. enough to answer me that according to R. Eliezer there is no difficulty. guilt-offering was ever a public offering.