Zevachim — Daf 5b

מה לתודה שכן טעונה לחם

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

מה להצד השוה שבהן שהן באין בנדר ובנדבה

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'

מאי חזית דאקשת לשלמים אקיש לחטאת

הא מיעט רחמנא אותה

(סימן הנ"ש בש"ר)

יתיב רב הונא ורב נחמן ויתיב רב ששת גבייהו ויתבי וקאמרי קשיא ליה לריש לקיש אשם דלא אתי לאחר מיתה לימא ליה ר"א אשם נמי אתי לאחר מיתה

אמר להו רב ששת אשם למאי קרב למותרו חטאת נמי מיקרב קרבה מותרה

חטאת אף ע"ג דקרבה מותרה מיעט רחמנא הוא

אשם נמי כתיב ביה הוא

ההוא לאחר הקטרת אימורים הוא דכתיב כדתניא אבל אשם לא נאמר בו הוא אלא לאחר הקטרת אימורין והוא עצמו אם לא הקטירו אימורין כשר

ואלא הוא למה לי לכדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב אשם שניתק לרעיה ושחטו סתם כשר

ניתק אין לא ניתק לא מאי טעמא אמר קרא הוא בהווייתו יהא

יתבי רב נחמן ורב ששת ויתיב רב אדא בר מתנה גבייהו ויתבי וקאמרי הא דקאמר רבי אלעזר מצינו בבאין לאחר מיתה שהן כשרין ואין מרצין לימא ליה ריש לקיש הנהו נמי לייתו ולירצו

אמר להן רב אדא בר מתנה יולדת אם היא ילדה בניה מי ילדו

מתקיף לה רב אסי ומאן לימא לן דאי איכא כמה עשה גבה לא מיתכפרא וכיון דכי איכא כמה עשה גבה מיכפרא יורשיה נמי מיכפר

למימרא דקניא להו והאמר רבי יוחנן הניח מנחה לשני בניו ומת קריבה ואין בו שותפות ואי ס"ד קניא להו (ויקרא ב, א) נפש אמר רחמנא

ולא קניא להו והאמר ר' יוחנן הניח בהמה לשני בניו ומת קריבה ואין ממירין בה אי אמרת בשלמא קניא להו היינו דאין ממירין בה דהויא להו כשותפין

As for the thanksgiving-offering [it is not ‘accepted’] because it requires loaves [as an accompaniment]!1 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?2 — Surely the Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] ‘it’.3 [Mnemonic: Hagesh Basar]4 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?5 But R. Eleazar could have answered him that the guilt-offering too comes after death?6 — Said R. Shesheth to them: In what way is a guilt-offering brought? As a remainder!7 Then the remainder of a sin-offering too is indeed offered.8 [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]!9 — But in connection with the guilt-offering too hu [it] is written?10 — 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.11 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.12 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.13 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?14 — 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?15 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?16 And since she would be forgiven if she had been guilty of neglecting affirmative precepts, then her heirs too may thus be atoned for!17 — Are we then to say that they [the heirs] acquire it?18 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.19 If however you think that they acquire a title to it, surely the Divine Law saith, And when a soul [bringeth a meal-offering]!20 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.21 Now it is well if you say that they acquire it; for that reason they cannot effect substitution with it, because they become partners, consisting of key letters of the names of the Amoraim in the two paragraphs that follow. sacrifice, viz., a burnt-offering. first is subsequently offered, the second is treated as a guilt-offering whose owner died. Thus a sin-offering too may be brought after death, and yet if it is sacrificed for a different purpose it is invalid; then a guilt-offering too should be invalid, and this justifies Resh Lakish's difficulty. Lord; it is a sin-offering. This emphatic hu (‘it is’) implies that it must be brought as such, and if offered as a different sacrifice, it is invalid. a guilt-offering. invalid, since the sacrifice is fit even if the emurim are not burnt at all. would eventually have been brought from its proceeds (v. note 2). The flesh is then burnt on the altar, while the hide belongs to the priest. burnt-offering if it was slaughtered without a defined purpose. precepts and negative precepts which are technically regarded as having been transformed into positive precepts. I.e where the violation of a negative precept necessitates the performance of a positive one: e.g., the violation of ‘Thou shalt not rob’ (Lev. XIX, 13) necessitates the performance of the positive precept, ‘he shall restore that which he took by robbery’ (ib. V, 23) — Thus this burnt-offering would serve another purpose too. brought by one person only. But if heirs acquire a title to their father's sacrifices, this meal-offering has now two owners. sacred (Lev. XXVII, 33). This is called effecting substitution. Here this does not apply, so that if they declare a substitute for it, it does not become sacred.