Zevachim — Daf 7b

מקיבעא לא מכפרא מקופיא מכפרא

ואמר רבא עולה ששחטה שלא לשמה אסור לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה

איבעית אימא קרא איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמור וגו' איבעית אימא סברא משום דשני בה כו' כדריש פירקא

ואמר רבא עולה הבאה לאחר מיתה שחטה בשינוי קודש פסולה בשינוי בעלים כשרה דאין בעלים לאחר מיתה

ורב פנחס בריה דרב אמי אמר יש בעלים לאחר מיתה אמר ליה רב אשי לרב פנחס בריה דרב אמי דוקא קאמר מר יש בעלים לאחר מיתה ובעי לאיתויי עולה אחריתי או דלמא דאי איכא כמה עשה גביה מכפרא

א"ל דוקא קאמינא

ואמר רבא עולה דורון היא היכי דמי אי דליכא תשובה (משלי כא, כז) זבח רשעים תועבה ואי דאיכא תשובה התניא עבר על מצות עשה ושב לא זז משם עד שמוחלים לו אלא ש"מ דורון הוא

(חטא"ת ע"ל מ"י מכפ"ר עול"ה לאח"ר דורו"ן סימ"ן)

תניא נמי הכי א"ר שמעון חטאת למה באה למה באה לכפר אלא למה באה לפני עולה לפרקליט שנכנס [ריצה פרקליט נכנס] דורון אחריו:

חוץ מן הפסח והחטאת כו': פסח מנלן

דכתיב (דברים טז, א) שמור את חדש האביב ועשית פסח שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם פסח

אשכחן שינוי קודש שינוי בעלים מנלן

דכתיב (שמות יב, כז) ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא שתהא זביחה לשם פסח אם אינו ענין לשינוי קודש תניהו ענין לשינוי בעלים

אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנלן

אמר קרא (דברים טז, ב) וזבחת פסח לה' אלהיך וגו'

מתקיף לה רב ספרא האי וזבחת להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מנין למותר פסח שקרב שלמים שנאמר (דברים טז, ב) וזבחת פסח לה' אלהיך צאן ובקר והלא אין פסח בא אלא מן הכבשים ומן העזים מכאן למותר הפסח שיהא לדבר הבא מן הצאן ומן הבקר ומאי ניהו שלמים

אלא אמר רב ספרא וזבחת פסח לכדרב נחמן שמור את חדש האביב למצוה בשינוי קודש ואמרתם זבח פסח בשינוי בעלים למצוה הוא לעכב בין הכא והכא

ואשכחן זביחה שאר עבודות מנלן הואיל וגלי גלי

רב אשי אמר הואיל וגלי גלי לא אמרינן אלא [עבודות] מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה וגו'

ותניא (ויקרא ז, לח) ביום צותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם זה בכור ומעשר ופסח

הקישו הכתוב לשלמים מה שלמים בין שינוי קודש בין שינוי בעלים בעינן למצוה אף כל בין שינוי קודש בין שינוי בעלים למצוה

וכשלמים מה שלמים בין זביחה בין שאר עבודות לא חלקת בהן למצוה אף פסח לא תחלוק בו בין זביחה לשאר עבודות לעכב (משום שנאמר הוא בזביחה אינו אלא לעכב)

אלא הוא למה לי

כדתניא נאמר בפסח הוא בשחיטה לעכב אבל אשם לא נאמר בו הוא אלא לאחר הקטרת אימורין והוא עצמו שלא הוקטרו אימוריו כשר:

חטאת מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ד, לג) ושחט אותה לחטאת שתהא שחיטה לשם חטאת

אשכחן שחיטה קבלה מנלן דכתיב

— It [a sin-offering] does not make a fixed atonement but it does make a floating atonement.1 Raba also said: If a burnt-offering was killed for a different purpose, its blood must not be sprinkled for a different purpose. This follows either from Scripture or by reason. If you will, it is [deduced from] a text: That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe, etc.2 Alternatively, it is logical: because he has made an alteration therein, etc. as stated at the beginning of this chapter. 3 Raba also said: If a burnt-offering is brought after [the] death [of its owner], and is slaughtered under a changed sanctity,4 it is invalid;5 but [if it is slaughtered] with a change in respect of ownership,6 it is valid, for there is no ownership after death. But R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi maintained: There is ownership after death.7 R. Ashi asked R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi: Do you particularly maintain that there is ownership after death, and so he [the heir] must bring another burnt-offering;8 or perhaps, if he [the heir] has violated many affirmative precepts, it makes atonement for him?9 I maintain it particularly, he answered him. Raba said further: A burnt-offering is a votive gift.10 For how is it possible?11 If there is no repentance, then the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination!12 While if there is repentance, surely it was taught: If one violated an affirmative precept and repented, he does not stir thence until he is forgiven.13 Hence it follows that it is a votive gift. (Mnemonic: For whom does a sin-offering atone? A burnt-offering after a votive gift.)14 It was taught likewise. R. Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? — [You ask,] ‘for what purpose does a sin-offering come?’ Surely in order to make atonement! — Rather, [the question is:] Why does it come before the burnt-offering?15 [Because it is] like an intercessor who enters [to appease the King]: When the intercessor has appeased [him], the gift follows.16 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SIN- OFFERING. How do we know it of the Passover-offering? — Because it is written, Observe the month of Abib, and prepare the Passover-offering;17 [this intimates] that all its preparations must be in the name of the Passover-offering. We have thus found [that] change in respect of sanctity [disqualifies it]; how do we know [the same of] change in respect of owner? — Because it says, Then ye shall say: It is the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover,18 [which teaches] that the ‘slaughtering’ must be done in the name of the Passover-offering. Now since this teaching is redundant in respect of change in respect of sanctity,19 apply the teaching to change in respect of owner. We have thus found it as a regulation;20 how do we know that it is indispensable?21 — Scripture saith, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God.22 To this R. Safra demurred: Does this [passage], ‘And thou shalt sacrifice etc.’ come for this purpose: Surely it is required for R. Nahman's dictum? For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: How do we know that the leftover of a Passover-offering is brought as a peace-offering?23 Because it is said, ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd.’ Now surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs or from goats?24 Hence we learn that the left-over of the Passover-offering is to be [utilised] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd; and what is it?A peace-offering. — Rather, said R. Safra: ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering’ [is required] for R. Nahman's dictum; ‘Observe the month of Abib’ [is required] for the regulation in respect of changed sanctity; ‘ Then ye shall say: [It is] the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover’ [is required] for the regulation relating to change in respect of owner; ‘it is’25 teaches that it is indispensable, both in the former and in the latter cases. 26 Now we have thus found [it in the case of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] the other services? — Since it was revealed [in the one], it was [also] revealed [in the others].27 R. Ashi said: We do not argue, ‘Since it was revealed, it was revealed’. How then do we know it of [the other] services? — Because it is written, 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].28 Now it was taught: In the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings29 refers to the firstling, tithe, and Passover-offering. Thus Scripture assimilates it [the Passover-offering] to the peace-offering: as [in the case of the] peace-offering we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner, so in the case of all [these] do we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner. Again, it is like the peace-offering [in this respect]: As you do not differentiate in the peace-offering between slaughtering and the other services in respect of the regulation, so must you not differentiate in the case of the Passover-sacrifice between slaughtering and the other services in respect of indispensability.30 Then in that case, what is the purpose of ‘it is’? — For what was taught: As for the Passover-offering, ‘it is’ is stated there to teach indispensability as far as slaughtering is concerned; whereas in the case of a guilt-offering ‘it is’ 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.31 How do we know it of the sin-offering?32 — Because it is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering,33 which intimates that it must be killed for the sake of a sin-offering. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving [the blood]? — Because it is written, dedicated for that purpose only, but only when it is dedicated for sins which entail a sin-offering, but whose owner has also been guilty of sins of omission. Since it does not atone for sins of omission standing by themselves, one who is in need of a burnt-offering (on account of sins of omission) is not ‘his fellow’ similar to ‘himself’, and therefore if a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of such, it is valid, provided that one had already vowed a burnt-offering, which covers all his sins of omission, so that a sin-offering is quite superfluous as far as he is concerned. But if he had not vowed a burnt-offering, a sin-offering has a certain relation to him in so far that if he was liable to a sin-offering too, this would make atonement for the sins of omission also. Hence he is sufficiently similar to his fellow to invalidate his fellow's sin-offering slaughtered on his behalf. were. intimate that this regulation is indispensable. and then the first was found after the second was sacrificed. Or again, if a sum of money was dedicated to buy a paschal lamb, but it was not all expended; then too the surplus must be used for a peace-offering. making it indispensable. in the original which the commentaries delete.