Zevachim

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.