Zevachim 10
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'
The factor common to all is 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 i is valid and is not accepted.
מאי חזית דאקשת לשלמים אקיש לחטאת
[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.
הא מיעט רחמנא אותה
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is mentioned in the same verse.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
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
[Mnemonic: Hagesh Basar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object of this mnemonic, which means 'bring near flesh' is not clear. D.S. emends into Hanesh Nashad, consisting of key letters of the names of the Amoraim in the two paragraphs that follow.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אשם נמי כתיב ביה הוא
But R'Eleazar could have answered him that the guilt-offering too comes after death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when its owner dies, it is left to graze until it contracts a blemish, whereupon it is sold and the money spent on a sacrifice, viz., a burnt-offering.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ניתק אין לא ניתק לא מאי טעמא אמר קרא הוא בהווייתו יהא
Then the remainder of a sin-offering too is indeed offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if a man sets aside two animals for his sin-offering, in case one is lost the other should be available. When the 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.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
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
[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]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 24 (referring to the sin-offering, brought 'when a ruler sinneth') : And he shall . . kill it . . before The Lord; it is a sin-offering. Thi emphatic hu ('it is') implies that it must be brought as such, and if offered as a different sacrifice, it is invalid.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אמר להן רב אדא בר מתנה יולדת אם היא ילדה בניה מי ילדו
- But in connection with the guilt-offering too hu [it] is written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 5: And the priest shall make them smoke on the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is (hu) a guilt-offering.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מתקיף לה רב אסי ומאן לימא לן דאי איכא כמה עשה גבה לא מיתכפרא וכיון דכי איכא כמה עשה גבה מיכפרא יורשיה נמי מיכפר
- 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 emur and in fact if the emurim are not burnt at all it [the offering] is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. , we cannot say that it teaches that if the emurim are burnt in the name of a different sacrifice this offering is invalid, since the sacrifice is fit even if the emurim are not burnt at all.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
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
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was slaughtered (in the Temple court) before it became blemished ' it is valid as a burnt-offering, since that 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.');"><sup>12</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence unless it was formally transferred to grazing on the instructions of the Beth din, it is not valid as a burnt-offering if it was slaughtered without a defined purpose.');"><sup>13</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the heirs.');"><sup>14</sup></span> - 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They do not need the sacrifice.');"><sup>15</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the burnt-offering necessitated by childbirth. Burnt-offerings make atonement for the violation of positive 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.');"><sup>16</sup></span> And since she would be forgiven if she had been guilty of neglecting affirmative precepts, then her heirs too may thus be atoned for!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they were guilty of the same.');"><sup>17</sup></span> - Are we then to say that they [the heirs] acquire it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it becomes their own, so that it can make atonement for them.');"><sup>18</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All sacrifices may be brought in partnership, except a meal-offering. Here this does not apply.');"><sup>19</sup></span> If however you think that they acquire a title to it, surely the Divine Law saith, And when a soul [bringeth a meal-offering]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 1. - So literally; E.V. and when any one. From this word 'a soul' the Talmud deduces that it can be brought by one person only. But if heirs acquire a title to their father's sacrifices, this meal-offering has now two owners.');"><sup>20</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a person dedicates an animal for a sacrifice, he must not propose another as a substitute; if he does, both are 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.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Now it is well if you say that they acquire it; for that reason they cannot effect substitution with it, because they become partners,