Zevachim 9

I do not know to what this refers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I would not know that Scripture refers at all to the offering of a sacrifice for a purpose other than its own.');">¹</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If not offered for their own sake.');">²</span>

therefore the Divine Law wrote, 'that which is gone out of thy lips' etc. Resh Lakish lay face downward<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.' on his stomach.' He was very stout, v. Git. 47a.');">³</span> in the Beth Hamidrash, and raised a difficulty: If they are valid, let them be accepted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., let their owners be regarded as having fulfilled their obligations.');">⁴</span>

while if they are not accepted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they do not acquit their owners.');">⁵</span> for what purpose do they come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why are they valid? At this stage he did not know that their validity is deduced from Scripture.');">⁶</span>

- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. , they do not propitiate.');">⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in the latter case, it is a sin-offering whose owner died (the passage treats of the case where she dedicated 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.');">⁸</span>

I agree in the case of a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even if it is killed for a different purpose, it must still be offered (i.e. , the remaining rites must be carried out) .');">⁹</span> he replied, since it comes after death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same therefore applies to peace-offerings and other sacrifices which come after death.');">¹⁰</span>

but in the case of a guilt-offering which does not come after death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A guilt-offering is not brought after the death of the owner, but is left to pasture.');">¹¹</span> whence do we know [that it is valid]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Tanna of the Mishnah mentions as exceptions only the paschal-offering and sin-offering.');">¹²</span>

- He replied, Lo, [support to] your contention is [available] close at hand: R'ELIEZER SAYS, ALSO THE GUILT-OFFERING [IS INVALID].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is invalid presumably because it does not come after death.');">¹³</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' My difficulty concerns the law stated anonymously in the Mishnah, which presumably is authoritative, and it is not enough to answer me that according to R. Eliezer there is no difficulty.');">¹⁴</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish had not known of this when he raised the difficulty, and arrived at this exegesis independently.');">¹⁵</span>

etc. as above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 2.');">¹⁶</span> 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 brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. if slaughtered not in its own name, the other sacrificial rites in, connection with it must be performed.');">¹⁷</span>

but do not propitiate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the vow is not thereby fulfilled, since it was not brought in its proper name.');">¹⁸</span> but a guilt-offering is not to be brought at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice in such circumstances being considered invalid.');">¹⁹</span>

Said Abaye to them: Resh Lakish solved [the difficulty] from the following text: And he shall kill it for a sin-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 33.');">²⁰</span> only it [when slaughtered] in its own name is valid and [when slaughtered] not it its own name is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Altogether, and therefore we cannot proceed with the remaining rites.');">²¹</span>

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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that it does not propitiate as the offering for which it was originally intended.');">²²</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that another sacrifice is not required.');">²³</span>

- 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If slaughtered not under its own name.');">²⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not altogether burnt, yet are not 'accepted'.');">²⁵</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not require these,');">²⁶</span>

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 [sacrifi ' 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: ] Th factor common to both [it may be argued] is that they are [also] brought as public offerings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daily burnt-offering and the lambs of peace-offerings offered on Pentecost were public offerings. But no guilt-offering was ever a public offering.');">²⁷</span> - Then let the thanksgiving-offering prove it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was likewise never a public offering, yet conformed to the same law as the others,');">²⁸</span>