## Zevachim Daf 5a

###### Zevachim 5a:1
[Zevachim 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:1)

לָא יָדַע בְּמַאי; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לִיפַּסְלוּ; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that we **do not know what** requirement does not disqualify the offering if not fulfilled. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** the verse: **This is the law,** juxtaposing all offerings with a peace offering, which must be performed for its own sake. **And if the Merciful One had written** only the verse: **This is the law, I would say** that offerings sacrificed not for their sake **should be disqualified.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes** the verse: **That which is gone out of your lips,** teaching that they are accepted, though they do not satisfy their owners’ obligations.


###### Zevachim 5a:2
[Zevachim 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:2)

רְמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ עַל מְעוֹהִי בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, וּמַקְשֵׁי: אִם כְּשֵׁרִים הֵם – יְרַצּוּ! וְאִם אֵין מְרַצִּין – לָמָּה בָּאִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Reish Lakish raised a difficulty while lying on his stomach in the study hall: If** offerings that were sacrificed for the sake of the wrong type of offering or someone other than the owner **are fit, let them propitiate** God, i.e., let them satisfy the obligation of their owners; **and if they do not propitiate** God, **why are they brought** as offerings at all?


###### Zevachim 5a:3
[Zevachim 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:3)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) [אֶלְעָזָר]: מָצִינוּ בְּבָאִין לְאַחַר מִיתָה, שֶׁהֵן כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין. דִּתְנַן: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה חַטָּאתָהּ וּמֵתָה – יָבִיאוּ יוֹרְשִׁין עוֹלָתָהּ. עוֹלָתָהּ וּמֵתָה – לֹא יָבִיאוּ יוֹרְשִׁין חַטָּאתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said to him: We have found** a precedent for this **in** the case of offerings **brought after** the **death** of their owners, **as they are fit, but they do not propitiate** God, as they do not have owners requiring atonement. This is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Kinnim* 2:5): With regard to **a woman** after childbirth **who brought her sin offering and** then **died,** the **heirs shall bring her burnt offering.** If she brought **her burnt offering and** then **died,** the **heirs shall not bring her sin offering.** Evidently, a burnt offering is sacrificed even if it does not satisfy its owner’s obligation.


###### Zevachim 5a:4
[Zevachim 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ בְּעוֹלָה, דְּאָתְיָא לְאַחַר מִיתָה; אָשָׁם, דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to him: I concede to you with regard to a burnt offering** that it is sacrificed even if it does not satisfy its owner’s obligation, **since it is brought** even **after** its owner’s **death** in the case of the woman who died after bringing her sin offering. But **from where do we** derive that **a guilt offering, which** is brought for atonement and therefore **not brought after** its owner’s **death,** is brought even in a case where it was slaughtered not for its sake and therefore will not satisfy its owner’s obligation?


###### Zevachim 5a:5
[Zevachim 5a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי מַחְלוֹקְתְּךָ בְּצִידּוֹ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Elazar **said to him: Your** side of the **dispute** is written in the mishna **next to** the opinion that you find difficult. Following the opinion in the mishna (2a) that only a sin offering and a Paschal offering are disqualified if they are slaughtered for the sake of the wrong type of offering, the mishna teaches that **Rabbi Eliezer says: The guilt offering too** is unfit when sacrificed not for its sake.


###### Zevachim 5a:6
[Zevachim 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:6)

אָמַר: זֶהוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִין עָלָיו אָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא?! קָאָמֵינָא אֲנָא מִשְׁנָה שְׁלֵימָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said** in reference to Rabbi Elazar: **Is he** the one **of whom people say** that **he is a great man? I am referring to the entire mishna,** specifically to the opinion of the first *tanna*, which is the accepted *halakha*. **And you say to me** that the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** resolves my difficulty?


###### Zevachim 5a:7
[Zevachim 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֶפְתַּח אֲנָא פִּתְחָא לְנַפְשַׁאי: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״ – הַאי נְדָבָה?! נֶדֶר הוּא! כּוּ׳ כְּדִלְעֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Reish Lakish said: I will introduce a solution to my own** difficulty. He then recited the exegesis stated above: The verse states: **“That which has gone out of your lips** you shall observe and do, **etc.”** How can **this** be referring to **a gift** offering? **It is** already referred to as **a vow** offering; **and so on, as** stated **above.** In other words, it is derived from a verse that although the offering does not satisfy the obligation of its owner, it is fit to be sacrificed as a gift offering.


###### Zevachim 5a:8
[Zevachim 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:8)

יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא, וְיָתֵיב אַבָּיֵי גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָשָׁם דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״; אֵימָא: הַבָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּבִנְדָבָה – לֵייתֵי וְלָא לִירַצֵּי, אָשָׁם – לָא לֵייתֵי כְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba were sitting, and Abaye was sitting with them. And they were sitting and saying:** The case of **a guilt offering was difficult for Reish Lakish, as** a guilt offering is **not brought after** the owner’s **death, and he adduced the derivation** from the verse: **“That which has gone out of your lips,”** as a solution **to it.** This resolution is difficult: Why not **say** that only an offering **that is brought for a vow or a gift is brought** even in a case where it **does not propitiate,** since the verse mentions a vow and a gift; but **a guilt offering,** which is not brought voluntarily, **should not be brought at all** if it was slaughtered for the sake of the wrong type of offering. How does the verse resolve Reish Lakish’s difficulty?


###### Zevachim 5a:9
[Zevachim 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:9)

אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵהָכָא פְּתַח: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת״; אוֹתָהּ – לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה; הָא שְׁאָר קֳדָשִׁים – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁרִין. יָכוֹל יְרַצּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to them:** Although **Reish Lakish** cited that verse, he actually **introduced** the solution to his difficulty **from here: “And slaughter it for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:33). It is derived from the word **“it”** in this verse that if a sin offering is slaughtered **for its sake,** it is **fit;** if it is slaughtered **not for its sake,** it is **unfit. Consequently, other offerings** slaughtered **not for their sake,** including a guilt offering, **are fit.** And since one **might** have thought that once they are fit, they also **propitiate** God, **the verse states: “That which has gone out of your lips,”** from which it is derived that such an offering does not satisfy its owner’s obligation.


###### Zevachim 5a:10
[Zevachim 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:10)

וְאֵימָא: הַבָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה – לֵייתֵי וְלָא לִירַצֵּי, אָשָׁם (נָמֵי) – אַרְצוֹיֵי נָמֵי לִירַצֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba asked him: **But** since the phrase in the verse “that which has gone out of your lips” is referring to offerings **brought for a vow or a gift,** why not **say** that only these offerings **do not propitiate** God even though **one must bring** them if slaughtered for the sake of the wrong offering, but **a guilt offering** slaughtered for the sake of the wrong offering **propitiates** God **as well?**


###### Zevachim 5a:11
[Zevachim 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָשָׁם דְּמִירַצֵּי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעוֹלָה; וּמָה עוֹלָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת – אֵינָהּ מְרַצָּה, אָשָׁם שֶׁמְּכַפֵּר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** in response: **You cannot say that a guilt offering** that was slaughtered for the sake of the wrong offering **propitiates** God, due to **an *a fortiori*** inference **from a burnt offering: Just as a burnt offering, which does not atone** for a sin as it is brought as a vow or gift offering, still **does not propitiate** God if it was slaughtered for the sake of the wrong offering, so too, with regard to **a guilt offering, which atones** for a sin and is therefore treated more stringently, **is it not logical that it does not propitiate** God?


###### Zevachim 5a:12
[Zevachim 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:12)

מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the inference: **What** is unique **about a burnt offering?** It is unique **in that it is** totally **consumed** on the altar. By contrast, the meat of a guilt offering is eaten by priests. Since in some ways a burnt offering is treated more stringently than a guilt offering, no *a fortiori* inference can be derived from one to the other.


###### Zevachim 5a:13
[Zevachim 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:13)

שְׁלָמִים יוֹכִיחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A peace offering can prove** that this aspect is not relevant, since it is not totally consumed on the altar, and still if slaughtered for the sake of the wrong offering it does not satisfy its owner’s obligation. The inference can therefore be drawn from a peace offering rather than a burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 5a:14
[Zevachim 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:14)

מָה לִשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין נְסָכִין וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is unique **about a peace offering?** It is unique **in that it requires libations, and the waving of** the **breast and** the right **hind leg.**


###### Zevachim 5a:15
[Zevachim 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:15)

עוֹלָה תּוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁהֵן קֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁירִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם – שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ, וּשְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: If so, **a burnt offering can prove** the point, since these stringencies do not apply to it. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. At this stage the *halakha* is derived from a combination of the two sources: **The aspect of this** case, a burnt offering, **is not like the aspect of that** case, the peace offering. **And the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case. **Their common element is that they are offerings and** if one **slaughtered them not for their sake, they are fit but they do not propitiate. So too, I shall include a guilt offering** in this *halakha*, **as it is an offering, and** therefore if one **slaughtered it not for its sake,** it is **fit but it does not propitiate.**


###### Zevachim 5a:16
[Zevachim 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:16)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּצִיבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is unique **about their common element,** i.e., the common element of a burnt offering and a peace offering? These offerings are unique **in that they are** brought **by** the **public.** There are communal burnt offerings and peace offerings, but there are no communal guilt offerings.


###### Zevachim 5a:17
[Zevachim 5a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5a:17)

תּוֹדָה תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **A thanks offering can prove** the point, since there are no communal thanks offerings, and still a thanks offering slaughtered not for its sake does not satisfy its owner’s obligation.