## Zevachim Daf 5b

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

מָה לְתוֹדָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is unique **about a thanks offering?** It is unique **in that it requires** a meal offering of forty loaves of **bread.**


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

עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים יוֹכִיחוּ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁהֵן קֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם – שֶׁהוּא קֹדֶשׁ, וּשְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: If so, **a burnt offering and a peace offering can prove** the point, as loaves are not brought with them. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. The *halakha* is derived from a combination of the two sources: **The aspect of this** case, a burnt offering and a peace offering, **is not like the aspect of that** case, a thanks 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 do not propitiate** God. **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 does not propitiate** God.


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

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בְּנֶדֶר וּבִנְדָבָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is unique **about the common element of** a thanks offering, a burnt offering, and a peace offering? It is unique in **that** these offerings **are brought** either **as a vow** offering **or as a gift** offering, whereas a guilt offering is brought only to fulfill an obligation.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה וְגוֹ׳״ – הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהֵן קֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁרִים וְאֵין מְרַצִּין; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says: The verse: “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” (Leviticus 7:37), **juxtaposes** a guilt offering **with a peace offering,** indicating that **just as peace offerings are offerings and** if one **slaughtered them not for their sake, they are fit but do not propitiate, so too, I shall include a guilt offering, as it is an offering,** and therefore if it is slaughtered not for its sake, although it is fit, it does not satisfy the obligation of its owner.


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

מַאי חָזֵית דְּאַקֵּשְׁתְּ לִשְׁלָמִים? אַקֵּישׁ לְחַטָּאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What did you see,** i.e., why do you think it is reasonable, **that you compared** a guilt offering **to a peace offering?** Why not **compare** it **to a sin offering,** which is disqualified in such a case?


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

הָא מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״אוֹתָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One excluded** all other offerings from the *halakha* concerning a sin offering in this matter, as derived from the verse: “And slaughter **it** for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:33).


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

(סִימָן: הנ״ש בש״ר)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the *amora’im* who participated in the two following discussions: ***Heh*, *nun*, *shin*; *beit*, *shin*, *reish*.**


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

יָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא וְרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – אָשָׁם דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה; לֵימָא לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָשָׁם נָמֵי אָתֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman were sitting, and Rav Sheshet was sitting with them. And they were sitting and saying: Reish Lakish raised** his **difficulty** with regard to **a guilt offering, since it is not brought after** its owner’s **death. Let Rabbi Elazar say to him** that **a guilt offering is also** essentially **brought after** its owner’s **death,** since it is sold once it develops a blemish, and the proceeds are used to buy a burnt offering.


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

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָשָׁם לְמַאי קָרֵב – לְמוֹתָרוֹ; חַטָּאת נָמֵי מִיקְרָב קָרְבָה מוֹתָרַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said to them:** This claim can be refuted: **What** element **of a guilt offering is sacrificed** after its owner’s death? Only **its remainder,** i.e., the money from its sale that is used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. And if so, it is no different from **a sin offering, the remainder of which is also sacrificed,** and a sin offering itself is entirely disqualified if slaughtered not for its sake.


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

חַטָּאת – אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָרְבָה מוֹתָרַהּ, מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״הוּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman explained: **A sin offering** that was slaughtered not for its sake is disqualified **even though its remainder is sacrificed,** because **the Merciful One** specifically **excludes** a sin offering from being a fit offering if sacrificed not for its own sake, as derived from the verse: “And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; **it** is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). The redundant phrase “it is a sin offering” teaches that a sin offering is disqualified if sacrificed not for its own sake.


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

אָשָׁם נָמֵי כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״הוּא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **also written with regard to a guilt offering:** “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; **it** is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:5)? Why is a guilt offering not disqualified when it is slaughtered not for its sake?


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

הַהוּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב, כִּדְתַנְיָא; אֲבָל אָשָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ – אִם לֹא הַקְטִירוּ אֵימוּרִין כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** verse **is written** not with regard to the main sacrificial rites, but with regard to the stage **after the burning of the** offering’s **sacrificial portions** on the altar, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **But with regard to a guilt offering,** the term **“It** is a guilt offering” **is stated only after the burning of the sacrificial portions. And** since the guilt offering **itself** is **fit** even **if the sacrificial portions were not burned** at all, it is certainly fit if they were burned not for the sake of a guilt offering.


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

וְאֶלָּא ״הוּא״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the term **“It** is a guilt offering” to be stated at all? The Gemara answers: It is necessary **for that which Rav Huna** says that **Rav says. As Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **a guilt offering** whose owner died or whose transgression was otherwise atoned for, and **that was** therefore **consigned** by the court **to grazing** until it develops a blemish so that it can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a burnt offering, if, before it developed a blemish, someone **slaughtered it without specification** of its purpose, it is **fit** as a burnt offering.


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

נִיתַּק – אִין, לֹא נִיתַּק – לָא; מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ – בַּהֲוָויָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: If **it was consigned** to grazing, **yes,** it is fit as a burnt offering if slaughtered. By inference, if **it was not consigned** to grazing, it is **not** fit. **What is the reason** for this? **The verse states: “It** is a guilt offering,” indicating that **it shall** remain **as it is,** i.e., as a guilt offering, unless it is consigned by the court to fulfill another purpose.


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

יָתְבִי רַב נַחְמָן וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְיָתֵיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: הָא דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מָצִינוּ בְּבָאִין לְאַחַר מִיתָה שֶׁהֵן כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין – לֵימָא לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָנְהוּ נָמֵי לֵייתוֹ וְלִירַצּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet were sitting, and Rav Adda bar Mattana was sitting with them. And they were sitting and saying:** In response to **that which Rabbi Elazar said** to Reish Lakish: **We have found** a precedent for this situation **in** the case of offerings that **are brought after** their owners’ **death, as they are fit but they do not propitiate** God, **let Reish Lakish say to him: These** offerings **should also be brought and propitiate** God with regard to the heirs. Why did Reish Lakish not challenge Rabbi Elazar’s assumption?


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

אָמַר לָהֶן רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: יוֹלֶדֶת – אִם הִיא יָלְדָה, בָּנֶיהָ מִי יָלְדוּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Mattana said to them:** How can the offering of **a woman after childbirth** propitiate God after her death? **If she gave birth, did her children give birth?**


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַסִּי: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּאִי אִיכָּא כַּמָּה עֲשֵׂה גַּבַּהּ לָא מִיתְכַּפְּרָא? וְכֵיוָן דְּכִי אִיכָּא כַּמָּה עֲשֵׂה גַּבַּהּ מִיכַּפְּרָא, יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ נָמֵי מִיכַּפַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Asi objects to this** reasoning: **And who shall say to us that if** a woman **has several** violations of **positive mitzvot** for which to atone, **she does not atone** by means of the burnt offering she brings after childbirth for her purification? Clearly, such offerings can atone for transgressions other than those for which they are brought. **And since, when she has several** violations of **positive mitzvot she atones** by means of the offering, **so too,** if she dies, **her heirs atone** by this offering for their own violations of positive mitzvot.


###### Zevachim 5b:18
[Zevachim 5b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5b:18)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּקַנְיָא לְהוּ?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִנִּיחַ מִנְחָה לִשְׁנֵי בָנָיו וָמֵת – קְרֵיבָה, וְאֵין בּוֹ שׁוּתָּפוּת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קַנְיָא לְהוּ, ״נֶפֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that** the offering is **acquired by** the heirs, and this is why it atones for their transgressions? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that if one **left his two sons a meal offering and** then **died,** the offering must be **sacrificed, and it does not have** the status of a meal offering brought in **partnership? And if it enters your mind** that the offering is **acquired by** the heirs, it should be considered a meal offering brought in partnership, which is unfit, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: “And when **one** brings a meal offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 2:1). The word “one” teaches that two people cannot bring a meal offering together. Clearly, the heirs do not inherit the offering, and if so, it should not atone for their transgressions.


###### Zevachim 5b:19
[Zevachim 5b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/5b:19)

וְלָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִנִּיחַ בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁנֵי בָנָיו וָמֵת – קְרֵיבָה, וְאֵין מְמִירִין בָּהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ – הַיְינוּ דְּאֵין מְמִירִין בָּהּ, דְּהָוְיָא לְהוּ כְּשׁוּתָּפִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is** the offering **not acquired by them? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan** himself **say** that if one **left his two sons an animal** offering **and** then **died,** the offering must be **sacrificed, and they cannot effect substitution** of another animal **for it?** Even if they declare another animal to be a substitute for it, that animal is not consecrated. **Granted, if you say** that the offering is **acquired by them, this is** the reason **that they cannot effect substitution** of another animal **for it:** It is **because they are like partners,**