## Zevachim Daf 7b

###### Zevachim 7b:1
[Zevachim 7b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:1)

מִקִּיבְעָא לָא מְכַפְּרָא, מִקּוּפְיָא מְכַפְּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: A sin offering **does not atone** for violating a positive mitzva **by** its **essence,** since prohibitions and positive mitzvot are not of the same type, but it **atones** for it **incidentally.**


###### Zevachim 7b:2
[Zevachim 7b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:2)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: עוֹלָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – אָסוּר לִזְרוֹק דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says:** As for **a burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake, it is** still **prohibited to sprinkle its blood not for its sake.**


###### Zevachim 7b:3
[Zevachim 7b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:3)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְגוֹ׳״. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּשַׁנִּי בַּהּ כּוּ׳, כִּדְרֵישׁ פִּירְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Why is this so? **If you wish, cite a verse;** and **if you wish, propose a logical argument.** The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, cite a verse: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe** and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The derivation from this verse was explained in 2a. **If you wish, propose a logical argument:** Just **because** one **deviated** from protocol **in its** slaughter, shall he continue to deviate from protocol in the rest of the sacrificial process? This is **as** it was stated at **the beginning of the chapter** (2a).


###### Zevachim 7b:4
[Zevachim 7b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:4)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה; שְׁחָטָהּ בְּשִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ – פְּסוּלָה, בְּשִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים – כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּאֵין בְּעָלִים לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says:** With regard to **a burnt offering that is brought** by its owner’s heirs **after** his **death,** if one **slaughtered it with a deviation** from the type of **offering,** i.e., for the sake of another type of offering, it is **unfit,** i.e., it does not satisfy the owner’s obligation, and the heirs must therefore bring another offering. But if it was slaughtered **with a deviation** with regard to the **owner,** i.e., for the sake of another person, it is **fit, as** the offering **has no** legal **owner after** the owner’s **death.**


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

וְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי אָמַר: יֵשׁ בְּעָלִים לְאַחַר מִיתָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: דַּוְקָא קָאָמַר מָר יֵשׁ בְּעָלִים לְאַחַר מִיתָה – וּבָעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי עוֹלָה אַחֲרִיתִי; אוֹ דִּלְמָא, דְּאִי אִיכָּא כַּמָּה עֲשֵׂה גַּבֵּיהּ מְכַפְּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ami, says** that an offering **has an owner after** its owner’s **death,** specifically, the heir. **Rav Ashi said to Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ami: Is the Master saying** that an offering **actually has an owner after** its owner’s **death, and** that if it was slaughtered for the sake of the wrong owner, the heir **must bring another burnt offering,** contrary to the opinion of Rava? **Or perhaps** the Master is merely saying **that if** the heir **has several** violations of **positive mitzvot,** the offering **atones** for them, but still if it was slaughtered for the sake of the wrong owner, the heir is not required to bring another offering.


###### Zevachim 7b:6
[Zevachim 7b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּוְקָא קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pineḥas **said to him: I am saying** that the heir is **actually** the owner, and if the offering was slaughtered for someone else, he must bring another offering.


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

וְאָמַר רָבָא: עוֹלָה – דּוֹרוֹן הִיא. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֵיכָּא תְּשׁוּבָה – ״זֶבַח רְשָׁעִים תּוֹעֵבָה״! וְאִי דְּאִיכָּא תְּשׁוּבָה – הָתַנְיָא: עָבַר עַל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְשָׁב, לֹא זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁמּוֹחֲלִים לוֹ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דּוֹרוֹן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says: A burnt offering is a gift [*doron*]** to God; its essential purpose is not atonement. Rava supports his assertion: **What are the circumstances** under which a burnt offering atones for violating a positive mitzva? **If** one brings a burnt offering **without repentance** for his transgression, he may not sacrifice it at all, as **“the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination”** (Proverbs 21:27). **And if there is repentance, isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if one **violates a positive mitzva and repents,** God **forgives him before he** even **moves from** his place? If so, why is he required to bring an offering? **Rather, conclude from it** that a burnt offering **is a gift** that one brings in order to appease God even after he is forgiven.


###### Zevachim 7b:8
[Zevachim 7b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:8)

חַטָּאת עַל מִי מְכַפֵּר, עוֹלָה לְאַחַר דּוֹרוֹן – סִימָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states **a mnemonic** for this series of statements by Rava: **A sin offering atones for who, a burnt offering after a gift.**


###### Zevachim 7b:9
[Zevachim 7b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:9)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: חַטָּאת לָמָּה בָּאָה? לָמָּה בָּאָה?! לְכַפֵּר! אֶלָּא לָמָּה בָּאָה לִפְנֵי עוֹלָה? לִפְרַקְלִיט שֶׁנִּכְנָס, [רִיצָּה פְּרַקְלִיט – נִכְנָס] דּוֹרוֹן אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** last statement of Rava **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon said: For what** purpose **is a sin offering brought?** The Gemara interrupts: **For what** purpose **is it brought?** Is it not brought **to atone** for a transgression? **Rather,** Rabbi Shimon clearly meant: **For what** reason **is it brought before a burnt offering** in all circumstances where both are brought? Rabbi Shimon answered: It is comparable **to an advocate [*lifraklit*] who enters** before the king to convince him to pardon the defendant. Once the **advocate has appeased** the king, the **gift is brought in after him.**


###### Zevachim 7b:10
[Zevachim 7b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:10)

חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת כּוּ׳. פֶּסַח מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that all offerings are fit even if slaughtered not for their sake, **except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that **a Paschal offering** is required to be slaughtered for its sake?


###### Zevachim 7b:11
[Zevachim 7b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:11)

דִּכְתִיב: ״שָׁמוֹר אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב וְעָשִׂיתָ פֶּסַח״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל עֲשִׂיּוֹתָיו לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, **as it is written: “Observe the month of the spring and offer [*ve’asita*] the Paschal offering”** (Deuteronomy 16:1), teaching **that all of the actions [*asiyyotav*] of** the Paschal offering, all of its sacrificial rites, must be performed **for the sake of** the **Paschal offering.**


###### Zevachim 7b:12
[Zevachim 7b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:12)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ, שִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that **deviation** from the type of **offering** is prohibited. **From where do we** derive that **deviation** with regard to the **owner** is also prohibited?


###### Zevachim 7b:13
[Zevachim 7b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:13)

דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא זְבִיחָה לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח; אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְשִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְשִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this is derived from a verse, **as it is written: “And you shall say: It is the sacrifice [*zevaḥ*] of** the Lord’s **Passover”** (Exodus 12:27), which indicates **that** the **slaughter [*zeviḥa*] must be** performed **for the sake of** the **Paschal offering. If** the verse **is not** necessary in order **to** derive **the matter** of **deviation** from the type of **offering,** as that *halakha* is derived from Deuteronomy 16:1, **apply it** to the **matter of deviation** with regard to the **owner.**


###### Zevachim 7b:14
[Zevachim 7b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:14)

אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה, לְעַכֵּב מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source **for** the **mitzva** to sacrifice the Paschal offering for its sake and for the sake of its owner. **From where do we** derive that these intentions are **indispensable** and, if lacking, disqualify the offering?


###### Zevachim 7b:15
[Zevachim 7b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:15)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice [*vezavaḥta*] the Paschal offering unto the Lord, your God,** of the flock and the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:2). By repeating the mitzva to sacrifice the Paschal offering for its sake and for the sake of its owner, the Torah indicates that these two intentions are both indispensable to the sacrificial process.


###### Zevachim 7b:16
[Zevachim 7b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב סָפְרָא: הַאי ״וְזָבַחְתָּ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מִנַּיִן לְמוֹתַר פֶּסַח שֶׁקָּרֵב שְׁלָמִים? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ צֹאן וּבָקָר״ – וַהֲלֹא אֵין פֶּסַח בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים! מִכָּאן לְמוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח שֶׁיְּהֵא לְדָבָר הַבָּא מִן הַצֹּאן וּמִן הַבָּקָר, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – שְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Safra objects to this: Does this** verse: **“And you shall sacrifice,” come to** teach **this** *halakha*? **It is necessary for** the statement **of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: From where** is it derived **that a leftover Paschal offering,** an animal consecrated but not ultimately sacrificed on Passover eve, **is sacrificed as a peace offering** afterward? It is derived from **that** which **is stated: “And you shall sacrifice the Passover offering unto the Lord, your God, of the flock and the herd.”** The verse is difficult: **But isn’t a Paschal offering brought only from the lambs and from the goats? From here** it is derived **that a leftover Paschal offering should be** sacrificed **as** an offering **brought** both **from the flock and from the herd. And what is that?** It is **a peace offering.**


###### Zevachim 7b:17
[Zevachim 7b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח״ – לְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן; ״שָׁמוֹר אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב״ – לְמִצְוָה בְּשִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ; ״וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח״ – בְּשִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים לְמִצְוָה; ״הוּא״ – לְעַכֵּב בֵּין הָכָא וְהָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Safra says** that the verses should be expounded as follows: The verse **“And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering”** teaches the statement **of Rav Naḥman,** that a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. The verse: **“Observe the month of the spring** and offer the Paschal offering” (Deuteronomy 16:1), teaches that there is **a mitzva** to sacrifice the Paschal offering without **deviation** from the type of **offering.** The verse: **“And you shall say:** It is **the sacrifice of** the Lord’s **Passover”** (Exodus 12:27), teaches that there is **a mitzva** to slaughter it without **deviation** with regard to the **owner.** The term **“it is”** in the latter verse teaches that **both here and there,** i.e., with regard to both the offering and the owner, proper intent is **indispensable.**


###### Zevachim 7b:18
[Zevachim 7b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:18)

וְאַשְׁכְּחַן זְבִיחָה, שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת מְנָלַן? הוֹאִיל וְגַלִּי – גַּלִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Safra continues: **And we found** a source for **slaughter. From where do we** derive that **other** sacrificial **rites** must also be performed for the sake of the owner or the offering is disqualified? **Since** the Torah **revealed** that this intention is indispensable to the proper slaughter of the Paschal offering, it thereby **revealed** that it is critical to proper performance of the other rites as well.


###### Zevachim 7b:19
[Zevachim 7b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:19)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְגַלִּי גַּלִּי לָא אָמְרִינַן. אֶלָּא [עֲבוֹדוֹת] מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעוֹלָה וְלַמִּנְחָה וְגוֹ׳״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says: We do not say** that **since** the Torah **revealed** that this *halakha* is indispensable to slaughter, it thereby **revealed** that it is indispensable to the other rites as well. **Rather, from where do we** derive that it is indispensable to the other sacrificial **rites?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is written: “This is the law of the burnt offering, and 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), indicating that all offerings must, like a peace offering, be sacrificed for their own sake.


###### Zevachim 7b:20
[Zevachim 7b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:20)

וְתַנְיָא: ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב אֶת קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶם״ – זֶה בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the verse: **“In the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings”** (Leviticus 7:38), **this** word, i.e., “offerings,” is referring to the **firstborn** animal, the animal **tithe, and** the **Paschal offering,** which are not mentioned in the previous verse.


###### Zevachim 7b:21
[Zevachim 7b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:21)

הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִשְׁלָמִים. מָה שְׁלָמִים – בֵּין שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ בֵּין שִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים, בָּעֵינַן לְמִצְוָה; אַף כׇּל – בֵּין שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ בֵּין שִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים, לְמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The text juxtaposes** all types of offerings mentioned in both verses **with a peace offering,** indicating that **just as** one who sacrifices **a peace offering is required** to do so with the proper intent, **both** concerning **deviation** from the **offering and** concerning **deviation** with regard to the **owner,** and in addition, the *halakha* of proper intent is only **as a mitzva,** not as an indispensable requirement, **so too,** in the case of **any** type of offering that must have proper intent, **both** concerning **deviation** from the **offering and** concerning **deviation** with regard to the **owner,** the *halakha* of proper intent is only **as a mitzva.** Therefore, the mitzva *ab initio* is derived from the *halakha* of a peace offering; and those verses mentioned earlier repeat the *halakha* to teach that it is indispensable with regard to slaughter.


###### Zevachim 7b:22
[Zevachim 7b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:22)

וְכִשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים – בֵּין זְבִיחָה בֵּין שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת, לֹא חָלַקְתָּ בָּהֶן, לְמִצְוָה; אַף פֶּסַח – לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין זְבִיחָה לִשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת, לְעַכֵּב. (מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הוּא״ בִּזְבִיחָה – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the juxtaposition of the peace offering with the Paschal offering indicates that a Paschal offering is **similar to a peace offering** in another respect: **Just as** with regard to **a peace offering, you did not distinguish between slaughter and** the **other rites with regard to** the **mitzva** *ab initio* of proper intent, **so too, with regard to** the **Paschal offering, do not distinguish between slaughter and** the **other** sacrificial **rites** with regard **to** the *halakha* that proper intent is **indispensable.**


###### Zevachim 7b:23
[Zevachim 7b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:23)

אֶלָּא, ״הוּא״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather,** since the indispensability of proper intent with regard to the Paschal offering is derived from its juxtaposition with the peace offering, **why do I** need the term **“it is”** to be written in Exodus 12:27? What is derived from there?


###### Zevachim 7b:24
[Zevachim 7b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:24)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: נֶאֱמַר בְּפֶסַח ״הוּא״ בִּשְׁחִיטָה – לְעַכֵּב; אֲבָל אָשָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הוּקְטְרוּ אֵימוּרָיו – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is written to teach that this requirement is indispensable only in the case of a Paschal offering, and not in the case of a guilt offering. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Concerning** the **Paschal offering,** the term **“it is” is stated with regard to slaughter** in Exodus 12:27 **to** teach that intent for the owner is **indispensable. But** concerning **a guilt offering,** the term **“it is” is stated only after** the verse mentions **the burning of** the **sacrificial portions, and** since a guilt offering **itself** is **fit** even **when its portions were not burned** on the altar at all, intent for the sake of the owner at this point is certainly not indispensable.


###### Zevachim 7b:25
[Zevachim 7b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:25)

חַטָּאת מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that if **a sin offering** is sacrificed for the sake of the wrong type of offering or one other than its owner, it is disqualified? The Gemara answers: It is derived from this verse, **as it is written: “And slaughter it for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:33), teaching **that** the **slaughter must be** performed **for the sake of a sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 7b:26
[Zevachim 7b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7b:26)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁחִיטָה, קַבָּלָה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source with regard to **slaughter. From where do we** derive this with regard to **collection** of the blood? The Gemara answers: It is derived from this verse, **as it is written:**