As for the thanksgiving-offering [it is not ‘accepted’] because it requires loaves [as an accompaniment]! (1) Then let the burnt-offering and peace-offerings prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of the one is not that of the other, and that of the other is not that of the first. The factor common to all is that 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 guiltoffering which is holy, and hence if one slaughters it not in its name it is valid and is not accepted. [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. 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 guiltoffering too which is holy, etc. What reason do you see to assimilate it to peace-offerings: assimilate it to the sin-offering? (2) — Surely the Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] ‘it’. (3) [Mnemonic: Hagesh Basar] (4) R. Huna and R. Nahman were sitting, and R. Shesheth sat with them. They sat and said: Now Resh Lakish had experienced a difficulty, what about the guilt-offering which does not come after death? (5) But R. Eleazar could have answered him that the guiltoffering too comes after death? (6) — Said R. Shesheth to them: In what way is a guiltoffering brought? As a remainder! (7) Then the remainder of a sin-offering too is indeed offered. (8) [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]! (9) — But in connection with the guiltoffering too hu [it] is written? (10) — 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 emurim, and in fact if the emurim are not burnt at all it [the offering] is valid. (11) Then what is the purpose of ‘it’? — For R. Huna's teaching in Rab's name. For R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a guiltoffering was transferred to pasture and one then slaughtered it without a defined purpose, it is valid. (12) 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. (13) 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? (14) — 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? (15) 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? (16) And since she would be forgiven if she had been guilty of neglecting affirmative precepts, then her heirs too may thus be atoned for! (17) — Are we then to say that they [the heirs] acquire it? (18) 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. (19) If however you think that they acquire a title to it, surely the Divine Law saith, And when a soul [bringeth a mealoffering]! (20) 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. (21) Now it is well if you say that they acquire it; for that reason they cannot effect substitution with it, because they become partners,

---

(1). ↑ V. Lev, VII, 12.
(2). ↑ Which is mentioned in the same verse.
(3). ↑ As supra a.
(4). ↑ 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.
(5). ↑ Supra 5a.
(6). ↑ 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.
(7). ↑ As explained in preceding note.
(8). ↑ E.g., if a man sets aside two animals for his sinoffering, 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.
(9). ↑ 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. This emphatic hu (‘it is’) implies that it must be brought as such, and if offered as a different sacrifice, it is invalid.
(10). ↑ 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.
(11). ↑ 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.
(12). ↑ If it was slaughtered (in the Temple court) before it became blemished ‘ it is valid as a burntoffering, 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.
(13). ↑ 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.
(14). ↑ For the heirs.
(15). ↑ They do not need the sacrifice.
(16). ↑ 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.
(17). ↑ If they were guilty of the same.
(18). ↑ And it becomes their own, so that it can make atonement for them.
(19). ↑ All sacrifices may be brought in partnership, except a meal-offering. Here this does not apply.
(20). ↑ 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.
(21). ↑ 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.