Zevachim Daf 5 זבחים דַף 5

Reish Lakish lay on his stomach in the Beis Medrash and asked: אם כשרים הם ירצו – if [korbanos shechted שלא לשמה] are valid, they should achieve “acceptance” (i.e., fulfill their owners’ obligations). ואם אין מרצין למה באין – And if they do not achieve acceptance, why are they brought? Rebbe Elazar responded with a precedent from באין לאחר מיתה – [korbanos] brought after the owner’s death: If a woman gave birth and brought her חטאת and then died, יביאו יורשין עולתה – her heirs bring her olah. Although this cannot achieve atonement for the woman who died, the korban is still brought!? Reish Lakish conceded that an עולה, which can be brought after the owner’s death, can also be brought when shechted שלא לשמה. But an אשם, which cannot be brought after the owner’s death, should not be brought when shechted שלא לשמה!? Therefore, Reish Lakish said: אפתח אנא פתחא לנפשאי – I will find an opening (solution) for myself. Abaye explains that the word "אותה" – it written by חטאת, teaches that only a חטאת שלא לשמה is disqualified, but an אשם remains valid. He eventually derives from the היקש to שלמים that such an אשם is not מרצה.

Rebbe Elazar had demonstrated that an עולה can be brought, after the owner’s death, without being מרצה, but Reish Lakish responded that there is no such parallel for אשם, which cannot be brought after the owner’s death. Amoraim ask that Rebbe Elazar should have replied that an אשם is also brought after the owner’s death: A הלכה למשה מסיני teaches that such an אשם is left to graze until it develops a מום, after which it is redeemed, and the money is used for an עולה. Rav Sheishess answered that such an אשם is only “brought” למותרו – for its surplus (i.e., its redemption money is used for a korban, but the אשם itself is not brought). For חטאת, too, there is a case where its redemption money is used for a korban after its owner’s death (where the owner originally designated two חטאות, and one was sacrificed, and then he died). Still, a חטאת is disqualified when shechted שלא לשמה!? The Gemara answers that aחטאת שלא לשמה was specifically disqualified with the word "הוא" – it is (teaching it is only valid as a חטאת). Thus, Rebbe Elazar could have answered Reish Lakish’s challenge.

Reish Lakish had agreed to Rebbe Elazar’s proof that an עולה can be brought without providing atonement, from the fact that if a woman gave birth and died, her יורשים bring her עולה. Amoraim wondered why Reish Lakish did not reply that the יורשים could achieve atonement for themselves with the עולה!? Rav Ada bar Masnah responded: אם היא ילדה בניה מי ילדו – if she gave birth, have her sons given birth?! How can they receive atonement from her korban? To this, Rav Assi countered, who is to say that if the יולדת had several unatoned transgressions of עשה, that her עולה would not atone for them? Since it could, let it now atone for the sons’ עשה transgressions!? The Gemara objects: למימרא דקניא להו – is this to say that [the korban] is acquired by [the יורשים], that its sacrifice should atone for them?! But Rebbe Yochanan said that if someone left a מנחה for his two sons, it is sacrificed, and not disqualified as a מנחה of partners, which proves they do not acquire it!? Although Rebbe Yochanan said that יורשים who inherit a korban cannot effect תמורה with it, the Gemara explains that this is not because they acquire it (and שותפין cannot make תמורה), but because an independent derashah indicates that multiple יורשים cannot make תמורה.