When Offerings Are Slaughtered Not for Their Own Sake

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would throw himself down on his belly in the study house and raise a difficulty: if [offerings slaughtered not for their own sake] are fit, let them effect appeasement; and if they do not effect appeasement, why do they come at all? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: I will open the gate for myself - "that which goes out of your lips you shall keep and perform" (Deuteronomy 23:24), etc. But say that one who comes [to bring an offering] in fulfillment of a vow or a freewill gift should come and not effect appeasement, but a guilt offering should not come at all? Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish opened from here: "and he shall slaughter it for a sin offering" (Leviticus 4:33) - "it," for its own sake it is fit, not for its own sake it is invalid; thus the other holy offerings, whether for their own sake or not for their own sake, are fit. One might think they effect appeasement; the verse teaches "that which goes out of your lips," etc. But say that one bringing a vow or freewill offering should come and not appease, while a guilt offering should also appease? The verse says "This is the law: for the burnt offering, for the meal offering" (Leviticus 7:37) - Scripture likened them to the peace offering: just as peace offerings slaughtered not for their own sake are fit and do not appease, so too I bring the guilt offering, fit yet not appeasing. And why did you see to liken it to the peace offering rather than to the sin offering? Because the Merciful One restricted with "it." From where do we know that a sin offering slaughtered not for its own sake is invalid? The verse says "This is the law for the burnt offering and the meal offering," etc., Scripture likened it to the peace offering: just as with the peace offering, whether a change of sanctity or a change of owner is for the precept, etc., therefore the precept is from the peace offering. And slaughter is indispensable, from "and he shall slaughter it for a sin offering," that the slaughter be for the sake of a sin offering. Receiving, from "and the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering" (Leviticus 4:34), that the receiving be for the sake of a sin offering. And sprinkling, from "and the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin" (Leviticus 5:6), that the atonement be for the sake of a sin offering. We have found the sin offering for forbidden fat, in which "for a sin offering" is written; the sin offering for idolatry, for the hearing of a voice, for the utterance of the lips, and for defilement of the Sanctuary and its holy things, in which nothing at all is written - from where do we know? The sin offering for idolatry is derived from the sin offering for forbidden fat, since it carries excision just like it. All the rest are derived by the common factor. Beit Shammai say, etc., and in the sin offering two applications [are indispensable]. Beit Hillel say: even a sin offering for which one gave a single application has effected atonement. Rava said: what is the reason of Beit Shammai? "Horns," "horns," "horns" - here are six: four for the precept, two indispensable. And Beit Hillel: "horns," "horns," "horns" - here are four: three for the precept, one indispensable. And say all are for the precept? Atonement for nothing we do not find. And if you wish, say: the written text accomplishes something and the received tradition accomplishes something - the text to add one and the tradition to subtract one. And the Tanna brings it from here, as it is taught: "and he shall make atonement," "and he shall make atonement," "and he shall make atonement" - because of the inference. For is it not a logical inference? Blood is stated below and blood is stated above: just as with the blood stated below, when one gave a single application he atoned, so too with the blood stated above, when they gave a single application he atoned. Or go this way: blood is stated within and blood is stated without; just as with the blood stated within, if he omitted one of the applications he accomplished nothing, so too with the blood stated without, if he omitted one of the applications he accomplished nothing. Let us see which it resembles: we derive an outer matter from an outer matter, and we do not derive an outer matter from an inner one. On the contrary, we derive a sin offering with four horns from a sin offering with four horns, and let the outer offering, which has no sin offering with four horns, not prove it. The verse teaches "and he shall make atonement," "and he shall make atonement," "and he shall make atonement" - because of the inference. "And he shall make atonement" even though he gave only three; "and he shall make atonement" even though he gave only two; "and he shall make atonement" even though he gave only one.