Zevachim 6

ושותפין לא מצו ממירין אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו אמורי נמי לימרו

and partners cannot effect substitution of other animals for their offering. But if you say that it is not acquired by them, and the animal is the property solely of the deceased father, let them also effect substitution on his behalf, as heirs are able to affect substitution for their deceased parents’ offerings.

שאני התם דאמר קרא אם המר ימיר לרבות את היורש אחד ממיר ואין שנים ממירין

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as although the verse states: “If he shall at all change [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), the superfluous word hamer serving to include the heir as one who is able to effect substitution, nevertheless the subject’s singular form teaches that only one heir can effect substitution, but two heirs cannot effect substitution.

מתקיף לה רב יעקב מנהר פקוד אלא מעתה גבי מעשר דכתיב ואם גאל יגאל לרבות את היורש הכי נמי אחד גואל ואין שנים גואלין

Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this derivation: If that is so, one should say the same with regard to the redemption of the second tithe, as it is written: “And if a man will redeem [gaol yigal] any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), with the superfluous word gaol serving to include the heir as one who must add the one-fifth. So too, it should be derived from the verb’s singular form that if one heir redeems the tithe, he must add one-fifth of its value, but if two heirs redeem it, they do not need to add one-fifth. In fact, the halakha is that partners must also add one-fifth.

שאני מעשר דגבי אבוהון נמי איתיה בשותפות

The Gemara answers: Redemption of the tithe is different, as the father had the ability to redeem the tithe even in partnership with another when alive. Therefore, the heirs can do so as well. By contrast, substitution of an offering cannot be effected by partners.

אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ומינה אי אמרת בשלמא קניא להו היינו דחד מיהא מימר אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו היכי מימר

Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But from this halakha itself, that two heirs cannot effect substitution of an offering, it can be proven that they acquire the offering of the deceased. Granted, if you say it is acquired by them, this is the reason that one heir, in any event, can effect substitution of another animal for the offering. But if you say it is not acquired by them, how can even one heir effect substitution?

והאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה שלו

But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one consecrates his own animal to atone for someone else and he then redeems it, he adds one-fifth of its value, as he would for any other offering he owned, but if the one for whom it atones redeems it, he need not add one-fifth, since he is not the owner. Nevertheless, only the one for whom the offering atones can render another animal a substitute for it, as in this respect only he is considered its owner. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement concludes: And if one separates teruma from his own produce to exempt the produce of another from the obligation to have teruma separated from it, the benefit of discretion is his. Only the one who separated the teruma is entitled to determine which priest receives it. Since an heir is able to effect substitution, apparently the offering atones for his transgression. This supports the claim that the heir acquires the offering.

מקיבעא לא מכפרא מקופיא מכפרא

Rav Ashi responds: The offering does not atone for the transgressions of the heirs by its essence, as it was not consecrated for their atonement, and they do not acquire it. Therefore, two heirs of a meal offering can bring it, as explained above. Yet, it does atone for them incidentally [mikkufeya]. Therefore, an heir can effect substitution of another animal for it.

איבעיא להו כיפרו על מה שבאו או לא כיפרו

§ With regard to the halakha that offerings slaughtered not for their sake are fit to be sacrificed but do not satisfy the obligations of their owners, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: After these offerings are sacrificed, did they atone for the sins for which they came, or did they not atone for them?

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי מסתברא דלא כיפרו דאי סלקא דעתך כיפרו שני למה הוא בא

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It stands to reason that they did not atone, as, if it enters your mind that they did atone, for what purpose is the second offering brought? Why is the owner required to bring another offering if the first atoned for his sin?

ואלא מאי לא כיפרו למה הוא קרב

The Gemara challenges this reasoning: Rather, what is the alternative? That they did not atone? If so, for what purpose is the first offering sacrificed?

אמר רב אשי רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הכי קא קשיא ליה אי אמרת בשלמא לא כיפרו שלא לשמו מכח לשמו קאתי ושני למה הוא בא לכפר אלא אי אמרת כיפרו שני למה הוא בא

Rav Ashi said: This is what is difficult for Rav Sheisha, i.e., Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say that such an offering did not atone, it is brought even when slaughtered not for its sake on the strength of its prior consecration for its sake. And in that case, for what purpose is the second offering brought? It is brought to atone for the sin. But if you say that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake atoned for the sin, for what purpose is the second offering brought?

איבעיא להו אעשה דלאחר הפרשה מכפרא או לא מכפרא

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, does it atone even for a violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designating the animal as an offering, or does it not atone for such a violation?

מי אמרינן מידי דהוה אחטאת מה חטאת דקודם הפרשה אין דלאחר הפרשה לא אף הכא נמי דקודם הפרשה אין לאחר הפרשה לא

The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that the halakha in this case is just as it is with regard to a sin offering, in that just as a sin offering does atone for a sin that one committed before designation of the animal but does not atone for a sin that one committed after designation, here too, a burnt offering does atone for violations that one committed before designation but does not atone for those committed after designation?

או דלמא לא דמיא לחטאת דחטאת על כל חטא וחטא בעי לאיתויי חדא חטאת והכא כיון דאיכא כמה עשה גביה מכפרא אעשה דלאחר הפרשה נמי מכפרא

Or, perhaps a burnt offering is not similar to a sin offering, as with regard to a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin he commits. But here, since a burnt offering atones even for one who has committed several violations of positive mitzvot, one may claim that it also atones even for the violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designation of the animal.

תא שמע וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא מה תלמוד לומר וסמך ונרצה לכפר שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). And does placing hands atone for one’s sins? But isn’t atonement achieved only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11)? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted for him to atone”? This teaches that if one deemed the ritual of placing hands to be a non-essential mitzva and consequently failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him blame as though the offering did not atone for his sins; and nevertheless, the offering atoned for his sins.

מאי לאו דכיפר עשה דקודם הפרשה לא כיפר אעשה דסמיכה דהוה ליה עשה דלאחר הפרשה

What, does the final clause of the baraita not mean that the offer-ing atoned for the violation of any positive mitzva that the owner committed before designation of the animal, but it did not atone for violation of the positive mitzva of placing hands on the head of the offering, as that constitutes a violation of a positive mitzva after designation of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation.

אמר רבא עשה דסמיכה קאמרת שאני התם דכל כמה דלא שחיט בעמוד וסמוך קאי אימת קא הוי עשה לאחר שחיטה לאחר שחיטה לא קא מיבעיא לן

Rava said in response: You say that the positive mitzva of placing hands is proof? There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter the offering, he remains obligated to stand and place his hands on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. When does the violation of this positive mitzva occur? It occurs after the slaughter, at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed after the slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma; clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation.

אמר ליה רב הונא בר יהודה לרבא אימא כיפר גברא

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say the baraita means that the offering atoned for the transgression of the person,

לא כיפר קמי שמיא

but it did not atone for him before Heaven, i.e., it is not accepted by God as a perfect offering.

מי לא תנן והנותר בשמן אשר על כף וגו׳ לכפר עליו לפני ה׳ אם נתן כיפר ואם לא נתן לא כיפר דברי רבי עקיבא רבי יוחנן [בן נורי] אומר שירי מצוה הן בין ניתן בין שלא ניתן כיפר ומעלין עליו כאילו לא כיפר

Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (Nega’im 14:10): The verse states: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that if the priest placed the oil on the leper’s head, it atoned for him, and he is purified, but if he did not place the oil on his head, it did not atone for him; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Placement of the oil on the leper’s head is a non-essential mitzva. Therefore, whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him, but the verse ascribes the leper blame as though it did not atone for him.

מאי כאילו לא כיפר אילימא דמבעי לאיתויי קרבן אחרינא האמרת בין ניתן בין לא ניתן כיפר אלא כיפר גברא לא כיפר קמי שמיא הכא נמי כיפר כו׳

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of the phrase: As though it did not atone for him? If we say that it is necessary for the leper to bring another offering of oil, didn’t you say that whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him? Rather, the meaning of the statement is as follows: It atoned for the person, but did not atone for him before Heaven. Here too, with regard to one who sacrificed an offering without placing hands on its head, the baraita apparently means that the offering atoned for the owner’s transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.

התם נמי כיפר מתן בהונות לא כיפר מתנות הראש

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There too, with regard to the purification process of a leper, one can explain that the oil atoned for one matter and did not atone for another: It atoned; in other words, the placement of oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, which was performed, effected its atonement. But it did not atone, i.e., there still needs to be an atonement effected by placement of oil on the leper’s head, and another log of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.

תא שמע רבי שמעון אומר כבשי עצרת למה הן באין

The Gemara returns to the matter of atonement for transgressions committed after the offering’s designation. Come and hear another proof from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot, for what sin are they brought?

כבשי עצרת שלמים נינהו אלא שעירי עצרת למה הן באין

The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita: The two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot are not brought for a sin; they are peace offerings brought with the annual public offering of two loaves of new wheat. Rather, the baraita should be emended as follows: For what sin are the goats sacrificed on Shavuot as a sin offering brought?

על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו

Rabbi Shimon answers: They are brought for the defiling of the Temple, by entering it while ritually impure, or for defiling its sacrificial foods, by partaking of them while ritually impure.

נזרק דמו של ראשון שני למה קרב על טומאה שאורעה בין זה לזה אמור מעתה ראויין היו ישראל להקריב קרבנותיהן בכל עת ובכל שעה אלא שחיסך הכתוב

Rabbi Shimon continues: Once the blood of the first goat is sprinkled on the altar, thereby atoning for this defilement, for what sin is the second one sacrificed? It is sacrificed for any incident involving impurity that may have occurred between the sacrifice of that first goat and the sacrifice of this second goat. Based on this, say that the Jewish people should have had to sacrifice their offerings at all times and at every moment, as perhaps they sinned in the interim; but the verse spared them of this obligation.

והא הכא דעשה דלאחר הפרשה וקא מכפרא

The Gemara infers: And here, where an incident involving impurity occurred between the sacrifice of the two goats, is a case where the positive mitzva of distancing ritually impure people from the Temple was violated after the designation of the offering, as both goats were designated in advance. And nevertheless, the second goat atones for the violation. Evidently, an offering can atone for transgressions committed after its designation.

אי דאפרשינהו בבת אחת הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דאפרשינהו בזה אחר זה

The Gemara rejects this inference: If both goats were designated simultaneously, this would indeed be evidence to that effect. But here we are dealing with a case where they were designated sequentially, and an incident involving impurity may have occurred between their respective designations.

וליקו ולימא ליה לקרא דכי כתיבא בזה אחר זה כתיבא

The Gemara challenges this assertion: But shall we stand and say about the verse mandating these two sin offerings that when it is written, it is written specifically with regard to a case where they are designated sequentially?

אמר רב פפא קרבנות צבור קאמרת שאני קרבנות צבור דלב בית דין קמתנה עליהן כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל קרבנות צבור סכין מושכתן למה שהן

Rav Pappa said the inference can be rejected for a different reason: Do you say that evidence can be adduced from communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, as the court makes a non-verbal stipulation about them, in accordance with what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to communal offerings, the slaughtering knife, i.e., the act of slaughter, designates them for what they are. The court stipulates that the second goat be consecrated as it is sacrificed, and it therefore atones for incidents of impurity that occur beforehand. Individual offerings, by contrast, are all designated in advance.

אמר ליה רב יוסף בריה דרב שמואל לרב פפא ומי אית ליה לרבי שמעון לב בית דין מתנה עליהן האמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן תמידין שלא הוצרכו לצבור

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shmuel, said to Rav Pappa: But does Rabbi Shimon accept the opinion that the court can make a non-verbal stipulation about communal offerings? Doesn’t Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to animals designated as daily offerings but which in the end were not necessary for use by the public,