Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 19, 2018 | 讚壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Zevachim 6

The gemara continues the聽question regarding the sacrifice that is no longer good because it was done with the wrong intent and yet still gets sacrificed. Can a burnt offering provide atonement for positive commandments one did not fulfill between the time the animal was designated to be sacrificed until the time it was slaughtered or only for those before the animal was designated?

讜砖讜转驻讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讜 诪诪讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪讜专讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诪专讜

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鈥 offerings.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讗讞讚 诪诪讬专 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪诪讬专讬谉

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

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讞讚 讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讙讜讗诇讬谉

Rav Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淎nd if a man will redeem [gaol yigal] any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

砖讗谞讬 诪注砖专 讚讙讘讬 讗讘讜讛讜谉 谞诪讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬谞讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讞讚 诪讬讛讗 诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 诪讬诪专

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?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜诪转讻驻专 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讛转讜专诐 诪砖诇讜 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖诇讜

But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abbahu say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

诪拽讬讘注讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专讗 诪拽讜驻讬讗 诪讻驻专讗

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬驻专讜 注诇 诪讛 砖讘讗讜 讗讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专讜

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚诇讗 讻讬驻专讜 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬驻专讜 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讘讗

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?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讻讬驻专讜 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 拽专讘

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 讻讬驻专讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诪讻讞 诇砖诪讜 拽讗转讬 讜砖谞讬 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讘讗 诇讻驻专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬驻专讜 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讘讗

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?

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诪讻驻专讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专讗

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讚拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗

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?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 诇讞讟讗转 讚讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讞讟讗 讜讞讟讗 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讚讗 讞讟讗转 讜讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讻诪讛 注砖讛 讙讘讬讛 诪讻驻专讗 讗注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 谞诪讬 诪讻驻专讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 讜讻讬 住诪讬讻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 诇讻驻专 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讜讻讬驻专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). And does placing hands atone for one鈥檚 sins? But isn鈥檛 atonement achieved only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11)? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place鈥nd it shall be accepted for him to atone鈥? 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻讬驻专 注砖讛 讚拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗注砖讛 讚住诪讬讻讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛

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鈥檚 designation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 讚住诪讬讻讛 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 砖讞讬讟 讘注诪讜讚 讜住诪讜讱 拽讗讬 讗讬诪转 拽讗 讛讜讬 注砖讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讬驻专 讙讘专讗

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

诇讗 讻讬驻专 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗

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

诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讜讛谞讜转专 讘砖诪谉 讗砖专 注诇 讻祝 讜讙讜壮 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讬驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 [讘谉 谞讜专讬] 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讛谉 讘讬谉 谞讬转谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讬转谉 讻讬驻专 讜诪注诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专

Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (Nega鈥檌m 14:10): The verse states: 鈥淎nd the rest of the oil that is in the priest鈥檚 hand he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that if the priest placed the oil on the leper鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Placement of the oil on the leper鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽专讘谉 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗诪专转 讘讬谉 谞讬转谉 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讬转谉 讻讬驻专 讗诇讗 讻讬驻专 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讻讬驻专 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬驻专 讻讜壮

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讬驻专 诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 诇讗 讻讬驻专 诪转谞讜转 讛专讗砖

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 head, and another log of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 诇诪讛 讛谉 讘讗讬谉

The Gemara returns to the matter of atonement for transgressions committed after the offering鈥檚 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?

讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖诇诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖注讬专讬 注爪专转 诇诪讛 讛谉 讘讗讬谉

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?

注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜

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.

谞讝专拽 讚诪讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 拽专讘 注诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讗讜专注讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诪讜专 诪注转讛 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛拽专讬讘 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讘讻诇 注转 讜讘讻诇 砖注讛 讗诇讗 砖讞讬住讱 讛讻转讜讘

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.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 讜拽讗 诪讻驻专讗

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.

讗讬 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

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.

讜诇讬拽讜 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻转讬讘讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讚诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 住讻讬谉 诪讜砖讻转谉 诇诪讛 砖讛谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转诪讬讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇爪讘讜专

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鈥檛 Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to animals designated as daily offerings but which in the end were not necessary for use by the public,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 6

讜砖讜转驻讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讜 诪诪讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪讜专讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诪专讜

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鈥 offerings.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讗讞讚 诪诪讬专 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪诪讬专讬谉

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

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讞讚 讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讙讜讗诇讬谉

Rav Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淎nd if a man will redeem [gaol yigal] any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

砖讗谞讬 诪注砖专 讚讙讘讬 讗讘讜讛讜谉 谞诪讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬谞讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讞讚 诪讬讛讗 诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 诪讬诪专

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?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 诪讜住讬祝 讞讜诪砖 讜诪转讻驻专 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜讛转讜专诐 诪砖诇讜 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 砖诇讜

But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abbahu say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

诪拽讬讘注讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专讗 诪拽讜驻讬讗 诪讻驻专讗

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬驻专讜 注诇 诪讛 砖讘讗讜 讗讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专讜

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚诇讗 讻讬驻专讜 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬驻专讜 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讘讗

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?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讻讬驻专讜 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 拽专讘

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 讻讬驻专讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诪讻讞 诇砖诪讜 拽讗转讬 讜砖谞讬 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讘讗 诇讻驻专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬驻专讜 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讘讗

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?

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诪讻驻专讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专讗

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讚拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗

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?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 诇讞讟讗转 讚讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讞讟讗 讜讞讟讗 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讚讗 讞讟讗转 讜讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讻诪讛 注砖讛 讙讘讬讛 诪讻驻专讗 讗注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 谞诪讬 诪讻驻专讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 讜讻讬 住诪讬讻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 诇讻驻专 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讜讻讬驻专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). And does placing hands atone for one鈥檚 sins? But isn鈥檛 atonement achieved only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11)? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place鈥nd it shall be accepted for him to atone鈥? 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻讬驻专 注砖讛 讚拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗注砖讛 讚住诪讬讻讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛

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鈥檚 designation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 讚住诪讬讻讛 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻诇 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 砖讞讬讟 讘注诪讜讚 讜住诪讜讱 拽讗讬 讗讬诪转 拽讗 讛讜讬 注砖讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讬驻专 讙讘专讗

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

诇讗 讻讬驻专 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗

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

诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讜讛谞讜转专 讘砖诪谉 讗砖专 注诇 讻祝 讜讙讜壮 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讬驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 [讘谉 谞讜专讬] 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讛谉 讘讬谉 谞讬转谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讬转谉 讻讬驻专 讜诪注诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专

Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (Nega鈥檌m 14:10): The verse states: 鈥淎nd the rest of the oil that is in the priest鈥檚 hand he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that if the priest placed the oil on the leper鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Placement of the oil on the leper鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽专讘谉 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗诪专转 讘讬谉 谞讬转谉 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讬转谉 讻讬驻专 讗诇讗 讻讬驻专 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讻讬驻专 拽诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬驻专 讻讜壮

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讬驻专 诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 诇讗 讻讬驻专 诪转谞讜转 讛专讗砖

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 head, and another log of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 诇诪讛 讛谉 讘讗讬谉

The Gemara returns to the matter of atonement for transgressions committed after the offering鈥檚 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?

讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖诇诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖注讬专讬 注爪专转 诇诪讛 讛谉 讘讗讬谉

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?

注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜

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.

谞讝专拽 讚诪讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 拽专讘 注诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讗讜专注讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诪讜专 诪注转讛 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛拽专讬讘 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讘讻诇 注转 讜讘讻诇 砖注讛 讗诇讗 砖讞讬住讱 讛讻转讜讘

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.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 讜拽讗 诪讻驻专讗

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.

讗讬 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

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.

讜诇讬拽讜 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻转讬讘讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讚诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 住讻讬谉 诪讜砖讻转谉 诇诪讛 砖讛谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转诪讬讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇爪讘讜专

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鈥檛 Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to animals designated as daily offerings but which in the end were not necessary for use by the public,

Scroll To Top