Zevachim

‘and it did not make atonement’ before Heaven?1 Did we not learn: And the rest of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed; and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord;2 if he put [it], he made atonement; while if he did not put [it], he did not make atonement — this is the view of R. Akiba. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: It is but the residue of a precept,3 therefore whether he did put [it on his head] or he did not, he made atonement, yet we regard him as though he did not make atonement. What is meant by ‘as though he did not make atonement’? Shall we say, that he must bring another sacrifice? But you say, ‘Whether he did put or he did not put, he made atonement’! Hence it must mean, ‘It made atonement’ — for the person, ‘yet it did not make atonement’ — before Heaven. Then here too [it may mean that] ‘it did make atonement etc’! — [No:] there too It means that ‘he made atonement’ — in respect of putting it on the thumbs,4 but ‘he did not make atonement’ — in respect of the putting it on the head.5 Come and hear: R. Simeon said: For what purpose are the [sacrificial] lambs of Pentecost brought?6 [Surely] the lambs of Pentecost are peace-offerings!7 Rather the question is: For what purpose are the two he-goats of Pentecost brought?8 — [To make atonement] for the defilement of the Temple and its holy things.9 Now once the blood of the first has been sprinkled, for what purpose is the second offered?10 [To make atonement] for uncleanness which [may have] occurred in the interval between the two. From this it follows that Israel should have been perpetually11 engaged in offering their sacrifices,12 but that Scripture spared them.13 Now in this case it is a positive command [violated] after the separation [of the animals],14 yet it makes atonement! — [No:] If they were separated at the same time, that indeed would be so;15 but the circumstances are that they were separated one after the other.16 Are we then to arise and assert that the written law of Scripture [that two are brought] holds good only [when they are separated] one after the other?17 — Said R. Papa: Do you speak of public sacrifices? Public sacrifices are different, because the Beth din tacitly stipulates concerning them,18 in accordance with Rab Judah's diction in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The knife draws them to their legitimate purpose.19 Said R. Joseph the son of R. Samuel to R. Papa: Does then R. Simeon accept the thesis that the Beth din makes a tacit stipulation? Surely R. Idi b. Abin said in the name of R. ‘Amram in the name of R. Isaac in the name of R. Johanan: Daily burnt-offerings which are not required for the community20 satisfactorily, in the proper way. On this interpretation it has nothing to do with the question when these precepts were violated. for the oil to be put on his head, R. Akiba rules that it must also be put again on his thumbs. blood. to be brought, and so on. the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp . . . whosoever is unclean by the dead (Num. V, 2). Since this is expressed affirmatively, it ranks as a positive command. between the separations. its being offered, and therefore it makes atonement up to that very moment. intended the knife, as it were, automatically dedicates it to a legitimate purpose, and the sacrifice is valid. The reason is that Beth din is regarded as tacitly stipulating their purpose (v. Shebu. 12b), and so the same holds good here too. was to be paid not later than the first of Nisan. From that date the statutory public sacrifices had to be purchased from the new funds, and not from the old. If animals however were purchased with the old funds, they were offered as extra public sacrifices (if it happened at any time that there was a paucity of private sacrifices), but not as the statutory public sacrifices, such as the daily burnt-offering.