זבחים 7 — Soncino English Talmud

¹cannot be redeemed, according to R. Simeon's view, as long as they are unblemished, while on the view of the Sages they can be redeemed while unblemished. Moreover, surely R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: If the blood of the Pentecostal he-goats was received in two basins, and the blood of one was sprinkled, what is the purpose of the second? [To which he replied:] On account of defilement that occurred between the sprinkling [of the blood] of the one and that of the other. Thus he is in doubt only in respect of [the violation of] a positive command after the slaughtering, but he does not ask in respect of [the violation of] a positive command after the separating [of the animal]! — [No:] Perhaps his question is hypothetical. It was taught: If one slaughtered a thanksoffering in the name of his fellow's thanksoffering, — Rabbah ruled: It is valid; while R. Hisda said: It is invalid. Rabbah ruled, ‘It is valid’, [because] a thanksoffering has been slaughtered as a thanksoffering. R. Hisda said, ‘It is invalid’, because it must be slaughtered in the name of his peace-offering. Rabbah said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering: Abba Hanin said on R. Eliezer's authority: This comes to teach that if a thanksoffering is slaughtered in the name of a peace-offering, it is valid; if a peace-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanksoffering, it is invalid. What is the difference between these two cases? A thanksoffering is designated a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering. Thus a peace-offering [slaughtered] as a thanksoffering is invalid, whence it follows that a thanksoffering [slaughtered] as a [different] thanksoffering is valid. Surely that means, [even in the name] of his fellow's [thanksoffering]. No: only [when brought in the name of] his own. But what if it is [in the name of] his fellow's: it is invalid? Then instead of teaching, ‘if a peace-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanksoffering, it is invalid’, let him teach, ‘if a thanksoffering [is slaughtered in the name of] a thanksoffering [of a different class, it is invalid], and how much more so a peace-offering in the name of a thanksoffering? — He wishes to teach of a peace-offering [slaughtered] in the name of his own thanksoffering. You might argue, Since a thanksoffering is designated a peace-offering, a peace-offering too is designated a thanksoffering, and when he kills it [the former] in the name of the thanksoffering, it should be valid. Therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. Raba said: If one slaughters a sin-offering [for one offence] as a sin-offering [for another offence], it is valid; as a burnt-offering, it is invalid, What is the reason? The Divine Law saith, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering, and lo, a sin-offering has been slaughtered for a sin-offering; [while from the same verse we learn that if it is slaughtered] for a burnt-offering, it is invalid. Raba also said: If one slaughters a sin-offering on behalf of [another] person who is liable to a sin-offering, it is invalid; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is valid. What is the reason? — [And the priest] shall make atonement for him, but not for his fellow, and ‘his fellow’ implies one like himself, being in need of atonement as he is. Raba also said: If one slaughters a sin-offering on behalf of a person who is not liable in respect of anything at all, it is invalid, because there is not a single Israelite who is not liable in respect of an affirmative precept; and Raba said: A sin-offering makes atonement for those who are liable in respect of an affirmative precept, a fortiori: seeing that it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth, how much the more for those who are liable in respect of an affirmative precept! Shall we then say that it belongs to the same category? But surely Raba said: If one slaughters a sinoffering on behalf of [another] person who is liable to a sin-offering, it is invalid; on behalf of a person who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is valid? 23^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:For we assume a tacit stipulation of the Beth din that it be permitted to redeem them even while unblemished (normally this is forbidden) and thus, becoming hullin, they can be purchased with the new shekels and then be offered as daily burnt-offerings. R. Simeon however rejects this assumption, and therefore holds that they cannot be redeemed but must be offered as extra public sacrifices.
^ᵇnote:Even assuming that the Biblical text itself might be explained as referring to the case where the two goats were separated one after the other.
^ᶜnote:They were both killed at the same time.
^ᵈnote:According to R. Simeon, since no defilement could occur in the interval, as they were killed simultaneously.
^ᵉnote:Presumably R. Jeremiah was certain that according to R. Simeon it does make atonement in that case.
^ᶠnote:He may be in doubt about the latter too, but his question is this: on the hypothesis that R. Simeon holds that it does make atonement in the latter case, how is it in the former one?
^ᵍnote:A and B each brought one, and A's offering was killed for the purpose for which B's was brought.
^ʰnote:He has done his duty, and does not bring another.
^ⁱnote:Cf. Lev. VII, 15: And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving.
^ʲnote:Ibid.
^ᵏnote:Supra 4a
^ˡnote:Belonging to a different class.
^ᵐnote:Even if he killed it for a different reason. E.g.,he brought a thanksoffering for being freed from prison, but declared it to be on account of having made a sea-journey in safety. Here, though the reason is different, yet both belong to the same category, and therefore it is valid,
^ⁿnote:Where he was to bring both,
^ᵒnote:V. Supra 3b.
^ᵖnote:Lev, IV, 33.
^ᵠnote:V. infra 7b.
^ʳnote:Ibid 26,31,35.
^ˢnote:V. Supra 3b.
^ᵗnote:Actually specifying thus.
^ᵘnote:Hence it is the same as though he had slaughtered it on behalf of another person who is liable to a sin-offering.
^ᵛnote:I.e., that sins of omission fall into the same category as offences entailing a sin-offering.
^ʷnote:Now a burnt-offering atones for sins of omission. But if these fall into the same category as offences entailing a sin-offering, then just as the latter is invalid when slaughtered on behalf of another who is liable to a sin-offering, so should it be invalid when slaughtered on behalf of another who is liable to a burnt- offering, for ‘his fellow’ is then like himself (V. supra).

²— It [a sin-offering] does not make a fixed atonement but it does make a floating atonement. Raba also said: If a burnt-offering was killed for a different purpose, its blood must not be sprinkled for a different purpose. This follows either from Scripture or by reason. If you will, it is [deduced from] a text: That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe, etc. Alternatively, it is logical: because he has made an alteration therein, etc. as stated at the beginning of this chapter. Raba also said: If a burnt-offering is brought after [the] death [of its owner], and is slaughtered under a changed sanctity, it is invalid; but [if it is slaughtered] with a change in respect of ownership, it is valid, for there is no ownership after death. But R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi maintained: There is ownership after death. R. Ashi asked R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi: Do you particularly maintain that there is ownership after death, and so he [the heir] must bring another burnt-offering; or perhaps, if he [the heir] has violated many affirmative precepts, it makes atonement for him? I maintain it particularly, he answered him. Raba said further: A burnt-offering is a votive gift. For how is it possible? If there is no repentance, then the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination! While if there is repentance, surely it was taught: If one violated an affirmative precept and repented, he does not stir thence until he is forgiven. Hence it follows that it is a votive gift. (Mnemonic: For whom does a sin-offering atone? A burnt-offering after a votive gift.) It was taught likewise. R. Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? — [You ask,] ‘for what purpose does a sin-offering come?’ Surely in order to make atonement! — Rather, [the question is:] Why does it come before the burnt-offering? [Because it is] like an intercessor who enters [to appease the King]: When the intercessor has appeased [him], the gift follows. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SIN- OFFERING. How do we know it of the Passover-offering? — Because it is written, Observe the month of Abib, and prepare the Passover-offering; [this intimates] that all its preparations must be in the name of the Passover-offering. We have thus found [that] change in respect of sanctity [disqualifies it]; how do we know [the same of] change in respect of owner? — Because it says, Then ye shall say: It is the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover, [which teaches] that the ‘slaughtering’ must be done in the name of the Passover-offering. Now since this teaching is redundant in respect of change in respect of sanctity, apply the teaching to change in respect of owner. We have thus found it as a regulation; how do we know that it is indispensable? — Scripture saith, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God. To this R. Safra demurred: Does this [passage], ‘And thou shalt sacrifice etc.’ come for this purpose: Surely it is required for R. Nahman's dictum? For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: How do we know that the leftover of a Passover-offering is brought as a peace-offering? Because it is said, ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd.’ Now surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs or from goats? Hence we learn that the left-over of the Passover-offering is to be [utilised] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd; and what is it?A peace-offering. — Rather, said R. Safra: ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering’ [is required] for R. Nahman's dictum; ‘Observe the month of Abib’ [is required] for the regulation in respect of changed sanctity; ‘ Then ye shall say: [It is] the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover’ [is required] for the regulation relating to change in respect of owner; ‘it is’ teaches that it is indispensable, both in the former and in the latter cases. Now we have thus found [it in the case of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] the other services? — Since it was revealed [in the one], it was [also] revealed [in the others]. R. Ashi said: We do not argue, ‘Since it was revealed, it was revealed’. How then do we know it of [the other] services? — Because it is written, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, [and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings]. Now it was taught: In the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings refers to the firstling, tithe, and Passover-offering. Thus Scripture assimilates it [the Passover-offering] to the peace-offering: as [in the case of the] peace-offering we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner, so in the case of all [these] do we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner. Again, it is like the peace-offering [in this respect]: As you do not differentiate in the peace-offering between slaughtering and the other services in respect of the regulation, so must you not differentiate in the case of the Passover-sacrifice between slaughtering and the other services in respect of indispensability. Then in that case, what is the purpose of ‘it is’? — For what was taught: As for the Passover-offering, ‘it is’ is stated there to teach indispensability as far as slaughtering is concerned; whereas in the case of a guilt-offering ‘it is’ is stated only after the burning of the emurim, and in fact if the emurim are not burnt at all, it [the offering] is valid. How do we know it of the sin-offering? — Because it is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering, which intimates that it must be killed for the sake of a sin-offering. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving [the blood]? — Because it is written,^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ

^ˣnote:Cf. supra 6a. A sin-offering does not make atonement for the omission of positive precepts when it is directly dedicated for that purpose only, but only when it is dedicated for sins which entail a sin-offering, but whose owner has also been guilty of sins of omission. Since it does not atone for sins of omission standing by themselves, one who is in need of a burnt-offering (on account of sins of omission) is not ‘his fellow’ similar to ‘himself’, and therefore if a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of such, it is valid, provided that one had already vowed a burnt-offering, which covers all his sins of omission, so that a sin-offering is quite superfluous as far as he is concerned. But if he had not vowed a burnt-offering, a sin-offering has a certain relation to him in so far that if he was liable to a sin-offering too, this would make atonement for the sins of omission also. Hence he is sufficiently similar to his fellow to invalidate his fellow's sin-offering slaughtered on his behalf.
^ʸnote:Deut. XXIII, 24.
^ᶻnote:Supra 2a.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e as a different sacrifice, e.g a peace-offering.
^ᵃᵇnote:And another must be brought before the deceased is deemed to have fulfilled his vow.
^ᵃᶜnote:For a different person.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Supra 4b.
^ᵃᵉnote:As in n. 6.
^ᵃᶠnote:For the heir is the owner,
^ᵃᵍnote:It does not actually atone for sins of omission, but after one has repented this comes as a gift of appeasement, as it were.
^ᵃʰnote:For it to make atonement in actuality.
^ᵃⁱnote:Prov. XXI, 27.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., he is undoubtedly forgiven even without a sacrifice.
^ᵃᵏnote:A string of words so arranged as to facilitate the remembering of the subjects discussed hereunder.
^ᵃˡnote:When one has to bring both, the sin-offering takes precedence; infra 89b.
^ᵃᵐnote:Thus the sin-offering is the intercessor and the burnt-offering follows as a gift.
^ᵃⁿnote:Deut. XVI, 1.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ex. XII, 27.
^ᵃᵖnote:As that has been derived from Deut. XVI, 1.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., these verses teach that the Passover-offering must be sacrificed specifically as such and for its registered owner.
^ᵃʳnote:In the sense that it is otherwise disqualified.
^ᵃˢnote:Deut. XVI, 2. This too has the same teaching as XVI, 1. Since however it is superfluous in that case, it must intimate that this regulation is indispensable.
^ᵃᵗnote:E.g.,if an animal dedicated for a Passover-sacrifice was lost, whereupon its owners registered for another animal, and then the first was found after the second was sacrificed. Or again, if a sum of money was dedicated to buy a paschal lamb, but it was not all expended; then too the surplus must be used for a peace-offering.
^ᵃᵘnote:But not from the herd, which means the larger cattle.
^ᵃᵛnote:Heb. ‘hu’, This is regarded as superfluous and hence interpreted as emphasizing the regulation to the extent of making it indispensable.
^ᵃʷnote:A change either in respect of sanctity or owner invalidates the paschal sacrifice.
^ᵃˣnote:I.e., they follow automatically.
^ᵃʸnote:Lev, VII. 37.
^ᵃᶻnote:Ibid. 38.
^ᵇᵃnote:What is indispensable for slaughtering is also indispensable for the other services. — Here follows a short passage in the original which the commentaries delete.
^ᵇᵇnote:V. Supra 5b.
^ᵇᶜnote:That if not slaughtered for its own sake it is invalid.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lev. IV, 33.