Zevachim

— It [a sin-offering] does not make a fixed atonement but it does make a floating atonement.1 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.2 Alternatively, it is logical: because he has made an alteration therein, etc. as stated at the beginning of this chapter. 3 Raba also said: If a burnt-offering is brought after [the] death [of its owner], and is slaughtered under a changed sanctity,4 it is invalid;5 but [if it is slaughtered] with a change in respect of ownership,6 it is valid, for there is no ownership after death. But R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi maintained: There is ownership after death.7 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;8 or perhaps, if he [the heir] has violated many affirmative precepts, it makes atonement for him?9 I maintain it particularly, he answered him. Raba said further: A burnt-offering is a votive gift.10 For how is it possible?11 If there is no repentance, then the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination!12 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.13 Hence it follows that it is a votive gift. (Mnemonic: For whom does a sin-offering atone? A burnt-offering after a votive gift.)14 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?15 [Because it is] like an intercessor who enters [to appease the King]: When the intercessor has appeased [him], the gift follows.16 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;17 [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,18 [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,19 apply the teaching to change in respect of owner. We have thus found it as a regulation;20 how do we know that it is indispensable?21 — Scripture saith, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God.22 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?23 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?24 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’25 teaches that it is indispensable, both in the former and in the latter cases. 26 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].27 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].28 Now it was taught: In the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings29 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.30 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.31 How do we know it of the sin-offering?32 — Because it is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering,33 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, 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. were. intimate that this regulation is indispensable. 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. making it indispensable. in the original which the commentaries delete.