Commentary for Zevachim 10:19

ולא קניא להו והאמר ר' יוחנן הניח בהמה לשני בניו ומת קריבה ואין ממירין בה אי אמרת בשלמא קניא להו היינו דאין ממירין בה דהויא להו כשותפין

For R'Huna said in the name of Rab: If a guilt-offering was transferred to pasture and one then slaughtered it without a defined purpose, it is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was slaughtered (in the Temple court) before it became blemished ' it is valid as a burnt-offering, since that would eventually have been brought from its proceeds (v. note 2) . The flesh is then burnt on the altar, while the hide belongs to the priest.');">¹²</span> Thus, if it was transferred, it is so, but if it was not transferred, it is not so. What is the reason? Scripture says, 'it is', intimating, it must be in its essential form.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence unless it was formally transferred to grazing on the instructions of the Beth din, it is not valid as a burnt-offering if it was slaughtered without a defined purpose.');">¹³</span> R'Nahman and R'Shesheth sat, and R'Adda B'Mattenah sat with them. Now they sat and debated: Now as to what R'Eleazar said: 'We find in the case of sacrifices that come after the death [of their owners] that they are valid, yet are not accepted', let Resh Lakish say to him, Let these too come and be accepted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the heirs.');">¹⁴</span> - Said R'Adda B'Mattenah to them: As for [the offering of] a woman after confinement,if she gave birth, did her children give birth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They do not need the sacrifice.');">¹⁵</span> To this R'Assi demurred: Yet who is to say if she had been guilty of [the neglect of] many affirmative precepts she would not be atoned for?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the burnt-offering necessitated by childbirth. Burnt-offerings make atonement for the violation of positive precepts and negative precepts which are technically regarded as having been transformed into positive precepts. I.e where the violation of a negative precept necessitates the performance of a positive one: e.g., the violation of 'Thou shalt not rob' (Lev. XIX, 13) necessitates the performance of the positive precept, 'he shall restore that which he took by robbery' (ib. V, 23) - Thus this burnt-offering would serve another purpose too.');">¹⁶</span> And since she would be forgiven if she had been guilty of neglecting affirmative precepts, then her heirs too may thus be atoned for!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they were guilty of the same.');">¹⁷</span> - Are we then to say that they [the heirs] acquire it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it becomes their own, so that it can make atonement for them.');">¹⁸</span> But surely R'Johanan said: If one leaves a meal-offering to his two sons and dies, it is offered, and the law of partnership does not apply to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All sacrifices may be brought in partnership, except a meal-offering. Here this does not apply.');">¹⁹</span> If however you think that they acquire a title to it, surely the Divine Law saith, And when a soul [bringeth a meal-offering]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 1. - So literally; E.V. and when any one. From this word 'a soul' the Talmud deduces that it can be brought by one person only. But if heirs acquire a title to their father's sacrifices, this meal-offering has now two owners.');">²⁰</span> Will you then say that they do not acquire it? Surely R'Johanan said: If one leaves an animal [dedicated for a sacrifice] to his two sons, and dies,it is offered, but they cannot effect substitution with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a person dedicates an animal for a sacrifice, he must not propose another as a substitute; if he does, both are sacred (Lev. XXVII, 33) . This is called effecting substitution. Here this does not apply, so that if they declare a substitute for it, it does not become sacred.');">²¹</span> Now it is well if you say that they acquire it; for that reason they cannot effect substitution with it, because they become partners,

Explore commentary for Zevachim 10:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.