Commentary for Zevachim 11:18

א"ל רב הונא בר יהודה לרבא אימא כיפר גברא

The question was asked: Does it [a burnt-offering] make atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the atoning effect of a burnt-offering V. supra p. 22, n. 3.');">¹²</span> for [the violation of] a positive precept [committed] after the separation [of the animal], or not? Do we say, it is analogous to a sin-offering: just as a sin-offering [makes atonement] only for [the sins committed] before separation, but not for [those committed] after separation, so here too [it makes atonement] only for [the sins committed] before separation, but not for [those committed] after separation. Or, perhaps, it is unlike a sin-offering, for a separate sin-offering is incurred for each sin, whereas here, since it makes atonement if he had been guilty of [violating] many positive precepts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One burnt-offering makes atonement for all.');">¹³</span> it may also make atonement for positive precepts [neglected] after separation? - Come and hear: And he shall lay [his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering]; and it shall be accepted [for him to make atonement for him];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4.');">¹⁴</span> does then the laying [of hands] make atonement? Surely atonement can be made only with the blood, as it says, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 11.');">¹⁵</span> What then is taught by the verse, And he shall lay. and it shall be accepted. to make atonement? - [To teach] that if he treated [the laying of hands] as the residue of the precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as something unimportant, and so neglected it altogether.');">¹⁶</span> Scripture regards him as though he did not make atonement, and yet he did make atonement. Now what is meant by 'he did not make atonement' and 'he did make atonement'? Surely, 'he did make atonement' [means] in respect of positive precepts [neglected] before the separation [of the animal], while 'he did not make atonement' in respect of the positive precept of laying [of hands], because it is a positive precept [neglected] after separation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the question propounded.');">¹⁷</span> - Said Raba: You speak of the precept of laying [the hand]? There it is different, because as long as he has not yet slaughtered, he is subject to the injunction 'Arise and lay [hands]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence before he slaughtered he cannot be said to have violated it.');">¹⁸</span> when then is it a [neglected] positive precept? After the slaughtering; and in respect of [a precept neglected] after the slaughtering no question arises.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It certainly does not make atonement for such (though further on R. Jeremiah asks even in respect of such too) , and the question is only in respect of precepts neglected after the separation of the animal, but before it is slaughtered.');">¹⁹</span> R'Huna B'Judah said to Raba: Perhaps it means, 'It did make atonement' - for the person,

Explore commentary for Zevachim 11:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.