Commentary for Zevachim 13:18

למימרא דבת מינה היא והאמר רבא חטאת ששחטה על מי שמחוייב חטאת פסולה על מי שמחוייב עולה כשרה

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 i the name] of his fellow's [thanksoffering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to a different class.');">¹²</span> No: only [when brought in the name of] his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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,');">¹³</span> 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 i the name of a thanksoffering, it is invalid', let him teach, 'if a thanksoffering [is slaughtered in the name of 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he was to bring both,');">¹⁴</span> 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 as a burnt-offering, it is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra 3b.');">¹⁵</span> What is the reason? The Divine Law saith, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, IV, 33.');">¹⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 7b.');">¹⁷</span> Raba also said: If one slaughters a sin-offering on behalf of [another] person who is liable to a sin-offeri 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 26,31,35.');">¹⁸</span> but not for his fellow, and 'his fellow' implies one like himself, being in need of atonement as he is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra 3b.');">¹⁹</span> Raba also said: If one slaughters a sin-offering on behalf of a person who is not liable in respect of anything at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually specifying thus.');">²⁰</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is the same as though he had slaughtered it on behalf of another person who is liable to a sin-offering.');">²¹</span> Shall we then say that it belongs to the same category?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that sins of omission fall into the same category as offences entailing a sin-offering.');">²²</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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) .');">²³</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 13:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.