Zevachim 11

ושותפין לא מצו ממירין אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו אמורי נמי לימרו

and partners cannot effect substitution.

שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כז, י) אם המר ימיר לרבות את היורש אחד ממיר ואין שנים ממירין

But if you say that they do not acquire it, let them indeed even effect substitution? - There it is different, because Scripture saith, 'And if he change it at all,' which is to includ the heir;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphatic 'at all' is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb, and this doubling is interpreted as an extension including the heir.');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב יעקב מנהר פקוד אלא מעתה גבי מעשר דכתיב (ויקרא כז, יג) ואם גאל יגאל לרבות את היורש הכי נמי אחד גואל ואין שנים גואלין

and [the same verse teaches,] one can change, but not two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is couched in the singular.');">²</span>

שאני מעשר דגבי אבוהון נמי איתיה בשותפות

To this R'Jacob of Nehar Pekod demurred: If so, when it is written, And if a man will redeem ought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 31.');">³</span>

אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ומינה אי אמרת בשלמא קניא להו היינו דחד מיהא מימר אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו היכי מימר

in connection with tithe, which is also to include the heir, will you say there too, One can redeem, but not two? - Tithe is different, because as far as their father too is concerned it [redemption] can be done in partnership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the produce belonged to partners in the first place, they could tithe and redeem the tithe in partnership. Hence the same applies to a man's heirs.');">⁴</span>

והאמר רבי אבהו אמר ר' יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה שלו

R'Assi said to R'Ashi: Now from this itself [you may argue]: It is well if you agree that they acquire it, for that reason one [heir] at le can effect substitution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is the only heir.');">⁵</span>

מקיבעא לא מכפרא מקופיא מכפרא:

But if you say that they do not acquire it, how can he effect substitution?

איבעיא להו כיפרו על מה שבאו או לא כיפרו

Surely R'Abbahu said in R'Johanan's name: He who sanctifies [the animal] must add the fifth, whilst only he for whom atonement is made can effect substitution;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A dedicates an animal for B's sacrifice, and it subsequently receives a blemish and must be redeemed, then if A, who sanctified it, redeems it himself, he must add a fifth to its value, but not if B redeems it (this is deduced from Lev. XXVII, 15) . Again, only B effects substitution, but not A. Since then the heir does effect substitution, he is obviously regarded as in the place of B, hence its owner.');">⁶</span>

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי מסתברא דלא כיפרו דאי סלקא דעתך כיפרו שני למה הוא בא

and he who gives terumah of his own for another man's produce, the goodwill is his!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he (so. the man who gives it) can give it to any priest he desires. If money is offered for the terumah to be given to a particular priest, that money belongs to him.');">⁷</span>

ואלא מאי לא כיפרו למה הוא קרב

- It does not effect a fixed [absolute] atonement, but it does make a floating atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e,, it does not make an absolute atonement for the heir as though he were its absolute owner; therefore in the case of a meal-offering, though there are two heirs, they still offer it. But the heir has, as it were, a light floating right of atonement in it (i.e., he has some slight rights of ownership in it) , and therefore he can effect substitution.');">⁸</span>

אמר רב אשי רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הכי קא קשיא ליה אי אמרת בשלמא לא כיפרו שלא לשמו מכח לשמו קאתי ושני למה הוא בא לכפר אלא אי אמרת כיפרו שני למה הוא בא:

The question was asked: Do they make atonement in respect of the purpose for which they came, or do they not make atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a sacrifice is killed for a purpose other than its own, its owner has not fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless the question arises where this was brought in order to make atonement for a certain sin, whether the owner can regard it as having made that atonement, or not. It makes no practical difference, save that the owner may feel himself forgiven even before he offers the second sacrifice.');">⁹</span>

איבעיא להו אעשה דלאחר הפרשה מכפרא או לא מכפרא

Said R'Shisha the son of R'Idi: Reason asserts that it does not make atonement; for if you think that it does, what is the purpose of a second [sacrifice]?

מי אמרינן מידי דהוה אחטאת מה חטאת דקודם הפרשה אין דלאחר הפרשה לא אף הכא נמי דקודם הפרשה אין לאחר הפרשה לא

What then: [do you maintain]; it doe not make atonement?

או דלמא לא דמיא לחטאת דחטאת על כל חטא וחטא בעי לאיתויי חדא חטאת והכא כיון דאיכא כמה עשה גביה מכפרא אעשה דלאחר הפרשה נמי מכפרא

Why then is it offered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do we proceed with the sacrificial rites e.g. sprinkling, if it does not make atonement in any case?');">¹⁰</span>

תא שמע (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא מה תלמוד לומר וסמך ונרצה לכפר שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר

- Said R'Ashi: This is the difficulty felt by R'Shisha the so of R'Idi: It is well if you say that it does not make atonement; [for though slaughtered] for a different purpose, yet it comes in virtue of [having been dedicated for] its true purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Originally it was dedicated for its rightful purpose. This hallows it, and so even when it is killed for a different purpose it retains its sanctity, and therefore the other sacrificial rites must be proceeded with,');">¹¹</span>

מאי לאו דכיפר עשה דקודם הפרשה לא כיפר אעשה דסמיכה דהוה ליה עשה דלאחר הפרשה

while the second [sacrifice] comes to make atonement.

אמר רבא עשה דסמיכה קאמרת שאני התם דכל כמה דלא שחיט בעמוד וסמוך קאי אימת קא הוי עשה לאחר שחיטה לאחר שחיטה לא קא מיבעיא לן

But if you say that it has made atonement, what is the purpose of the second?

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,