Zevachim 13

לדברי ר' שמעון אין נפדין תמימים לדברי חכמים נפדין תמימין

cannot be redeemed, according to R'Simeon's view, as long as they are unblemished, while on the view of the Sages they can be redeemed while unblemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we assume a tacit stipulation of the Beth din that it be permitted to redeem them even while unblemished (normally this is forbidden) and thus, becoming hullin, they can be purchased with the new shekels and then be offered as daily burnt-offerings. R. Simeon however rejects this assumption, and therefore holds that they cannot be redeemed but must be offered as extra public sacrifices.');">¹</span>

ועוד הא בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא שעירי עצרת שקבל דמן בשני כוסות ונזרק דמו של ראשון שני למה הוא בא על טומאה שאורעה בין [זריקה של] זה לזה (נזרק דמו של שני למה הוא קריבין)

Moreover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even assuming that the Biblical text itself might be explained as referring to the case where the two goats were separated one after the other.');">²</span>

עד כאן לא מיבעיא ליה אלא עשה דלאחר שחיטה אבל עשה דלאחר הפרשה לא קא מיבעיא ליה

surely R'Jeremiah asked R'Zera: If the blood of the Pentecostal he-goats was received in two basins,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They were both killed at the same time.');">³</span>

דלמא אם תימצי לומר קאמר:

and the blood of one was sprinkled, what is the purpose of the second?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Simeon, since no defilement could occur in the interval, as they were killed simultaneously.');">⁴</span>

איתמר תודה ששחטה לשם תודת חבירו (כשרה) רבה אמר כשרה רב חסדא אמר פסולה

[To which he replied:] On account of defilement that occurred between the sprinkling [of the blood] of the one and that of the other.

רבה אמר כשרה תודה לשם תודה נשחטה רב חסדא אמר פסולה לשום שלמים דידיה נשחטה בעינן

Thus he is in doubt only in respect of [the violatio of] a positive command after the slaughtering, but he does not ask in respect of [the violation of] a positive command after the separating [of the animal]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably R. Jeremiah was certain that according to R. Simeon it does make atonement in that case.');">⁵</span>

אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה דתניא (ויקרא ז, טו) ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו ביום הקריבו את זבחו וגו' אבא חנין אמר משום ר' אליעזר בא ללמד תודה ששחטה לשם שלמים כשרה שלמים שנשחטו לשם תודה פסולים ומה הפרש בין זה לזה תודה קרויה שלמים ואין שלמים קרויין תודה

- [No:] Perhaps his question is hypothetical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may be in doubt about the latter too, but his question is this: on the hypothesis that R. Simeon holds that it does make atonement in the latter case, how is it in the former one?');">⁶</span>

שלמים לשם תודה פסולה הא תודה לשם תודה כשרה מאי לאו דחבריה

It was taught: If one slaughtered a thanksoffering in the name of his fellow's thanksoffering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A and B each brought one, and A's offering was killed for the purpose for which B's was brought.');">⁷</span>

לא דידיה

- Rabbah ruled: It is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He has done his duty, and does not bring another.');">⁸</span>

אבל דחבריה מאי פסולה אדתני שלמים לשם תודה פסולה ליתני תודה לשם תודה וכ"ש שלמים לשם תודה

while R'Hisda said: It is invalid.

שלמים לשם תודה דידיה איצטריך ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא מדתודה קרויה שלמים שלמים נמי קרויין תודה וכי שחיט להו לשם תודה ליכשרו קא משמע לן:

Rabbah ruled, 'It is valid', [because] a thanksoffering h been slaughtered as a thanksoffering.

אמר רבא חטאת ששחטה לשם חטאת כשירה לשם עולה פסולה

R'Hisda said, 'It is invalid', because it must be slaughtered in the name of his peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VII, 15: And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving.');">⁹</span>

מאי טעמא (ויקרא ד, לג) ושחט אותה לחטאת אמר רחמנא והרי חטאת לשם חטאת נשחטה לשם עולה פסולה

Rabbah said: Whence do I know it?

ואמר רבא חטאת ששחטה על מי שמחוייב חטאת פסולה על מי שמחוייב עולה כשרה

Because it was taught: And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁰</span>

מאי טעמא וכפר עליו עליו ולא על חבירו חבירו דומיא דידיה במחוייב כפרה כמותו

Abba Hanin said on R'Eliezer's authority: This comes to teach that if a thanksoffering is slaughtered in the name of a peace-offering, it is valid; if a peace-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanksoffering, it is invalid.

ואמר רבא חטאת ששחטה על מי שאינו מחוייב כלום פסולה שאין לך אדם בישראל שאינו מחוייב עשה

What is the difference between these two cases?

ואמר רבא חטאת מכפרת על חייבי עשה מק"ו על חייבי כריתות מכפרת על חייבי עשה לא כל שכן

A thanksoffering is designated a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 4a');">¹¹</span>

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>