Zevachim 14

מקיבעא לא מכפרא מקופיא מכפרא

- It [a sin-offering] does not make a fixed atonement but it does make a floating atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 6a. A sin-offering does not make atonement for the omission of positive precepts when it is directly dedicated for that purpose only, but only when it is dedicated for sins which entail a sin-offering, but whose owner has also been guilty of sins of omission. Since it does not atone for sins of omission standing by themselves, one who is in need of a burnt-offering (on account of sins of omission) is not 'his fellow' similar to 'himself', and therefore if a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of such, it is valid, provided that one had already vowed a burnt-offering, which covers all his sins of omission, so that a sin-offering is quite superfluous as far as he is concerned. But if he had not vowed a burnt-offering, a sin-offering has a certain relation to him in so far that if he was liable to a sin-offering too, this would make atonement for the sins of omission also. Hence he is sufficiently similar to his fellow to invalidate his fellow's sin-offering slaughtered on his behalf.');">¹</span> Raba also said: If a burnt-offering was killed for a different purpose, its blood must not be sprinkled for different purpose.

ואמר רבא עולה ששחטה שלא לשמה אסור לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה

This follows either from Scripture or by reason. If you will, it is [deduced from] a text: That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 24.');">²</span>

איבעית אימא קרא איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמור וגו' איבעית אימא סברא משום דשני בה כו' כדריש פירקא

Alternatively, it is logical: because he has made an alteration therein, etc. as stated at the beginning of this chapter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2a.');">³</span> Raba also said: If a burnt-offering is brought after [the] death [of its owner], and is slaughtered under a changed sanctity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e as a different sacrifice, e.g a peace-offering.');">⁴</span>

ואמר רבא עולה הבאה לאחר מיתה שחטה בשינוי קודש פסולה בשינוי בעלים כשרה דאין בעלים לאחר מיתה

it is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And another must be brought before the deceased is deemed to have fulfilled his vow.');">⁵</span> but [if it is slaughtered] with a change in respect of ownership,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a different person.');">⁶</span>

ורב פנחס בריה דרב אמי אמר יש בעלים לאחר מיתה אמר ליה רב אשי לרב פנחס בריה דרב אמי דוקא קאמר מר יש בעלים לאחר מיתה ובעי לאיתויי עולה אחריתי או דלמא דאי איכא כמה עשה גביה מכפרא

it is valid, for there is no ownership after death. But R'Phinehas the son of R'Ammi maintained: There is ownership after death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra 4b.');">⁷</span>

א"ל דוקא קאמינא

R'Ashi asked R'Phinehas the son of R'Ammi: Do you particularly maintain that there is ownership after death, and so he [the heir] must bring another burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in n. 6.');">⁸</span> or perhaps, if he [the heir] ha violated many affirmative precepts, it makes atonement for him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the heir is the owner,');">⁹</span>

ואמר רבא עולה דורון היא היכי דמי אי דליכא תשובה (משלי כא, כז) זבח רשעים תועבה ואי דאיכא תשובה התניא עבר על מצות עשה ושב לא זז משם עד שמוחלים לו אלא ש"מ דורון הוא

I maintain it particularly, he answered him. Raba said further: A burnt-offering is a votive gift.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not actually atone for sins of omission, but after one has repented this comes as a gift of appeasement, as it were.');">¹⁰</span>

(חטא"ת ע"ל מ"י מכפ"ר עול"ה לאח"ר דורו"ן סימ"ן)

For how is it possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it to make atonement in actuality.');">¹¹</span> If there is no repentance, then the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXI, 27.');">¹²</span>

תניא נמי הכי א"ר שמעון חטאת למה באה למה באה לכפר אלא למה באה לפני עולה לפרקליט שנכנס [ריצה פרקליט נכנס] דורון אחריו:

While if there is repentance, surely it was taught: If one violated an affirmative precept and repented, he does not stir thence until he is forgiven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is undoubtedly forgiven even without a sacrifice.');">¹³</span> Hence it follows that it is a votive gift.

חוץ מן הפסח והחטאת כו': פסח מנלן

<br>(Mnemonic: For whom does a sin-offering atone? A burnt-offering after a votive gift).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A string of words so arranged as to facilitate the remembering of the subjects discussed hereunder.');">¹⁴</span>

דכתיב (דברים טז, א) שמור את חדש האביב ועשית פסח שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם פסח

It was taught likewise. R'Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? - [You ask,] 'for what purpose does a sin-offering come? ' Surely in order to make atonement! - Rather, [the question is:] Why does it come before the burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one has to bring both, the sin-offering takes precedence; infra 89b.');">¹⁵</span>

אשכחן שינוי קודש שינוי בעלים מנלן

[Because it is] like an intercessor who enters [to appease the King]: When the intercessor has appeased [him], the gift follows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the sin-offering is the intercessor and the burnt-offering follows as a gift.');">¹⁶</span> WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SIN- OFFERING.

דכתיב (שמות יב, כז) ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא שתהא זביחה לשם פסח אם אינו ענין לשינוי קודש תניהו ענין לשינוי בעלים

How do we know it of the Passover-offering? - Because it is written, Observe the month of Abib, and prepare the Passover-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI, 1.');">¹⁷</span> [this intimates] that all its preparations must be in the name of the Passover-offering.

אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנלן

We have thus found [that] change in respect of sanctity [disqualifies it]; how do we know [the same of] change in respect of owner? - Because it says, Then ye shall say: It is the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 27.');">¹⁸</span> [which teaches] that the 'slaughtering' must be done in the name of the Passover-offering.

אמר קרא (דברים טז, ב) וזבחת פסח לה' אלהיך וגו'

Now since this teaching is redundant in respect of change in respect of sanctity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As that has been derived from Deut. XVI, 1.');">¹⁹</span> apply the teaching to change in respect of owner.

מתקיף לה רב ספרא האי וזבחת להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מנין למותר פסח שקרב שלמים שנאמר (דברים טז, ב) וזבחת פסח לה' אלהיך צאן ובקר והלא אין פסח בא אלא מן הכבשים ומן העזים מכאן למותר הפסח שיהא לדבר הבא מן הצאן ומן הבקר ומאי ניהו שלמים

We have thus found it as a regulation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., these verses teach that the Passover-offering must be sacrificed specifically as such and for its registered owner.');">²⁰</span> how do we know that it is indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that it is otherwise disqualified.');">²¹</span>

אלא אמר רב ספרא וזבחת פסח לכדרב נחמן שמור את חדש האביב למצוה בשינוי קודש ואמרתם זבח פסח בשינוי בעלים למצוה הוא לעכב בין הכא והכא

- Scripture saith, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI, 2. This too has the same teaching as XVI, 1. Since however it is superfluous in that case, it must intimate that this regulation is indispensable.');">²²</span> To this R'Safra demurred: Does this [passage], 'And thou shalt sacrifice etc.'

ואשכחן זביחה שאר עבודות מנלן הואיל וגלי גלי

come for this purpose: Surely it is required for R'Nahman's dictum? For R'Nahman said in Rabbah B'Abbuha's name: How do we know that the leftover of a Passover-offering is brought as a peace-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.,if an animal dedicated for a Passover-sacrifice was lost, whereupon its owners registered for another animal, and then the first was found after the second was sacrificed. Or again, if a sum of money was dedicated to buy a paschal lamb, but it was not all expended; then too the surplus must be used for a peace-offering.');">²³</span>

רב אשי אמר הואיל וגלי גלי לא אמרינן אלא [עבודות] מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה וגו'

Because it is said, 'And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd.' Now surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs or from goats?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not from the herd, which means the larger cattle.');">²⁴</span>

ותניא (ויקרא ז, לח) ביום צותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם זה בכור ומעשר ופסח

Hence we learn that the left-over of the Passover-offering is to be [utilised] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd; and what is it? A peace-offering.

הקישו הכתוב לשלמים מה שלמים בין שינוי קודש בין שינוי בעלים בעינן למצוה אף כל בין שינוי קודש בין שינוי בעלים למצוה

- Rather, said R'Safra: 'And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering' [is required] for R'Nahman's dictum; 'Observe the month of Abib' [is required] for the regulation in respect of changed sanctity; ' Then ye shall say: [It is] the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover' [is required] for the regulation relating to change in respect of owner; 'it is'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. 'hu', This is regarded as superfluous and hence interpreted as emphasizing the regulation to the extent of making it indispensable.');">²⁵</span> teaches that it is indispensable, both in the former and in the latter cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A change either in respect of sanctity or owner invalidates the paschal sacrifice.');">²⁶</span>

וכשלמים מה שלמים בין זביחה בין שאר עבודות לא חלקת בהן למצוה אף פסח לא תחלוק בו בין זביחה לשאר עבודות לעכב (משום שנאמר הוא בזביחה אינו אלא לעכב)

Now we have thus found [it in the case of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] the other services? - Since it was revealed [in the one], it was [also] revealed [in the others].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they follow automatically.');">²⁷</span> R'Ashi said: We do not argue, 'Since it was revealed, it was revealed'.

אלא הוא למה לי

How then do we know it of [the other] services? - Because it is written, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, [and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, VII. 37.');">²⁸</span> Now it was taught: In the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 38.');">²⁹</span>

כדתניא נאמר בפסח הוא בשחיטה לעכב אבל אשם לא נאמר בו הוא אלא לאחר הקטרת אימורין והוא עצמו שלא הוקטרו אימוריו כשר:

refers to the firstling, tit and Passover-offering. Thus Scripture assimilates it [the Passover-offering] to the peace-offering: as [in the case of the] peace-offering we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner, so in the case of all [these] do we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner.

חטאת מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ד, לג) ושחט אותה לחטאת שתהא שחיטה לשם חטאת

Again, it is like the peace-offering [in this respect]: As you do not differentiate in the peace-offering between slaughtering and the other services in respect of the regulation, so must you not differentiate in the case of the Passover-sacrifice between slaughtering and the other services in respect of indispensability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is indispensable for slaughtering is also indispensable for the other services. - Here follows a short passage in the original which the commentaries delete.');">³⁰</span> Then in that case, what is the purpose of 'it is'? - For what was taught: As for the Passover-offering, 'it is' is stated the to teach indispensability as far as slaughtering is concerned; whereas in the case of a guilt-offering 'it is' i stated only after the burning of the emurim, and in fact if the emurim are not burnt at all, it [the offering] i valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra 5b.');">³¹</span>

אשכחן שחיטה קבלה מנלן דכתיב

How do we know it of the sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if not slaughtered for its own sake it is invalid.');">³²</span> - Because it is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 33.');">³³</span> which intimates that it must be killed for the sake of a sin-offering. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving [the blood]? - Because it is written,