Zevachim 6b — the Talmud in English

However

he did not effect atonement before Heaven,

for this offering is not pleasing to its Creator, because he omitted laying of hands upon the offering, and made it like the remnants of a mitzva; and it is considered that he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner.

Did we not learn

the expression “he did not effect atonement” in a case where he did not perform the mitzva in the optimal manner? And we find this in tractate Negaim [14:10], concerning the oil placed upon the head of the leper [that is, the oil remaining from the placing of the oil upon the thumbs and the earlobe], for we learned there, it is stated:

“And what remains of the oil that is upon the palm of

the priest he shall place upon the head of the one being purified,

to effect atonement for him before the Lord,”

the verse teaches that

if he placed

the remaining oil upon the head of the leper,

he effected atonement.

And if he did not place it, he did not effect atonement; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says:

That oil placed upon the head of the leper is in general

the remnants of a mitzva,

as it is stated concerning it, “and what remains,” to say that it is what remains from the principal mitzva, which is performed by placing the oil upon his earlobe and the thumbs of his hands [and therefore its law is like the mitzva of pouring the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering that remained after the blood was sprinkled upon the wall of the altar, onto the foundation of the altar, which is called the “remnants” of a mitzva, because it does not prevent atonement], and therefore

whether it was placed or whether it was not placed, he effected atonement.

But

they deem him as though he did not effect atonement!

And the Gemara infers:

What is the meaning of

“as though he did not effect atonement”?

as though he did not achieve atonement ”?

If we say that he is required to bring another offering [

another log of oil and place it upon the head of the leper],

you have said—

whether it was placed or whether it was not placed, he effected atonement!? Rather,

whether it was placed or whether it was not placed, he achieved atonement!? Rather

“he effected atonement” refers to

the person,

” refers to the person; “

“he did not effect atonement” refers to

before Heaven

before Heaven!

And if so,

here too [

when he did not lay hands upon the burnt-offering]

also

let us interpret:

“he effected atonement” refers to the person, but he did not effect atonement before Heaven!?

Tosafot’s interpretation: The Gemara’s proof from the words of Rabbi Yohanan is that the offering itself, which has already been performed, does not effect atonement before Heaven because of the lack of laying on of hands, for the placing upon the thumbs too “did not effect atonement” before Heaven because of the lack of the placing upon the head. And we reject: The placing upon the thumbs and the offering itself, which have already been performed, are valid and effect appeasement even before Heaven; it is only concerning what has not yet been performed that it is said, “he did not effect atonement.” [And the laws of laying on of hands and of the placing upon the head differ in this: for nullification of laying on of hands there is no atonement at all, because he transgressed by nullifying a positive commandment after designating the burnt-offering, whereas concerning the placing upon the head the verse revealed that they are only the remnants of a mitzva, and only he did not effect atonement before Heaven]. And the Sefat Emet wrote, that Rashi’s intention is not that according to Rabbi Akiva, concerning the placing upon the head, he did not effect atonement at all, but rather only before Heaven. It follows that the Gemara’s conclusion is that according to everyone, “he did not effect atonement” through the placing upon the head before Heaven. And although the verse revealed that they do not prevent [atonement], he must bring another log in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. However, according to this, the rejection of the proof concerning laying on of hands is like Tosafot’s interpretation, for according to Rashi the principal proof comes to establish that “he did not effect atonement” means before Heaven, and this point is not rejected in the conclusion. [And so wrote Hok Natan, Mareh Kohen concerning the view of Maimonides —who did not rule in accordance with Rabbi Akiva; and see another approach in the Rashash]. And the Hazon Ish explained according to his approach [above, page 6a, note 10] that Rav Huna’s question from the placing upon the head is that we should explain that the verse deems him as though he did not effect atonement even in a case where he did not intentionally nullify the laying on of hands, just as it was not mentioned concerning the placing that the case is one in which he did not intentionally place it, but only because the oil was spilled. This implies that “he did not effect atonement” is not because he transgressed a positive commandment, but even because of merely a lack of completeness of the mitzva. And to this Rava replied that the case is one in which he intentionally did not perform the placing upon the head, and therefore he did not effect atonement].

And we reject: In the case of the leper, it is possible to explain that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said “he effected atonement and he did not effect atonement” with regard to atonement itself and not only before Heaven, because

there too—

—

he effected atonement through the placing upon the thumbs,

since according to him, if he placed some of the oil upon the thumbs, he need not return and place it upon them, even though

he did not effect atonement through the placing upon the head,

and he must bring another log of oil and place it upon the head in order to effect atonement [whereas according to Rabbi Akiva, if he did not place it upon the head, he did not effect atonement at all and is obligated to return and place it upon the thumbs, and from the remainder upon the head] .

But when he did not perform laying on of hands upon the burnt-offering, the offering is valid and effects atonement. If so, it is impossible to explain that “he did not effect atonement” means only before Heaven, for we do not find that a deficiency in fulfilling a mitzva is called “he did not effect atonement,” except in a case where an obligation remains upon the person to do something for his atonement.

Come and hear

from that which we learned in the Tosefta, in the first chapter of tractate Shevuot:

Rabbi Shimon says: Why do the Shavuot lambs come

[for what sin did they come to effect atonement]? And before the Gemara continues to cite his words, it asks and explains: After all,

the Shavuot lambs are peace-offerings,

and there is no atonement through them!?

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Shimon said:

Why do the Shavuot goats

[which are the two sin-offering goats brought on the festival of Shavuot, one together with the additional offerings of the festival, and the other together with the offerings brought with the two loaves]

come?—

For impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

[for those who were impure and entered the Temple or ate sacred meat without knowing that they had become impure; they have no atonement through an individual sin-offering, because an individual brings a sin-offering for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things only if he had initial knowledge that he had become impure, as explained in Shevuot 4a].

And Rabbi Shimon further said: For what does the second goat—the Shavuot goat—come to effect atonement? After all, when

the blood of the

goat

first

was sprinkled, all those sinners concerning impurity of the Temple and its sacred things had already achieved atonement through it. If so, the

second, why

does it

come as an offering? —

It necessarily comes to effect atonement

for impurity that occurred between this one and that one,

between the offering of the first goat and the offering of the second goat, because the Torah took care to provide atonement for them from the sin of impurity even during this short interval!

From now understand—

the Israelites were deserving

that the Torah should obligate them

to offer their offerings

of the sin-offering goats and thereby achieve atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

at every time and at every hour,

just as they were obligated for that brief interval on the festival of Shavuot, because at every hour there is concern for those who render the Temple and its sacred things impure.

But

the verse economized [that is, limited itself] and did not scrutinize their sins to require them to achieve atonement through a sin-offering goat at every hour, because it had compassion upon their money.

verse

spared them the expense and did not scrutinize their sins so as to require them to achieve atonement with a sin-offering goat at every moment, because God had compassion on their money.

And the Gemara assumed that the case concerns two goats that were designated together on the previous day, and therefore it inferred:

But here, it is a positive commandment after designation, and it effects atonement,

for it is found that the second goat, which comes to effect atonement for the sins of impurity of the Temple and its sacred things committed between the offering of the first and the second, effects atonement for a positive commandment after designation, since it had already been designated on the eve of the festival, when the first goat was designated. [And it is called a “positive commandment” because impurity of the Temple and its sacred things is also learned from the verse, “And they shall send out from the camp.”] And it is proven that a communal sin-offering effects atonement for a positive commandment even if it was designated before the sin was committed, and the same applies to a burnt-offering, which likewise effects atonement for a positive commandment after designation .

And we reject: In truth, no offering effects atonement for a positive commandment after designation. And here, concerning the two Shavuot goats,

if

the case had been one in which

they designated them

the two goats

at the same time, so too,

indeed only the first would be offered and not the second, because since it is impossible to achieve atonement for what was done after designation, there is no reason to bring the second goat, since it has nothing for which to effect atonement. Rather,

with what are we dealing here? The two goats brought on Shavuot are brought only in a case where

they designated them

one after the other.

In that case, the atonement of the second goat is effective for all those who sinned through impurity of the Temple and its sacred things between the designation of the first and the designation of the second.

And we ask:

And

do we have the ability

to arise and say to the verse [

to establish the verse concerning the two goats on Shavuot]

that when it is written,

that two goats are brought only when they were designated

one after the other, it is

that

it is written,

but if he designated the two goats together, only one goat is brought? After all, every year two goats are brought!?

Rather, it necessarily follows that even if they designated both of them together, they are offered. And once again it is necessary to prove that an offering effects atonement for sins committed after designation, for the second effects atonement for sins committed between the designation of the first and the second.

We reject:

Rav Pappa said—

Are you speaking of communal offerings

to prove from them that they effect atonement after designation?—

Communal offerings are different, because the heart of the court stipulates concerning them,

so that the designation of the second offering should not take effect until close to its offering, in order that all those who sin between the designation of the first and the offering of the second should achieve atonement through it.

And we find that “the heart of the court stipulates” concerning how the offering shall take effect: do they have the power to make the designation of the offering take effect in a manner different from the manner in which they initially sanctified it?

As

said

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Communal offerings—

the knife

of the slaughterer who slaughters them

draws them toward what they are,

for even if they were initially designated for the purpose of the daily offerings, they may be changed at the time of their slaughter to the designation of a communal burnt-offering , such as the summer offerings of the altar, because the court’s heart stipulates concerning them that if they will not be needed for the daily offerings, the designation of the summer offerings of the altar will take effect upon them instead of the designation of daily offerings .

.And since, with communal offerings, the court’s stipulation applies to them, Rabbi Shimon held that the second goat can atone for the impurity between the designation of the first and the offering of the second, even in a case where the second goat was designated already yesterday, because the court’s stipulation is that the designation should not take effect until tomorrow, close to the time of the offering.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that the court’s stipulation applies to them

to remove the effect of the designation of an offering?

But did Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav Amram said that Rav Yitzhak said: The daily offerings

that were purchased from the communal contribution, from the funds of the half-shekel,

that were not needed by the community,

since they remained surplus from the previous year,