Zevachim 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

But

he did not effect atonement before Heaven

, for this offering was not pleasing to its Creator, since he omitted placing hands on the offering, treating it as the remainder of a mitzva; it is therefore considered as though 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? We find this in tractate Nega’im [14:10], concerning the oil placed on the head of the leper [the oil remaining from the placing of oil on the thumbs and the earlobe], as we learned: It is stated: “

And the remainder of the oil that is on the palm of the

priest shall place on the head of the one being purified,

to effect atonement for him before the Lord

”; the verse teaches that

if he placed

some of the remaining oil on the head of the leper, he

effected atonement.

But if he did not place it, he did not effect atonement; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says:

That oil placed on the head of the leper is included among

the remainder of a mitzva

, as it is stated concerning it, “and the remainder,” indicating that it is what remains from the principal mitzva, which is performed by placing the oil on the earlobe and thumbs. [Therefore, its status is like that of the mitzva of pouring the remainder of the blood of a sin-offering that remains after the blood has been sprinkled on the wall of the altar, onto the base of the altar. This is called “the remainder” of a mitzva because it does not prevent atonement.] Therefore,

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

But

he is regarded as though he did not effect atonement!

The Gemara analyzes this:

What is meant by

“as though he did not effect atonement”?

as though he did not achieve atonement ”?

If you say that he is required to bring another offering

[another log of oil and place it on 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 place hands on the burnt-offering],

likewise

let us interpret it: “

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

” refers to the person, but he did not achieve atonement before Heaven!?

The Gemara rejects this: In the case of the leper, it is possible to interpret Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri’s statement, “he effected atonement and he did not effect atonement,” as referring to atonement itself and not merely to atonement before Heaven, because

there too—

—

the placement on the thumbs effected atonement

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

the placements on the head did not effect atonement

, and he must bring another log of oil and place it on the head in order to achieve atonement. [According to Rabbi Akiva, if he did not place the oil on the head, he did not achieve atonement at all and must return and perform the placements on the thumbs, and from the remainder placed on the head].

But when one failed to place hands on the burnt-offering, the offering is valid and effects atonement. If so, it is impossible to interpret “he did not effect atonement” as referring only to atonement before Heaven, since we do not find that a deficiency in performing a mitzva is called “he did not effect atonement” except in a case where the person remains obligated to do something to achieve his atonement.

Ta shma

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

Rabbi Shimon says: Why do the lambs of Atzeret come

[for what sin do they come to effect atonement]? Before the Gemara proceeds to cite his statement, it is astonished and explains: After all,

the lambs of Atzeret are shelamim

, and there is no atonement through them!?

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Shimon said:

Why do the goats of Atzeret

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

come?—

For the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

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

And Rabbi Shimon further said: For what does the second goat of Atzeret come to effect atonement, when, once

the blood of the

first goat

was sprinkled

, all those who had sinned through the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things had already achieved atonement through it? If so, why is the

second goat

brought?

Why is it sacrificed? —

It must be that it 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 the sin of impurity even during this brief interval!

From now on say:

The Jewish people were fit for

the Torah to obligate them

to offer their offerings

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

at every time and every hour

, just as they were obligated during that brief interval on Shavuot, since at every moment there is concern that people may become impure with regard to the Temple and its sacred things.

However,

Scripture spared [that is, limited]

the verse

and did not scrutinize their sins to require them to achieve atonement through a sin-offering goat at every moment, because it took pity on their possessions.

The Gemara assumed that the two goats had been consecrated together on the previous day, and therefore it precisely stated:

But here, it is a positive mitzva performed after consecration, and it effects atonement

, since it turns out that the second goat, which comes to effect atonement for sins involving the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things committed between the offering of the first goat and that of the second, effects atonement for a positive mitzva performed after consecration. For it had already been consecrated on the eve of the festival, when the first goat was consecrated. [It is called a “positive mitzva” because the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things is also derived from the verse, “and they shall send from the camp.”] This proves that a communal sin-offering effects atonement for a positive mitzva even when it was consecrated before the sin was committed; the same should apply to a burnt-offering, which should also effect atonement for a positive mitzva performed after consecration.

The Gemara rejects this: In fact, no offering effects atonement for a positive mitzva performed after consecration. Here, with regard to the two goats of Atzeret,

if

the case were one in which they had

consecrated them

both

at the same time, so too only the first would be sacrificed and not the second. Since atonement cannot be achieved for what was done after consecration, there would be no reason to bring the second goat, as it would have nothing for which to effect atonement. Rather,

with what are we dealing here? They bring two goats on Atzeret only

when they consecrated them one after the other

.

In that case, the atonement of the second goat is effective for all those who became impure with regard to the Temple and its sacred things between the consecration of the first and the consecration of the second.

The Gemara asks:

And do we have the power

to stand and say to Scripture

[to establish the verse concerning the two goats on Atzeret]

that when it was written

[that two goats are brought only when they were consecrated]

one after the other

, it was

written

only in that circumstance,

but if he consecrated the two goats together, only one goat is brought? Yet every year two goats are brought!?

Rather, it must be that even if they consecrated both of them together, they are sacrificed. Once again, this proves that an offering effects atonement for sins committed after consecration, since the second goat effects atonement for sins committed between the consecration of the first and that of the second.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Pappa said:

Are you speaking of communal offerings

as proof that offerings effect atonement after consecration?

Communal offerings are different, because the court’s intention stipulates concerning them

, so that the consecration of the second offering does not take effect until shortly before its sacrifice, in order that it effect atonement for all those who sinned between the consecration of the first and the sacrifice of the second.

We find an example of how “the court’s intention stipulates” regarding the manner in which the offering takes effect, and whether they have the power to apply the designation of an offering in a manner different from that for which it was initially consecrated: as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel. As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Communal offerings—the knife

of the one slaughtering them

draws them toward what they are

, meaning that even if they were initially consecrated for the sake of the daily offerings, they can be changed at the time of slaughter to the designation of a communal burnt-offering,

such as the offerings for the summer of the altar, because the court’s intention stipulates concerning them that if they are not needed for the daily offerings, the designation of the offerings for the summer of the altar takes effect in place of their designation as daily offerings.

, the

knife

used by the slaughterer

draws them toward whatever they are

—even if they were initially consecrated for use as daily offerings, they can be changed at the time of slaughter to communal burnt offerings, such as offerings for the upkeep of the altar, because the court’s intention makes a condition concerning them: if they are not needed as daily offerings, they will receive the designation of offerings for the upkeep of the altar instead of the designation of daily offerings. In Mikdash David [addendum, note 3], he answered that the lambs of Atzeret receive their designation only through the drawing of the knife, as explained in the explanation of the Arukh cited in the Tosafot. Since their designation was changed, they require waving while alive. Because their designation must be established before slaughter, this rule of the knife drawing them toward their designation does not apply to them. However, he raised the opposite difficulty: How do they fulfill the communal obligation when their designation was changed before slaughter? By what means were they established as the offering that the community must bring? This requires further study.

And since, with communal offerings, the court stipulates concerning them, Rabbi Shimon held that the second goat can atone for the impurity that occurred between the designation of the first and the offering of the second, even when the second goat was designated already on the previous day, because the court stipulates that the designation should not take effect until the following day, close to the time of the offering.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: Does Rabbi Shimon hold that the court stipulates concerning them

in order to prevent the designation of an offering from taking effect?

But did Rav Idi bar Avin not say that Rav Amram said that Rav Yitzḥak said: The temidin

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,