## Zevachim Daf 6a

###### Zevachim 6a:1
[Zevachim 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:1)

וְשׁוּתָּפִין לָא מָצוּ מְמִירִין. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ – אָמוֹרֵי נָמֵי לִימְרוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and partners cannot effect substitution** of other animals for their offering. **But if you say** that it is **not acquired by them,** and the animal is the property solely of the deceased father, **let them also effect substitution** on his behalf, as heirs are able to effect substitution for their deceased parents’ offerings.


###### Zevachim 6a:2
[Zevachim 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:2)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ; אֶחָד מֵמִיר וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם מְמִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There it is different, as** although **the verse states: “If he shall at all change [*hamer yamir*]** animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), the superfluous word *hamer* serving **to include the heir** as one who is able to effect substitution, nevertheless the subject’s singular form teaches that only **one** heir **can effect substitution, but two** heirs **cannot effect substitution.**


###### Zevachim 6a:3
[Zevachim 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ – הָכִי נָמֵי אֶחָד גּוֹאֵל וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם גּוֹאֲלִין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this** derivation: **If that is so,** one should say the same **with regard to** the redemption of the second **tithe, as it is written: “And if** a man **will redeem [*gaol yigal*]** any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), with the superfluous word *gaol* serving **to include the heir** as one who must add the one-fifth. **So too,** it should be derived from the verb’s singular form that if **one** heir **redeems** the tithe, he must add one-fifth of its value, **but** if **two** heirs **redeem** it, **they do not** need to add one-fifth. In fact, the *halakha* is that partners must also add one-fifth.


###### Zevachim 6a:4
[Zevachim 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:4)

שָׁאנֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּגַבֵּי אֲבוּהוֹן נָמֵי אִיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Redemption of the **tithe is different, as** the **father had** the ability to redeem the tithe **even in partnership** with another when alive. Therefore, the heirs can do so as well. By contrast, substitution of an offering cannot be effected by partners.


###### Zevachim 6a:5
[Zevachim 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִינַּהּ – אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּחַד מִיהָא מֵימַר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי מֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But from** this *halakha* **itself,** that two heirs cannot effect substitution of an offering, it can be proven that they acquire the offering of the deceased. **Granted, if you say** it is **acquired by them, this is** the reason **that one** heir, **in any event, can effect substitution** of another animal for the offering. **But if you say** it is **not acquired by them, how can** even one heir **effect substitution?**


###### Zevachim 6a:6
[Zevachim 6a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:6)

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If **one consecrates** his own animal to atone for someone else and he then redeems it, he **adds one-fifth** of its value, as he would for any other offering he owned, but if the one for whom it atones redeems it, he need not add one-fifth, since he is not the owner. Nevertheless, only the **one for whom** the offering **atones can render** another animal **a substitute** for it, as in this respect only he is considered its owner. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement concludes: **And** if **one separates *teruma* from his** own produce **to** exempt the produce **of another** from the obligation to have teruma separated from it, **the benefit of discretion is his.** Only the one who separated the *teruma* is entitled to determine which priest receives it. Since an heir is able to effect substitution, apparently the offering atones for his transgression. This supports the claim that the heir acquires the offering.


###### Zevachim 6a:7
[Zevachim 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:7)

מִקִּיבְעָא לָא מְכַפְּרָא, מִקּוּפְיָא מְכַפְּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi responds: The offering **does not atone** for the transgressions of the heirs **by** its **essence,** as it was not consecrated for their atonement, and they do not acquire it. Therefore, two heirs of a meal offering can bring it, as explained above. Yet, it **does atone** for them **incidentally [*mikkufeya*].** Therefore, an heir can effect substitution of another animal for it.


###### Zevachim 6a:8
[Zevachim 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּיפְּרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁבָּאוּ, אוֹ לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the *halakha* that offerings slaughtered not for their sake are fit to be sacrificed but do not satisfy the obligations of their owners, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: After these offerings are sacrificed, **did they atone for** the sins for **which they came, or did they not atone** for them?


###### Zevachim 6a:9
[Zevachim 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא כִּיפְּרוּ; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּיפְּרוּ, שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It stands to reason that they did not atone, as, if it enters your mind** that **they did atone, for what** purpose **is** the **second** offering **brought?** Why is the owner required to bring another offering if the first atoned for his sin?


###### Zevachim 6a:10
[Zevachim 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:10)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי, לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ?! לָמָה הוּא קָרֵב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this reasoning: **Rather, what** is the alternative? That **they did not atone?** If so, **for what** purpose **is** the first offering **sacrificed?**


###### Zevachim 6a:11
[Zevachim 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:11)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ מִכֹּחַ לִשְׁמוֹ קָאָתֵי, וְשֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא – לְכַפֵּר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כִּיפְּרוּ – שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: This** is what is **difficult for Rav Sheisha,** i.e., Rav Sheshet, **son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say** that such an offering **did not atone,** it **is brought** even when slaughtered **not for its sake on the strength of** its prior consecration **for its sake. And** in that case, **for what** purpose **is** the **second** offering **brought?** It is brought **to atone** for the sin. **But if you say** that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake **atoned** for the sin, **for what** purpose **is** the **second** offering **brought?**


###### Zevachim 6a:12
[Zevachim 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:12)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אַעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה – מְכַפְּרָא, אוֹ לָא מְכַפְּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, **does it atone** even **for** a violation of **a positive mitzva that** one committed **after designating** the animal as an offering, **or does it not atone** for such a violation?


###### Zevachim 6a:13
[Zevachim 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:13)

מִי אָמְרִינַן מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחַטָּאת; מָה חַטָּאת – דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה אִין, דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא; אַף הָכָא נָמֵי – דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה אִין, לְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Do we say** that the *halakha* in this case is **just as it is with regard to a sin offering,** in that **just as a sin offering does** atone for a sin **that** one committed **before designation** of the animal but does **not** atone for a sin **that** one committed **after designation, here too,** a burnt offering **does** atone for violations **that** one committed **before designation** but does **not** atone for those committed **after designation?**


###### Zevachim 6a:14
[Zevachim 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:14)

אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא דָּמְיָא לְחַטָּאת; דְּחַטָּאת – עַל כׇּל חֵטְא וְחֵטְא בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חֲדָא חַטָּאת, וְהָכָא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא כַּמָּה עֲשֵׂה גַּבֵּיהּ מְכַפְּרָא, אַעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה נָמֵי מְכַפְּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or, perhaps** a burnt offering is **not similar to a sin offering, as** with regard to **a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin** he commits. **But here, since** a burnt offering **atones** even for one who **has** committed **several** violations of **positive mitzvot,** one may claim that **it also atones** even **for** the violation of **a positive mitzva that** one committed **after designation** of the animal.


###### Zevachim 6a:15
[Zevachim 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְסָמַךְ... וְנִרְצָה״ – וְכִי סְמִיכָה מְכַפֶּרֶת?! וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בַּדָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְסָמַךְ... וְנִרְצָה... לְכַפֵּר״? שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִסְמִיכָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה – מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר, וְכִיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And he shall place** his hand on the head of the burnt offering, **and it shall be accepted** for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). **And does placing hands atone** for one’s sins? **But isn’t atonement** achieved **only by** the sprinkling of **the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life”** (Leviticus 17:11)? **Rather, what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted** for him **to atone”?** This teaches **that if one deemed** the ritual of **placing hands** to be **a non-essential mitzva** and consequently failed to perform it, **the verse ascribes to him** blame **as though** the offering **did not atone** for his sins; **and** nevertheless, the offering **atoned** for his sins.


###### Zevachim 6a:16
[Zevachim 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:16)

מַאי לָאו דְּכִיפֵּר – עֲשֵׂה דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – אַעֲשֵׂה דִּסְמִיכָה, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ עֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What,** does the final clause of the *baraita* **not** mean **that** the offering **atoned** for the violation of any **positive mitzva that** the owner committed **before designation** of the animal, but **it did not atone for** violation of **the positive mitzva of placing hands** on the head of the offering, **as that constitutes** a violation of **a positive mitzva after designation** of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation.


###### Zevachim 6a:17
[Zevachim 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: עֲשֵׂה דִּסְמִיכָה קָאָמְרַתְּ?! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֹל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁחֵיט – בַּ״עֲמוֹד וּסְמוֹךְ״ קָאֵי; אֵימַת קָא הָוֵי עֲשֵׂה – לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה; לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response: **You say** that **the positive mitzva of placing hands** is proof? **There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter** the offering, **he remains** obligated **to stand and place** his **hands** on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. **When does** the violation of this **positive mitzva occur?** It occurs **after** the **slaughter,** at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed **after** the **slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma;** clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation.


###### Zevachim 6a:18
[Zevachim 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/6a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא, אֵימָא: כִּיפֵּר – גַּבְרָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say** the *baraita* means that the offering **atoned** for the transgression of **the person,**