## Zevachim Daf 6b

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

לֹא כִּיפֵּר – קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
but **it did not atone** for him **before Heaven,** i.e., it is not accepted by God as a perfect offering.


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

מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר בַּשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף וְגוֹ׳ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – אִם נָתַן, כִּיפֵּר; וְאִם לֹא נָתַן, לֹא כִּיפֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן [בֶּן נוּרִי] אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵן; בֵּין נִיתַּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן – כִּיפֵּר, וּמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Didn’t we learn** in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (*Nega’im* 14:10): The verse states: **“And the rest of the oil that is in** the priest’s **hand** he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, **to make atonement for him before the Lord”** (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that **if** the priest **placed** the oil on the leper’s head, **it atoned** for him, and he is purified, **but if he did not place** the oil on his head, **it did not atone** for him; this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:** Placement of the oil on the leper’s head **is a non-essential mitzva.** Therefore, **whether** the oil **was placed** on his head or **whether it was not placed** on his head, **it atoned** for him, **but** the verse **ascribes** the leper blame **as though it did not atone** for him.


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

מַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר״? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִבְּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן אַחֲרִינָא, הָאָמְרַתְּ: בֵּין נִיתַּן בֵּין לֹא נִיתַּן כִּיפֵּר! אֶלָּא כִּיפֵּר – גַּבְרָא, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא; הָכָא נָמֵי כִּיפֵּר כּוּ׳!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **What** is the meaning of the phrase: **As though it did not atone** for him? **If we say that it is necessary** for the leper **to bring another offering** of oil, **didn’t you say** that **whether** the oil **was placed** on his head or **whether it was not placed** on his head, **it atoned** for him? **Rather,** the meaning of the statement is as follows: **It atoned** for **the person,** but **did not atone** for him **before Heaven. Here too,** with regard to one who sacrificed an offering without placing hands on its head, the *baraita* apparently means that the offering **atoned** for the owner’s transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.


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

הָתָם נָמֵי, כִּיפֵּר – מַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – מַתְּנוֹת הָרֹאשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **There too,** with regard to the purification process of a leper, one can explain that the oil atoned for one matter and did not atone for another: It **atoned;** in other words, the **placement** of oil on the leper’s right **thumb and big toe,** which was performed, effected its atonement. But it **did not atone,** i.e., there still needs to be an atonement effected by **placement** of oil on **the** leper’s **head,** and another *log* of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת לָמָה הֵן בָּאִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the matter of atonement for transgressions committed after the offering’s designation. **Come** and **hear** another proof from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says:** With regard to the communal peace offering of two **lambs** that accompanies the two loaves on ***Shavuot*, for what** sin **are they brought?**


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

כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שְׁלָמִים נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא שְׂעִירֵי עֲצֶרֶת לָמָה הֵן בָּאִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts the citation of the *baraita*: **The** two **lambs** sacrificed on ***Shavuot*** are not brought for a sin; **they are peace offerings** brought with the annual public offering of two loaves of new wheat. **Rather,** the *baraita* should be emended as follows: **For what** sin **are the goats** sacrificed on ***Shavuot*** as a sin offering **brought?**


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

עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon answers: They are brought **for** the **defiling of** the **Temple,** by entering it while ritually impure, **or** for defiling **its sacrificial foods,** by partaking of them while ritually impure.


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

נִזְרַק דָּמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, שֵׁנִי לָמָּה קָרֵב? עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁאוֹרְעָה בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה: רְאוּיִין הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן בְּכׇל עֵת וּבְכׇל שָׁעָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּךְ הַכָּתוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon continues: Once **the blood of** the **first** goat **is sprinkled** on the altar, thereby atoning for this defilement, **for what** sin **is** the **second one sacrificed?** It is sacrificed **for** any incident involving **impurity that** may have **occurred between** the sacrifice of **that** first goat **and** the sacrifice of **this** second goat. **Based on this, say** that **the Jewish people should have** had to **sacrifice their offerings at all times and at every moment,** as perhaps they sinned in the interim; **but the verse spared** them of this obligation.


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

וְהָא הָכָא דַּעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה, וְקָא מְכַפְּרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **And here,** where an incident involving impurity occurred between the sacrifice of the two goats, is a case **where** the **positive mitzva** of distancing ritually impure people from the Temple was violated **after** the **designation** of the offering, as both goats were designated in advance. **And** nevertheless, the second goat **atones** for the violation. Evidently, an offering can atone for transgressions committed after its designation.


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

אִי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּבַת אַחַת – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: **If** both goats were **designated simultaneously,** this would **indeed** be evidence to that effect. But **here we are dealing with** a case **where** they were **designated sequentially,** and an incident involving impurity may have occurred between their respective designations.


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

וְלֵיקוֹ וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא – בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה כְּתִיבָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this assertion: **But shall we stand and say about the verse** mandating these two sin offerings **that when it is written, it is written** specifically with regard to a case **where** they are designated **sequentially?**


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר קָאָמְרַתְּ?! שָׁאנֵי קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – דְּלֵב בֵּית דִּין קָמַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל; דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – סַכִּין מוֹשַׁכְתָּן לְמַה שֶּׁהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** the inference can be rejected for a different reason: **Do you say** that evidence can be adduced from **communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, as** the **court makes a non-verbal stipulation about them, in accordance with** what **Rav Yehuda** says that **Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** With regard to **communal offerings,** the slaughtering **knife,** i.e., the act of slaughter, **designates them for what they are.** The court stipulates that the second goat be consecrated as it is sacrificed, and it therefore atones for incidents of impurity that occur beforehand. Individual offerings, by contrast, are all designated in advance.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב פָּפָּא: וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן?! הָאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכוּ לַצִּבּוּר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shmuel, said to Rav Pappa: But does Rabbi Shimon accept** the opinion that **the court can make a non-verbal stipulation about** communal offerings? **Doesn’t Rav Idi bar Avin say** that **Rav Amram says** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to animals designated as **daily offerings** but **which** in the end **were not necessary for** use by **the public,**