## Zevachim Daf 7a

###### Zevachim 7a:1
[Zevachim 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:1)

לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, they may not be redeemed** as long as they are **unblemished,** since they retain the status of offerings. But **according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed** even when they are **unblemished,** as the court initially stipulates that if they are not needed they will not assume the status of an offering. Apparently Rabbi Shimon does not accept the notion that the court can stipulate that there be a delay in the consecration of communal offerings, and the *baraita* can be adduced as evidence that offerings atone for transgressions committed after their designation as offerings.


###### Zevachim 7a:2
[Zevachim 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:2)

וְעוֹד, הָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: שְׂעִירֵי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָן בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, וְנִזְרַק דָּמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן; שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא? עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁאוֹרְעָה בֵּין [זְרִיקָה שֶׁל] זֶה לָזֶה. (נִזְרַק דָּמוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא קְרֵיבִין)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** continued Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shmuel, one can otherwise infer from the goats sacrificed on *Shavuot* that an offering can atone for transgressions committed after designation; as **Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira:** If the **goats** sacrificed on ***Shavuot*** were slaughtered simultaneously and **their blood was collected in two cups, and the blood of** the **first** goat **was sprinkled, for what** sin **is** the **second** goat **brought?** There was no time in the interim for other transgressions to occur. Rabbi Zeira answered: It atones **for** any incident involving **impurity that occurred between the sprinkling** of the blood **of that** first goat **and** the sprinkling of the blood of **this** second goat.


###### Zevachim 7a:3
[Zevachim 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:3)

עַד כָּאן לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – אֶלָּא עֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל עָשָׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה – לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can infer: Rabbi Yirmeya **raised the dilemma only** about whether or not an offering atones for the violation of **a positive mitzva** committed **after** its **slaughter** and before the sprinkling of the blood. **But** with regard to the violation of **a positive mitzva that** one committed **after** the **designation** of the offering, before its slaughter, **he did not raise the dilemma.** Apparently, it was obvious to him that the offering atones for such a violation.


###### Zevachim 7a:4
[Zevachim 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:4)

דִּלְמָא ״אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Perhaps** Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma was also with regard to the violations committed after designation. He phrased his question to apply to violations committed after slaughter because **he was saying:** Even **if you say** that an offering atones for violations committed after designation, does it atone for those violations committed after slaughter? It may be that neither issue was clear to him.


###### Zevachim 7a:5
[Zevachim 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:5)

אִיתְּמַר: תּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם תּוֹדַת חֲבֵירוֹ (כְּשֵׁרָה) – רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** with regard to **a thanks offering that** one **slaughtered for the sake of another’s thanks offering: Rabba says** that it is **fit** and satisfies its owner’s obligation, and **Rav Ḥisda says** it is **unfit** in this regard.


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

רַבָּה אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה – תּוֹדָה לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה נִשְׁחֲטָה. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר פְּסוּלָה – לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים דִּידֵיהּ נִשְׁחֲטָה בָּעֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says** it is **fit** because the **thanks offering was slaughtered for the sake of a thanks offering. Rav Ḥisda says** it is **unfit** because **it must be slaughtered for the sake of his own peace offering.**


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

אָמַר רַבָּה: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּבְשַׂר זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו בְּיוֹם הַקְרִיבוֹ אֶת זִבְחוֹ וְגוֹ׳״ – אַבָּא חָנִין אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, בָּא לְלַמֵּד: תּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים – כְּשֵׁרָה, שְׁלָמִים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה – פְּסוּלִים. וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? תּוֹדָה קְרוּיָה שְׁלָמִים, וְאֵין שְׁלָמִים קְרוּיִין תּוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: From where do I say** that it is fit? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And the meat of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offering**…**on the day that he presents his offering** it shall be eaten” (Leviticus 7:15–16). **Abba Ḥanin said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:** The verse **comes to teach** that **a thanks offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering** is **fit,** whereas **a peace offering that was slaughtered for the sake of a thanks offering** is **unfit. And what** is the **difference between this** offering **and that** offering? **A thanks offering is called a peace offering** in the verse, **but a peace offering is not called a thanks offering.**


###### Zevachim 7a:8
[Zevachim 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:8)

שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה – פְּסוּלָה, הָא תּוֹדָה לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה – כְּשֵׁרָה; מַאי, לָאו דְּחַבְרֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba explains: The *baraita* indicates that **a peace offering** that was slaughtered **for the sake of a thanks offering** is **unfit, but a thanks offering** that was slaughtered **for the sake of** some other **thanks offering** is **fit. What, is it not** referring to the thanks offering **of another,** teaching that it satisfies its owner’s obligation?


###### Zevachim 7a:9
[Zevachim 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:9)

לָא, דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is referring to another thanks offering **of his own,** which he designated to give thanks for another incident of deliverance.


###### Zevachim 7a:10
[Zevachim 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:10)

אֲבָל דְּחַבְרֵיהּ מַאי – פְּסוּלָה? אַדְּתָנֵי ״שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה פְּסוּלָה״, לִיתְנֵי ״תּוֹדָה לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה״ – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if one slaughtered his thanks offering for the sake of **another’s** thanks offering, **what** is the *halakha*? Is it **unfit,** i.e., does it not satisfy the owner’s obligation? If so, **rather than teaching** that **a peace offering** slaughtered **for the sake of a thanks offering** is **unfit, let** the *baraita* **teach** that **a thanks offering** that was slaughtered **for the sake of** another’s **thanks offering** is unfit, **and** one could infer that **all the more so a peace offering** slaughtered **for the sake of a thanks offering** is unfit.


###### Zevachim 7a:11
[Zevachim 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:11)

שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה דִּידֵיהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִדְּתוֹדָה קְרוּיָה ״שְׁלָמִים״, שְׁלָמִים נָמֵי קְרוּיִין ״תּוֹדָה״ – וְכִי שָׁחֵיט לְהוּ לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה לִיכַּשְּׁרוּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** for the *baraita* to specify a case where **a peace offering** was slaughtered **for the sake of his own thanks offering.** Otherwise, it might **enter your mind to say** that **since a thanks offering is called a peace offering, a peace offering is called a thanks offering as well, and** therefore **when one slaughters** a peace offering **for the sake of a thanks offering it should be fit.** Therefore the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Zevachim 7a:12
[Zevachim 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כְּשֵׁירָה, לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says: A sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of** another **sin offering** he was obligated to bring is **fit;** but if one slaughtered it **for the sake of a burnt offering** it is **unfit.**


###### Zevachim 7a:13
[Zevachim 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:13)

מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וַהֲרֵי חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת נִשְׁחֲטָה. לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this distinction? **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And slaughter it for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:33), **and** therefore, as long as the **sin offering was slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering,** even another sin offering, it is fit. But if it was slaughtered **for the sake of a burnt offering** it is **unfit.**


###### Zevachim 7a:14
[Zevachim 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:14)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת – פְּסוּלָה. עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב עוֹלָה – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says: A sin offering that one slaughtered for** a person other than its owner, but **who** nevertheless was **obligated** to bring **a sin offering,** is **unfit.** But if one slaughtered it **for** one **who** was **obligated** to bring **a burnt offering,** it is **fit.**


###### Zevachim 7a:15
[Zevachim 7a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:15)

מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו״ – עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ; חֲבֵירוֹ דּוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ, בִּמְחוּיָּיב כַּפָּרָה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this distinction? The Torah states: **“And he shall be forgiven”** (Leviticus 4:26), indicating that it must be specifically **he,** the owner, **who** shall be forgiven, **and not another** person. **The other** person to whom this is referring, with regard to whom the offering is disqualified, is presumably **similar to** the owner **in** that **he is** also **obligated** to achieve **atonement similar to** the owner’s by bringing a sin offering. Whereas if the other person is obligated to bring a burnt offering, and not a sin offering, this disqualification does not apply.


###### Zevachim 7a:16
[Zevachim 7a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:16)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב כְּלוּם – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב עֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says: A sin offering that one slaughtered for** a person **who is not obligated** to bring **anything** is **unfit, as there is no person among the Jewish people who is not obligated** to bring an offering for violating **a positive mitzva.** Therefore, the one for whom he slaughtered the offering is considered one who was obligated to bring a sin offering.


###### Zevachim 7a:17
[Zevachim 7a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:17)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: חַטָּאת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר – עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת מְכַפֶּרֶת, עַל חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says** that **a sin offering atones for those obligated** to bring a burnt offering for violating **a positive mitzva, due to an *a fortiori*** inference: If a sin offering **atones for those who are liable** for transgressions for which one receives **excision from the World-to-Come** if he performs them intentionally, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that it atones **for those liable** for failing to fulfill **a positive mitzva?**


###### Zevachim 7a:18
[Zevachim 7a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/7a:18)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּבַת מִינַהּ הִיא?! וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת – פְּסוּלָה, עַל מִי שֶׁמְּחוּיָּיב עוֹלָה – כְּשֵׁרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that** the violation of a positive mitzva **is of the same type as** the sins atoned for by a sin offering? **But doesn’t Rava say** that **a sin offering that one slaughtered for** a person other than its owner but **who** was **obligated** to bring **a sin offering** is **unfit,** but if it was slaughtered **for** a person **who is obligated** to bring **a burnt offering,** it is **fit,** as he is not obligated to provide a similar atonement? Given that burnt offerings atone for violations of positive mitzvot, apparently such atonement is of a different type than atonement for the transgression of prohibitions.