cannot be redeemed, according to R. Simeon's view, as long as they are unblemished, while on the view of the Sages they can be redeemed while unblemished. (1) Moreover, (2) surely R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: If the blood of the Pentecostal he-goats was received in two basins, (3) and the blood of one was sprinkled, what is the purpose of the second? (4) [To which he replied:] On account of defilement that occurred between the sprinkling [of the blood] of the one and that of the other. Thus he is in doubt only in respect of [the violation of] a positive command after the slaughtering, but he does not ask in respect of [the violation of] a positive command after the separating [of the animal]! (5) — [No:] Perhaps his question is hypothetical. (6) It was taught: If one slaughtered a thanksoffering in the name of his fellow's thanksoffering,7 — Rabbah ruled: It is valid; (8) while R. Hisda said: It is invalid. Rabbah ruled, ‘It is valid’, [because] a thanks-offering has been slaughtered as a thanks-offering. R. Hisda said, ‘It is invalid’, because it must be slaughtered in the name of his peaceoffering. (9) Rabbah said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering: (10) Abba Hanin said on R. Eliezer's authority: This comes to teach that if a thanks-offering is slaughtered in the name of a peace-offering, it is valid; if a peace-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanks-offering, it is invalid. What is the difference between these two cases? A thanks-offering is designated a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering. (11) Thus a peaceoffering [slaughtered] as a thanks-offering is invalid, whence it follows that a thanksoffering [slaughtered] as a [different] thanksoffering is valid. Surely that means, [even in the name] of his fellow's [thanks-offering]. (12) No: only [when brought in the name of] his own. (13) But what if it is [in the name of] his fellow's: it is invalid? Then instead of teaching, ‘if a peace-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanks-offering, it is invalid’, let him teach, ‘if a thanks-offering [is slaughtered in the name of] a thanks-offering [of a different class, it is invalid], and how much more so a peace-offering in the name of a thanks-offering? — He wishes to teach of a peace-offering [slaughtered] in the name of his own thanksoffering. (14) You might argue, Since a thanks-offering is designated a peaceoffering, a peace-offering too is designated a thanks-offering, and when he kills it [the former] in the name of the thanks-offering, it should be valid. Therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. Raba said: If one slaughters a sin-offering [for one offence] as a sin-offering [for another offence], it is valid; as a burnt- offering, it is invalid, (15) What is the reason? The Divine Law saith, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering, (16) and lo, a sin-offering has been slaughtered for a sin-offering; [while from the same verse we learn that if it is slaughtered] for a burnt-offering, it is invalid. (17) Raba also said: If one slaughters a sinoffering on behalf of [another] person who is liable to a sin-offering, it is invalid; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is valid. What is the reason? — [And the priest] shall make atonement for him, (18) but not for his fellow, and ‘his fellow’ implies one like himself, being in need of atonement as he is. (19) Raba also said: If one slaughters a sinoffering on behalf of a person who is not liable in respect of anything at all, (20) it is invalid, because there is not a single Israelite who is not liable in respect of an affirmative precept; and Raba said: A sin-offering makes atonement for those who are liable in respect of an affirmative precept, a fortiori: seeing that it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth, how much the more for those who are liable in respect of an affirmative precept! (21) Shall we then say that it belongs to the same category? (22) But surely Raba said: If one slaughters a sin-offering on behalf of [another] person who is liable to a sinoffering, it is invalid; on behalf of a person who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is valid? (23)

---

(1). ↑ For we assume a tacit stipulation of the Beth din that it be permitted to redeem them even while unblemished (normally this is forbidden) and thus, becoming hullin, they can be purchased with the new shekels and then be offered as daily burntofferings. R. Simeon however rejects this assumption, and therefore holds that they cannot be redeemed but must be offered as extra public sacrifices.
(2). ↑ Even assuming that the Biblical text itself might be explained as referring to the case where the two goats were separated one after the other.
(3). ↑ They were both killed at the same time.
(4). ↑ According to R. Simeon, since no defilement could occur in the interval, as they were killed simultaneously.
(5). ↑ Presumably R. Jeremiah was certain that according to R. Simeon it does make atonement in that case.
(6). ↑ He may be in doubt about the latter too, but his question is this: on the hypothesis that R. Simeon holds that it does make atonement in the latter case, how is it in the former one?
(7). ↑ A and B each brought one, and A's offering was killed for the purpose for which B's was brought.
(8). ↑ He has done his duty, and does not bring another.
(9). ↑ Cf. Lev. VII, 15: And the flesh of his peaceofferings for thanksgiving.
(10). ↑ Ibid.
(11). ↑ Supra 4a
(12). ↑ Belonging to a different class.
(13). ↑ Even if he killed it for a different reason. E.g., he brought a thanks-offering for being freed from prison, but declared it to be on account of having made a sea-journey in safety. Here, though the reason is different, yet both belong to the same category, and therefore it is valid, (14) Where he was to bring both.
(15). ↑ V. Supra 3b.
(16). ↑ Lev, IV, 33.
(17). ↑ V. infra 7b.
(18). ↑ Ibid 26,31,35.
(19). ↑ V. Supra 3b.
(20). ↑ Actually specifying thus.
(21). ↑ Hence it is the same as though he had slaughtered it on behalf of another person who is liable to a sin-offering.
(22). ↑ I.e., that sins of omission fall into the same category as offences entailing a sin-offering.
(23). ↑ Now a burnt-offering atones for sins of omission. But if these fall into the same category as offences entailing a sin-offering, then just as the latter is invalid when slaughtered on behalf of another who is liable to a sin-offering, so should it be invalid when slaughtered on behalf of another who is liable to a burnt- offering, for ‘his fellow’ is then like himself (V. supra).