— It [a sin-offering] does not make a fixed atonement but it does make a floating atonement. (1) Raba also said: If a burntoffering was killed for a different purpose, its blood must not be sprinkled for a different purpose. This follows either from Scripture or by reason. If you will, it is [deduced from] a text: That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe, etc. (2) Alternatively, it is logical: because he has made an alteration therein, etc. as stated at the beginning of this chapter. (3) Raba also said: If a burnt-offering is brought after [the] death [of its owner], and is slaughtered under a changed sanctity, (4) it is invalid; (5) but [if it is slaughtered] with a change in respect of ownership, (6) it is valid, for there is no ownership after death. But R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi maintained: There is ownership after death. (7) R. Ashi asked R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi: Do you particularly maintain that there is ownership after death, and so he [the heir] must bring another burnt-offering; (8) or perhaps, if he [the heir] has violated many affirmative precepts, it makes atonement for him? (9) I maintain it particularly, he answered him. Raba said further: A burnt-offering is a votive gift. (10) For how is it possible? (11) If there is no repentance, then the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination! (12) While if there is repentance, surely it was taught: If one violated an affirmative precept and repented, he does not stir thence until he is forgiven. (13) Hence it follows that it is a votive gift. (Mnemonic: For whom does a sin-offering atone? A burnt-offering after a votive gift.) (14) It was taught likewise. R. Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? — [You ask,] ‘for what purpose does a sinoffering come?’ Surely in order to make atonement! — Rather, [the question is:] Why does it come before the burnt-offering? (15) [Because it is] like an intercessor who enters [to appease the King]: When the intercessor has appeased [him], the gift follows. (16) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SINOFFERING. How do we know it of the Passover-offering? — Because it is written, Observe the month of Abib, and prepare the Passover-offering; (17) [this intimates] that all its preparations must be in the name of the Passover-offering. We have thus found [that] change in respect of sanctity [disqualifies it]; how do we know [the same of] change in respect of owner? — Because it says, Then ye shall say: It is the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover, (18) [which teaches] that the ‘slaughtering’ must be done in the name of the Passover-offering. Now since this teaching is redundant in respect of change in respect of sanctity, (19) apply the teaching to change in respect of owner. We have thus found it as a regulation; (20) how do we know that it is indispensable? (21) — Scripture saith, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God. (22) To this R. Safra demurred: Does this [passage], ‘And thou shalt sacrifice, etc.’ come for this purpose: Surely it is required for R. Nahman's dictum? For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: How do we know that the leftover of a Passoveroffering is brought as a peace-offering? (23) Because it is said, ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd.’ Now surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs or from goats? (24) Hence we learn that the leftover of the Passover-offering is to be [utilized] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd; and what is it? A peace-offering. — Rather, said R. Safra: ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passoveroffering’ [is required] for R. Nahman's dictum; ‘Observe the month of Abib’ [is required] for the regulation in respect of changed sanctity; ‘ Then ye shall say: [It is] the slaughtering of the Lord's Passover’ [is required] for the regulation relating to change in respect of owner; ‘it is’ (25) teaches that it is indispensable, both in the former and in the latter cases. (26) Now we have thus found [it in the case of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] the other services? — Since it was revealed [in the one], it was [also] revealed [in the others]. (27) R. Ashi said: We do not argue, ‘Since it was revealed, it was revealed’. How then do we know it of [the other] services? — Because it is written, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the mealoffering, [and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecrationoffering, and of the sacrifice of peaceofferings]. (28) Now it was taught: In the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings (29) refers to the firstling, tithe, and Passover-offering. Thus Scripture assimilates it [the Passover-offering] to the peace-offering: as [in the case of the] peaceoffering we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner, so in the case of all [these] do we require as a regulation [that there shall not be] either change in respect of sanctity or change in respect of owner. Again, it is like the peaceoffering [in this respect]: As you do not differentiate in the peace-offering between slaughtering and the other services in respect of the regulation, so must you not differentiate in the case of the Passoversacrifice between slaughtering and the other services in respect of indispensability. (30) Then in that case, what is the purpose of ‘it is’? — For what was taught: As for the Passoveroffering, ‘it is’ is stated there to teach indispensability as far as slaughtering is concerned; whereas in the case of a guiltoffering ‘it is’ is stated only after the burning of the emurim, and in fact if the emurim are not burnt at all, it [the offering] is valid. (31) How do we know it of the sin-offering? (32) — Because it is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering, (33) which intimates that it must be killed for the sake of a sin-offering. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving [the blood]? — Because it is written,

---

(1). ↑ Cf. supra 6a. A sin-offering does not make atonement for the omission of positive precepts when it is directly dedicated for that purpose only, but only when it is dedicated for sins which entail a sin-offering, but whose owner has also been guilty of sins of omission. Since it does not atone for sins of omission standing by themselves, one who is in need of a burnt-offering (on account of sins of omission) is not ‘his fellow’ similar to ‘himself’, and therefore if a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of such, it is valid, provided that one had already vowed a burnt-offering, which covers all his sins of omission, so that a sinoffering is quite superfluous as far as he is concerned. But if he had not vowed a burntoffering, a sin-offering has a certain relation to him in so far that if he was liable to a sin-offering too, this would make atonement for the sins of omission also. Hence he is sufficiently similar to his fellow to invalidate his fellow's sin-offering slaughtered on his behalf.
(2). ↑ Deut. XXIII, 24.
(3). ↑ Supra 2a.
(4). ↑ I.e. as a different sacrifice, e.g. a peace-offering.
(5). ↑ And another must be brought before the deceased is deemed to have fulfilled his vow.
(6). ↑ For a different person.
(7). ↑ V. Supra 4b.
(8). ↑ As in n. 6.
(9). ↑ For the heir is the owner,
(10). ↑ It does not actually atone for sins of omission, but after one has repented this comes as a gift of appeasement, as it were.
(11). ↑ For it to make atonement in actuality.
(12). ↑ Prov. XXI, 27.
(13). ↑ I.e., he is undoubtedly forgiven even without a sacrifice.
(14). ↑ A string of words so arranged as to facilitate the remembering of the subjects discussed hereunder.
(15). ↑ When one has to bring both, the sin-offering takes precedence; infra 89b.
(16). ↑ Thus the sin-offering is the intercessor and the burnt-offering follows as a gift.
(17). ↑ Deut. XVI, 1.
(18). ↑ Ex. XII, 27.
(19). ↑ As that has been derived from Deut. XVI, 1.
(20). ↑ I.e., these verses teach that the Passoveroffering must be sacrificed specifically as such and for its registered owner.
(21). ↑ In the sense that it is otherwise disqualified.
(22). ↑ Deut. XVI, 2. This too has the same teaching as XVI, 1. Since however it is superfluous in that case, it must intimate that this regulation is indispensable.
(23). ↑ E.g., if an animal dedicated for a Passoversacrifice was lost, whereupon its owners registered for another animal, and then the first was found after the second was sacrificed. Or again, if a sum of money was dedicated to buy a paschal lamb, but it was not all expended; then too the surplus must be used for a peace-offering.
(24). ↑ But not from the herd, which means the larger cattle.
(25). ↑ Heb. ‘hu’, This is regarded as superfluous and hence interpreted as emphasizing the regulation to the extent of making it indispensable.
(26). ↑ A change either in respect of sanctity or owner invalidates the paschal sacrifice.
(27). ↑ I.e., they follow automatically.
(28). ↑ Lev, VII. 37.
(29). ↑ Ibid. 38.
(30). ↑ What is indispensable for slaughtering is also indispensable for the other services. — Here follows a short passage in the original which the commentaries delete.
(31). ↑ V. Supra 5b.
(32). ↑ That if not slaughtered for its own sake it is invalid.
(33). ↑ Lev. IV, 33.