and partners cannot effect substitution. But if you say that they do not acquire it, let them indeed even effect substitution? — There it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘And if he change it at all,’ which is to include the heir; (1) and [the same verse teaches,] one can change, but not two. (2) To this R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod demurred: If so, when it is written, And if a man will redeem ought (3) in connection with tithe, which is also to include the heir, will you say there too, One can redeem, but not two? — Tithe is different, because as far as their father too is concerned it [redemption] can be done in partnership. (4) R. Assi said to R. Ashi: Now from this itself [you may argue]: It is well if you agree that they acquire it, for that reason one [heir] at least can effect substitution. (5) But if you say that they do not acquire it, how can he effect substitution? Surely R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: He who sanctifies [the animal] must add the fifth, whilst only he for whom atonement is made can effect substitution; (6) and he who gives terumah of his own for another man's produce, the goodwill is his! (7) — It does not effect a fixed [absolute] atonement, but it does make a floating atonement. (8) The question was asked: Do they make atonement in respect of the purpose for which they came, or do they not make atonement? (9) Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi: Reason asserts that it does not make atonement; for if you think that it does, what is the purpose of a second [sacrifice]? What then: [do you maintain]; it does not make atonement? Why then is it offered? (10) — Said R. Ashi: This is the difficulty felt by R. Shisha the son of R. Idi: It is well if you say that it does not make atonement; for though slaughtered] for a different purpose, yet it comes in virtue of [having been dedicated for] its true purpose, (11) while the second [sacrifice] comes to make atonement. But if you say that it has made atonement, what is the purpose of the second? The question was asked: Does it [a burnt-offering] make atonement (12) for [the violation of] a positive precept [committed] after the separation [of the animal], or not? Do we say, it is analogous to a sin-offering: just as a sin-offering [makes atonement] only for [the sins committed] before separation, but not for [those committed] after separation, so here too [it makes atonement] only for [the sins committed] before separation, but not for [those committed] after separation. Or, perhaps, it is unlike a sin-offering, for a separate sin-offering is incurred for each sin, whereas here, since it makes atonement if he had been guilty of [violating] many positive precepts, (13) it may also make atonement for positive precepts [neglected] after separation? — Come and hear: And he shall lay [his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering]; and it shall be accepted [for him to make atonement for him]; (14) does then the laying [of hands] make atonement? Surely atonement can be made only with the blood, as it says, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life! (15) What then is taught by the verse, And he shall lay. . . and it shall be accepted. . . to make atonement? — [To teach] that if he treated [the laying of hands] as the residue of the precept, (16) Scripture regards him as though he did not make atonement, and yet he did make atonement. Now what is meant by ‘he did not make atonement’ and ‘he did make atonement’? Surely, ‘he did make atonement’ [means] in respect of positive precepts [neglected] before the separation [of the animal], while ‘he did not make atonement’ in respect of the positive precept of laying [of hands], because it is a positive precept [neglected] after separation? (17) — Said Raba: You speak of the precept of laying [the hand]? There it is different, because as long as he has not yet slaughtered, he is subject to the injunction ‘Arise and lay [hands]’; (18) when then is it a [neglected] positive precept? After the slaughtering; and in respect of [a precept neglected] after the slaughtering no question arises. (19) R. Huna b. Judah said to Raba: Perhaps it means, ‘It did make atonement’ — for the person,

---

(1). ↑ The emphatic ‘at all’ is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb, and this doubling is interpreted as an extension including the heir.
(2). ↑ Since it is couched in the singular.
(3). ↑ Lev. XXVII, 31.
(4). ↑ If the produce belonged to partners in the first place, they could tithe and redeem the tithe in partnership. Hence the same applies to a man's heirs.
(5). ↑ If he is the only heir.
(6). ↑ If A dedicates an animal for B's sacrifice, and it subsequently receives a blemish and must be redeemed, then if A, who sanctified it, redeems it himself, he must add a fifth to its value, but not if B redeems it (this is deduced from Lev. XXVII, 15). Again, only B effects substitution, but not A. Since then the heir does effect substitution, he is obviously regarded as in the place of B, hence its owner.
(7). ↑ I.e., he (so. the man who gives it) can give it to any priest he desires. If money is offered for the terumah to be given to a particular priest, that money belongs to him.
(8). ↑ I.e.,, it does not make an absolute atonement for the heir as though he were its absolute owner; therefore in the case of a meal-offering, though there are two heirs, they still offer it. But the heir has, as it were, a light floating right of atonement in it (i.e., he has some slight rights of ownership in it), and therefore he can effect substitution.
(9). ↑ When a sacrifice is killed for a purpose other than its own, its owner has not fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless the question arises where this was brought in order to make atonement for a certain sin, whether the owner can regard it as having made that atonement, or not. It makes no practical difference, save that the owner may feel himself forgiven even before he offers the second sacrifice.
(10). ↑ Why do we proceed with the sacrificial rites e.g. sprinkling, if it does not make atonement in any case?
(11). ↑ Originally it was dedicated for its rightful purpose. This hallows it, and so even when it is killed for a different purpose it retains its sanctity, and therefore the other sacrificial rites must be proceeded with.
(12). ↑ On the atoning effect of a burnt-offering V. supra p. 22, n. 3.
(13). ↑ One burnt-offering makes atonement for all.
(14). ↑ Lev. I, 4.
(15). ↑ Lev. XVII, 11.
(16). ↑ I.e., as something unimportant, and so neglected it altogether.
(17). ↑ Which solves the question propounded.
(18). ↑ Hence before he slaughtered he cannot be said to have violated it.
(19). ↑ It certainly does not make atonement for such (though further on R. Jeremiah asks even in respect of such too), and the question is only in respect of precepts neglected after the separation of the animal, but before it is slaughtered.