Podcasts about Tamid

-

-

-

BEGINNING ANEW 23 THE TAMID

-

-

-

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

-

Diagrams If kodshei kodashim were slaughtered on top of the altar, is that considered a valid slaughter? Rabbi Yosi maintains that it is as if they were slaughtered in the north, and therefore valid. In contrast, Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is only valid if performed on the northern half of the altar. Rav Asi cites Rabbi Yochanan, who explains that Rabbi Yosi viewed the altar as entirely situated in the north. Rav Asi assumes that this was derived from our Mishna, where Rabbi Yosi permits slaughtering on the altar. He further clarifies that when Rabbi Yosi stated, "It is as if it is in the north," he meant to emphasize that although the requirement to slaughter kodshei kodashim is "on the side of the altar," slaughtering on top of the altar is also valid. Rabbi Zeira challenges Rav Asi's interpretation by applying the same connection to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda's position, that he must hold the altar is situated half in the north and half in the south, and introducing another statement from Rav Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, which contradicts that. The second statement of Rabbi Yochanan is that, according to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda, if one slaughtered on the ground under where the altar stands, it is invalid. Rav Asi responds by explaining that both Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda derived their views from a verse in the Torah, and it does not hinge on the location of the altar. The verse is Shemot 20:21: "And you shall slaughter on it (the altar) your burnt and peace offerings." The debate centers on whether the verse states that both burnt and peace offerings may be slaughtered anywhere on the altar, or that burnt offerings must be slaughtered on one half (the north) and peace offerings on the other. Rav Acha of Difti asks Ravina to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan's statement that slaughtering on the ground where the altar stands is invalid. How can one slaughter on the ground where the altar is standing? Rabbi Zeira returns to the original statement of Rabbi Yochanan—that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was entirely in the north—and seeks a source for this in a Mishna. He cites a Mishna in Tamid 29a, which refers to the location of the ma'aracha hashniya, the second arrangement of wood on the altar, as being in the southwest corner, four cubits toward the north. Rabbi Yosi explained the need for this to be situated opposite the exit of the Sanctuary. Rabbi Zeira argues that the arrangement needed to be opposite the exit of the Sanctuary and four cubits north of the southwest corner, which can only be reconciled with Rabbi Yosi's position that the altar was entirely in the north. However, Rav Ada bar Ahava counters Rabbi Zeira's proof by suggesting that the Mishna can be understood according to Rabbi Yehuda, who held that the altar was situated half in the north and half in the south, centered in the room.

Diagrams If kodshei kodashim were slaughtered on top of the altar, is that considered a valid slaughter? Rabbi Yosi maintains that it is as if they were slaughtered in the north, and therefore valid. In contrast, Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is only valid if performed on the northern half of the altar. Rav Asi cites Rabbi Yochanan, who explains that Rabbi Yosi viewed the altar as entirely situated in the north. Rav Asi assumes that this was derived from our Mishna, where Rabbi Yosi permits slaughtering on the altar. He further clarifies that when Rabbi Yosi stated, "It is as if it is in the north," he meant to emphasize that although the requirement to slaughter kodshei kodashim is "on the side of the altar," slaughtering on top of the altar is also valid. Rabbi Zeira challenges Rav Asi's interpretation by applying the same connection to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda's position, that he must hold the altar is situated half in the north and half in the south, and introducing another statement from Rav Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, which contradicts that. The second statement of Rabbi Yochanan is that, according to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda, if one slaughtered on the ground under where the altar stands, it is invalid. Rav Asi responds by explaining that both Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda derived their views from a verse in the Torah, and it does not hinge on the location of the altar. The verse is Shemot 20:21: "And you shall slaughter on it (the altar) your burnt and peace offerings." The debate centers on whether the verse states that both burnt and peace offerings may be slaughtered anywhere on the altar, or that burnt offerings must be slaughtered on one half (the north) and peace offerings on the other. Rav Acha of Difti asks Ravina to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan's statement that slaughtering on the ground where the altar stands is invalid. How can one slaughter on the ground where the altar is standing? Rabbi Zeira returns to the original statement of Rabbi Yochanan—that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was entirely in the north—and seeks a source for this in a Mishna. He cites a Mishna in Tamid 29a, which refers to the location of the ma'aracha hashniya, the second arrangement of wood on the altar, as being in the southwest corner, four cubits toward the north. Rabbi Yosi explained the need for this to be situated opposite the exit of the Sanctuary. Rabbi Zeira argues that the arrangement needed to be opposite the exit of the Sanctuary and four cubits north of the southwest corner, which can only be reconciled with Rabbi Yosi's position that the altar was entirely in the north. However, Rav Ada bar Ahava counters Rabbi Zeira's proof by suggesting that the Mishna can be understood according to Rabbi Yehuda, who held that the altar was situated half in the north and half in the south, centered in the room.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that the section of Hodu should be recited in the morning immediately following the Korbanot section, which discusses the sacrifices offered each day in the Bet Ha'mikdash. King David established the reading of Hodu during the offering of the daily Tamid sacrifice, and so, in commemoration, we should recite Hodu immediately after we speak of this sacrifice. Furthermore, the Ben Ish Hai writes, the declaration of "Hashem Melech, Hashem Malach, Hashem Yimloch Le'olam Va'ed" should be made soon after the recitation of Hodu. Therefore, if somebody recited the sections of Korbanot and Hodu at home, and then comes to the synagogue, he should repeat Hodu so he can juxtapose this recitation to the pronouncement of "Hashem Melech…" Our custom is to recite Hodu before Baruch She'amar, but the custom among many Ashkenazim is to recite Baruch She'amar first, before Hodu. This sequence is indeed found in a number of ancient Ashkenazic texts of the Siddur. The Maharam Shick (Hungary, 1807-1879) went so far as to say that one who recites Hodu before Baruch She'amar does not fulfill the obligation of Pesukeh De'zimra. He explained that the verses of Hodu express praise for Hashem, which is the function of Pesukeh De'zimra, and so they must be included within the framework of Pesukeh De'zimra, which begins with Baruch She'amar. Later Rabbis disputed this strict position, noting that the Arizal taught that Hodu should be recited before Baruch She'amar. Moreover, even the Ashkenazim recite the chapter of "Aromimcha Hashem Ki Dilitani" before Baruch She'amar, even though that chapter, like Hodu, expresses praise to Hashem. And, several Rishonim wrote explicitly that one should proceed directly from Baruch She'amar to the series of "Haleluya" chapters of Tehillim, such that Hodu must be recited beforehand. Of course, every community should follow the custom that they've received from their forebears. The Arizal taught that every community has its own "gate" through which its prayers ascend to the heavens, and so each community should strictly adhere to its customs. Significantly, however, Hacham Ovadia Yosef cites the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) as stating that prayers that follow the Sephardic custom ascend through all the "gates," and thus an Ashkenazi who wishes to adopt the Sephardic prayer customs may do so. This is evidenced by none other than the Arizal himself, who was an Ashkenazi but decided to adopt the customs of prayer followed by the Sepharadim. Similarly, Rav Natan Adler (Germany, 1741-1800) brought a Rabbi from Turkey to teach him the Sephardic tradition of prayer because he wanted to adopt those customs. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia writes, an Ashkenazi may switch to the Sephardic prayer customs, but a Sephardi may not adopt the Ashkenazic prayer customs. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia ruled that if a Sephardi prays in an Ashkenazic Minyan, he should not serve as Hazan, as this would require him to recite Baruch She'amar before Hodu. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that a Sephardi may lead the services according to Ashkenazic custom, but Hacham Ovadia disagreed, and stated that a Sephardi must adhere to the Sephardic custom of reciting Baruch She'amar only after Hodu. If a Sepharadi mistakenly recited Baruch She'amar without first reciting Hodu, and he realized his mistake after completing Baruch She'amar, then he should recite Hodu at that point. This was the ruling of Hacham Ben Sion, and Hacham Ovadia would presumably agree that after the fact, if a person already recited Baruch She'amar, then he can and should still recite Hodu. Summary: Sephardic practice is to recite Hodu before Baruch She'amar, whereas many Ashkenazim have the custom to recite Hodu only after Baruch She'amar. A Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazic Minyan must adhere to Sephardic practice, and so he should not serve as Hazan, as this would compel him to reverse the order in accordance with Ashkenazic practice. However, if a Sepharadi mistakenly recited Baruch She'amar first, he recites Hodu afterward.

In this episode of the Prayer Podcast, Rabbi Wolbe discusses Rabbi Yishmael's 13 Principles, the final part of the korbanot section in morning prayers, found in the Sifra's introduction. These principles, a B'raisa (external Talmudic teaching), fulfill the daily Talmud study obligation and connect to Hashem's name and 13 attributes of mercy. They provide a framework for deriving Torah laws without altering them, addressing modern issues like Shabbat elevator use. Key themes include:Purpose in Prayer: Reciting the principles fulfills Talmud study, complementing Torah and Mishnah, and transforms us by engaging with Hashem's name (Zohar), paralleling the 13 attributes of mercy (1:07–5:01).Significance of 13: The number 13 is central (e.g., 13 rivers in Eden, 13 “baruch” in prayers, “echad” and “ahava” equaling 13), symbolizing divine unity and love, aligning with the principles' role in Torah interpretation (5:01–6:59).Torah's Immutability: Rabbis cannot create laws; the principles apply Torah to new contexts (e.g., electricity) without change, preserving divine prescription (6:59–8:33).Personalizing Torah: Study makes Torah “mine,” as per Rebbe Nachman and the Talmud's “in your hand” question, enabling a Gan Eden-like life now (8:33–12:18).Key Principles Explained:Kal vachomer: Logical inference from less to more stringent cases (e.g., Miriam's seven-day exile, Numbers 12:14) (14:23–17:05).Gezerah shavah: Rule application via identical wording, requiring tradition (e.g., “b'mo'ado” for Pesach and Tamid on Shabbat) (18:19–20:52).Binyan av: Extending rules to similar cases (e.g., food preparation on all festivals, two-witness requirement) (20:52–23:51).Call to Action: Read the weekly parsha (Bereshit, Noach) to enrich life, as Torah is a guide for personal growth (23:51–24:12).The episode concludes with anticipation for the next topic, Kaddish, and a blessing for a great week._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Dr. Leonard & June GoldbergDownload the Prayer Podcast Worksheets:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iBVevW1ydyjSeyeO0iCcina7e8vix3Lt?usp=sharingThis episode (Ep. #39) of the Prayer Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Dr. Leonard & June Goldberg! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on October 21, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on October 22, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________SUBSCRIBE and LISTEN to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#Prayer, #Tefillah, #Siddur, #Offerings, #Torah, #Mishnah, #Talmud, #13, #TorahInterpretation, #KalVachomer, #TorahLaws ★ Support this podcast ★

In this episode of the Prayer Podcast, Rabbi Wolbe discusses Rabbi Yishmael's 13 Principles, the final part of the korbanot section in morning prayers, found in the Sifra's introduction. These principles, a B'raisa (external Talmudic teaching), fulfill the daily Talmud study obligation and connect to Hashem's name and 13 attributes of mercy. They provide a framework for deriving Torah laws without altering them, addressing modern issues like Shabbat elevator use. Key themes include:Purpose in Prayer: Reciting the principles fulfills Talmud study, complementing Torah and Mishnah, and transforms us by engaging with Hashem's name (Zohar), paralleling the 13 attributes of mercy (1:07–5:01).Significance of 13: The number 13 is central (e.g., 13 rivers in Eden, 13 “baruch” in prayers, “echad” and “ahava” equaling 13), symbolizing divine unity and love, aligning with the principles' role in Torah interpretation (5:01–6:59).Torah's Immutability: Rabbis cannot create laws; the principles apply Torah to new contexts (e.g., electricity) without change, preserving divine prescription (6:59–8:33).Personalizing Torah: Study makes Torah “mine,” as per Rebbe Nachman and the Talmud's “in your hand” question, enabling a Gan Eden-like life now (8:33–12:18).Key Principles Explained:Kal vachomer: Logical inference from less to more stringent cases (e.g., Miriam's seven-day exile, Numbers 12:14) (14:23–17:05).Gezerah shavah: Rule application via identical wording, requiring tradition (e.g., “b'mo'ado” for Pesach and Tamid on Shabbat) (18:19–20:52).Binyan av: Extending rules to similar cases (e.g., food preparation on all festivals, two-witness requirement) (20:52–23:51).Call to Action: Read the weekly parsha (Bereshit, Noach) to enrich life, as Torah is a guide for personal growth (23:51–24:12).The episode concludes with anticipation for the next topic, Kaddish, and a blessing for a great week._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Dr. Leonard & June GoldbergDownload the Prayer Podcast Worksheets:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iBVevW1ydyjSeyeO0iCcina7e8vix3Lt?usp=sharingThis episode (Ep. #39) of the Prayer Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Dr. Leonard & June Goldberg! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on October 21, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on October 22, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________SUBSCRIBE and LISTEN to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#Prayer, #Tefillah, #Siddur, #Offerings, #Torah, #Mishnah, #Talmud, #13, #TorahInterpretation, #KalVachomer, #TorahLaws ★ Support this podcast ★

-

-

-

Ben Beteira maintains that a Pesach sacrifice slaughtered with the intent of a different offering on the morning of the fourteenth is also disqualified. Rabbi Elazar, citing Rabbi Oshaya, explains that Ben Beteira considers the morning a valid time for offering the Pesach sacrifice. Although the verse uses the phrase “bein ha’arbayim,” typically understood as “afternoon,” Rabbi Oshaya interprets it as “between two evenings,” encompassing the entire day. Several challenges are raised against this interpretation, referencing the timing of the daily afternoon Tamid offering, the incense, and the lighting of the menorah. In each case, it is argued that a separate verse specifies that these rituals must occur specifically in the afternoon. After further scrutiny, Rabbi Oshaya’s interpretation is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Yochanan offers an alternative understanding of Ben Beteira’s position: while the Pesach sacrifice cannot be slaughtered in the morning, that time is still considered “its time” for the purpose of disqualifying a sacrifice offered with the intent of a different offering, since part of the day is designated for the Pesach, the entire day carries implications for intent. Rabbi Abahu challenges this view, arguing that if an animal is designated in the morning or earlier, it becomes disqualified that morning, as it cannot be offered either as a Pesach or a peace offering. This prior disqualification would prevent the animal from being offered later in the afternoon, as it had already been rejected for a period of time. Rabbi Abahu, Abaye, and Rav Papa each propose possible resolutions to this difficulty. Rabbi Zeira ask Rabbi Abahu that base don his previous question it seems that Rabbi Yochanan holds that live animals can be rejected from sacrifice, not only after slaughter. Rabbi Abahu affirms this and supports it with a ruling from Rabbi Yochanan, from which three principles regarding the rejection of offerings are derived, including that live animals can indeed be rejected from the altar. The Gemara continues with additional statements from Rabbi Yochanan about sacrifices that become permanently disqualified, such as when a person renounces the religion or becomes a shoteh (mentally incapacitated). Ben Azai holds that even a burnt offering brought with improper intent is disqualified. Rav Huna attempts to source this opinion from the Torah verse “olah hu” (“it is a burnt offering”). When this is rejected, the reasoning shifts to a kal va’chomer argument: since a burnt offering is more stringent than a sin offering, being entirely consumed, it should be subject to stricter rules. However, this reasoning is also challenged, as both the Pesach and sin offerings have unique stringencies not applicable to burnt offerings.

Ben Beteira maintains that a Pesach sacrifice slaughtered with the intent of a different offering on the morning of the fourteenth is also disqualified. Rabbi Elazar, citing Rabbi Oshaya, explains that Ben Beteira considers the morning a valid time for offering the Pesach sacrifice. Although the verse uses the phrase “bein ha’arbayim,” typically understood as “afternoon,” Rabbi Oshaya interprets it as “between two evenings,” encompassing the entire day. Several challenges are raised against this interpretation, referencing the timing of the daily afternoon Tamid offering, the incense, and the lighting of the menorah. In each case, it is argued that a separate verse specifies that these rituals must occur specifically in the afternoon. After further scrutiny, Rabbi Oshaya’s interpretation is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Yochanan offers an alternative understanding of Ben Beteira’s position: while the Pesach sacrifice cannot be slaughtered in the morning, that time is still considered “its time” for the purpose of disqualifying a sacrifice offered with the intent of a different offering, since part of the day is designated for the Pesach, the entire day carries implications for intent. Rabbi Abahu challenges this view, arguing that if an animal is designated in the morning or earlier, it becomes disqualified that morning, as it cannot be offered either as a Pesach or a peace offering. This prior disqualification would prevent the animal from being offered later in the afternoon, as it had already been rejected for a period of time. Rabbi Abahu, Abaye, and Rav Papa each propose possible resolutions to this difficulty. Rabbi Zeira ask Rabbi Abahu that base don his previous question it seems that Rabbi Yochanan holds that live animals can be rejected from sacrifice, not only after slaughter. Rabbi Abahu affirms this and supports it with a ruling from Rabbi Yochanan, from which three principles regarding the rejection of offerings are derived, including that live animals can indeed be rejected from the altar. The Gemara continues with additional statements from Rabbi Yochanan about sacrifices that become permanently disqualified, such as when a person renounces the religion or becomes a shoteh (mentally incapacitated). Ben Azai holds that even a burnt offering brought with improper intent is disqualified. Rav Huna attempts to source this opinion from the Torah verse “olah hu” (“it is a burnt offering”). When this is rejected, the reasoning shifts to a kal va’chomer argument: since a burnt offering is more stringent than a sin offering, being entirely consumed, it should be subject to stricter rules. However, this reasoning is also challenged, as both the Pesach and sin offerings have unique stringencies not applicable to burnt offerings.

-

In trying to answer whether a burnt offering can atone for positive commandments neglected after the animal was designated (between designation and slaughter) or only for those neglected before designation, the Gemara cites Rabbi Shimon. He explains that the reason two goats are offered on Shavuot is that the second goat atones for impurities in the Temple that occurred after the first goat was offered. If both goats were designated at the same time, this would support the view that an offering can atone for sins committed after designation. A difficulty is raised with that proof because it assumes simultaneous designation; perhaps the second goat needs to be designated only after the first was offered. That possibility is hard to accept because the verse does not indicate a later designation. Rav Papa also rejects the proof, suggesting instead that the court could stipulate from the outset that the second goat will only become sanctified after the blood of the first goat is offered. Two objections are raised to Rav Papa’s reply. First, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the court's stipulations—he therefore would not recognize a court’s postponement of consecration, as shown by his ruling that animals reserved for one year cannot serve as the Tamid in the following year. Second, Rabbi Yirmeya’s question about whether the second goat can cover impurity that occurred between the sprinkling of the first goat’s blood and the second’s implies it was understood that the goat covers from the time of designation. That second difficulty is, however, resolved, and the original question remains unanswered. There is a dispute between Raba and Rav Chisda about a toda (thanksgiving offering) brought on behalf of another who needs to bring a toda. Each presents his reasoning; Raba cites a baraita in support, but his proof is rejected. Rava gives six rulings about issues of incorrect intention during the sacrificial rites and adds a seventh about the nature of the olah (burnt offering). He teaches that the olah does not itself provide atonement; rather, it is a gift to God offered after a person has repented for not fulfilling a positive commandment. If the person has not yet repented, the offering provides no atonement, for the sacrifices of the wicked are despicable. The Mishna states that both a sin offering and a Pesach sacrifice brought for the sake of the wrong sacrifice or for the wrong person are disqualified. The Gemara first adduces the source for this rule for Pesach and then for the sin offering.  

In trying to answer whether a burnt offering can atone for positive commandments neglected after the animal was designated (between designation and slaughter) or only for those neglected before designation, the Gemara cites Rabbi Shimon. He explains that the reason two goats are offered on Shavuot is that the second goat atones for impurities in the Temple that occurred after the first goat was offered. If both goats were designated at the same time, this would support the view that an offering can atone for sins committed after designation. A difficulty is raised with that proof because it assumes simultaneous designation; perhaps the second goat needs to be designated only after the first was offered. That possibility is hard to accept because the verse does not indicate a later designation. Rav Papa also rejects the proof, suggesting instead that the court could stipulate from the outset that the second goat will only become sanctified after the blood of the first goat is offered. Two objections are raised to Rav Papa’s reply. First, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the court's stipulations—he therefore would not recognize a court’s postponement of consecration, as shown by his ruling that animals reserved for one year cannot serve as the Tamid in the following year. Second, Rabbi Yirmeya’s question about whether the second goat can cover impurity that occurred between the sprinkling of the first goat’s blood and the second’s implies it was understood that the goat covers from the time of designation. That second difficulty is, however, resolved, and the original question remains unanswered. There is a dispute between Raba and Rav Chisda about a toda (thanksgiving offering) brought on behalf of another who needs to bring a toda. Each presents his reasoning; Raba cites a baraita in support, but his proof is rejected. Rava gives six rulings about issues of incorrect intention during the sacrificial rites and adds a seventh about the nature of the olah (burnt offering). He teaches that the olah does not itself provide atonement; rather, it is a gift to God offered after a person has repented for not fulfilling a positive commandment. If the person has not yet repented, the offering provides no atonement, for the sacrifices of the wicked are despicable. The Mishna states that both a sin offering and a Pesach sacrifice brought for the sake of the wrong sacrifice or for the wrong person are disqualified. The Gemara first adduces the source for this rule for Pesach and then for the sin offering.  

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-