Sacrifices Page – from sin and guilt

Vice stethoscope we learned that the wise Rabbi Eliezer disagreed about the victim of not guilty was sacrificed to his name. Smart opinion is duly Dean blame other victims – a minister, but no more than to duty. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is a victim sacrificed to blame for its own sake not worth Dinu sin is rejected completely.

Dana’s page Gemara Rabbi Eliezer’s tastes and wise. From the discussion it turns out, that the dispute does not apply only to reject the victim was sacrificed not for its own sake, but in general the relationship between sin and guilt. Rabbi Eliezer tends to see the two victims as equals Bdinim, while smart split. This understanding explicitly stated by Rashi Pesachim:

“All sides of R. Eliezer was guilty of the sin of doing everything” (Ajami IA, DH Rabbi Eliezer)

In fact, we find a number of laws which Rabbi Eliezer with some smart comparison of guilty for a sin offering:
A.. Sacrificed not to blame for its own sake, in the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer wrong sin (here)
On. Guilty of entering the blood forward, in the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer wrong sin (here)
III. No longer able to blame the village (since the owner died, or Snatachperv another, etc.), in the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer inactivated legally dead sins, and to know smart Eraah to Shiastaab simulations fall immigrant (Pesachim Ajram CA)

It seems that these three essentially equal disputes. Agreed, both the wise and the Rabbi Eliezer, the culprit came to atone for sin. Therefore, even scholars agree that the culprit is out of money. At this point equal blame sin. Also agreed by both, that the work of atonement guilt is different from work I have sinned. Sin is blood on the four funds, index finger tip. Guilt, however, giving it only two funds (although the Talmud raises the possibility that Rabbi Eliezer dispute that), not necessarily at the cutting, tool. These differences seem that these two different works – the sin of the work of sprinkling, and the guilt of eating the altar. These characteristics similar immigrant guilty, where throwing blood on the altar altar is part of eating.

Should now: Smart Rabbi Eliezer disagreed how to see the relationship between these two locations. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the culprit is worth a sin, for his interest, concern, in her village. The difference is only in the atonement – sin excused by sprinkling disinfectants on the altar, while the guilty from the village by a ‘charge’ which is expressed in giving the altar.

Know smart, however, although intended primarily to atone culprit, then he has even eating the altar, holding that can stand on its own, too. All differences that are due –
A.. Sin sacrificed not for Her name is unacceptable, because victim sacrificed to his name does not indicate that there must, sin is not excused it has no meaning. According to Rabbi Eliezer, he is also guilty. Know smart, however, there is guilt of eating an altar holding even when he is not from the village, and therefore has no legitimacy means that the name comes.
On. Sin entered the unacceptable face was like, because like is not designed to eat high, but cleaning and disinfecting the outer altar. Is entering the blood forward is not disapproved, for though it is not intended for use inside, however it has relevance in the face, being designed for high. According to Rabbi Eliezer Din Hashem duly missed, and know smart, having fed the blood of a fault and went inside.
III. The sin of the village can no longer dead, because she had no more role. According to Rabbi Eliezer it is also to blame. Know smart, you can use to indicate guilt, since the existence of an altar there eating it (and see above the EA Atod”ah. Unplugged, Torah could have been sacrificed to blame himself as an immigrant and not just her imagination, Wachma”l)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub