Sacrifices the page – not serving kosher

On page two of us in the Mishnah.:

“All the sacrifices Snzabhu not oil – kosher, but the owners were not required to.”

Sub offers a compromise between kosher victim, and his own responsibility: victim of itself kosher, but the owners are obligated to sacrifice another victim.

On the Talmud. Leads to the puzzlement of Rish knocked on this compromise:

“If valid they want, and if there Marcin Why not?”.

That is, if the victim is indeed kosher, presumably the owner redeem, and the need for further sacrifice?

Rish’s answer relates to the foundation laid Lakish above Gemara (Ab. -:). Rish said Kish, each victim embodied in two content. One is the content itself victim’s identity, this identity is not compromised computer that has no name. Other content based on it, a dedication of the victim is a vow, and the duty of sacrifice of the victim has the vow. Well, even though the victim was a minister, the owner must bring another victim to keep his vow.

But, the distinction has no clear answer to the question of appeasement Rish Lakish. Rish Lakish distinguishes between duty to the owner and the victim’s identity, but if two of them eventually yields the desired appeasement? Explicit answer to this question and on the Talmud. . The Gemara there raises a question parallel to that of Resh Lakish (see additions there [and., Sv but]), his words imply that second victim atoning. Oh says – appeasement owner atonement duty bound to fulfill his duties, and have not fulfilled the obligation to , the victim is from a village and a lecturer.

There are more things to refine, explain the main victim is the second victim, because it is leading to repentance. However, since that is the first victim was devoted to the altar, His Holiness is not void of it, and sacrifice him despite the change in name or the name of the owner.

Rish Lakish clarifies that the focus is provide victim blame. Ostensibly, the victim blame the victim of the sin offering similar, and both come to her village. Therefore, should the sin offering was unacceptable, as the name change, for any purpose at the end of the village, so the culprit will be disqualified even change the name. As mentioned, Rish Lakish puzzled by the distinction between them: How can sacrifice its owner is not guilty for duty, the culprit finally came to the village, if there is no atonement do not have to sacrifice.

The distinction between sin and guilt will be discussed, with God’s help, following Studies, but one note will suffice for our purposes. Above mentioned the issue on Friday, Ahmsatpakat about atoning power of the first victim, who is the owner for duty. Talmud there is not necessarily focused on one or another victim, but grouped method (signal B) actually wrote doubts as guilty. Ostensibly, there is a pressing issue to one specific victim whole, it seems that the source is grouped according to the method convoluted discussion Resh Lakish opinion. This discussion we learned that the victim seems strange indeed to blame for many in relation to justice for its own sake, above: Since all the essence of the village, how could the battle and for owners is required. As mentioned above, to meet the root of the matter has to go deeper on the issue of sin and shame, and for that, God willing, in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Avihud Schwartz