Sacrifices Page M – slaughterer sin on those who are not committed to it

The Gemara (Aza.) discussed the principle, whereby Slaughter thought ‘Change Owner’ invalidates the victim only if there was also a man committed to the same victim;

Raba said: sin abattoir on who committed the sin – wrong, who committed costs – kosher;
Why? Atonement for him, he – not his friend, his friend Domya Didier committed to atonement likewise.

This law was brought in early stethoscope (C:). Our issue is brought further expansion in this regard:

Raba said: sin abattoir on non-committed anything – wrong, you have no person in Israel is not obligated to do.
Raba said: sin excused for receivables made …

That is, Slaughter sin to those who must indicate not ruled out, because the costs do not have committed sin. But the slaughter of sin for those who are not committed to anything invalidates the victim, because even those who are not committed to anything belongs to some sin, that sin also excused Commandments and a man who moved the team did.

These things raise a great big surprise, since the excess comes Commandments, and if so even those requiring a little sin is part of the team made a mercy seat, and why his name did not Atpsul slaughter the victim?

Indeed, this makes it difficult Gemara answers (M):

Makiab’a not Machpra, Mkofia Machpra.

That is, sin is not excused complete atonement “Makiab’a” the team did but only a partial atonement “Mkofia”, so no sacrifice is similar to the mercy seat on the team made a complete atonement.

Although still difficult to understand the Gemara’s answer, for what you like – if Atonement “Mkofia” not enough to set you’ve got rising as belonging to sin, how would help define a person who has nothing as belonging to sin?

Rashi (sv Mkofia) tried to deal with this question spelled out:

Thus the immigrant who committed a kosher, since Dafris belong Velho made up his Aolo sin no more collection belongs. But those who do not set aside anything he did crimes Collection belongs sin commits the sin of Eve Dale village did Mkofia.

That is, division between those who must indicate who does not have anything is that my name must indicate that retirement is linked to the rising her sins and so set aside is no longer part of the sin. This is in contrast to non-sins committed anything pending which the victim can apply and wait on him, including the sin offering.

Although, according to Rashi seems that most missing from the book. Because the focus of division is that the secretion of excess charge removed the victim from the person, no matter at all if you missed excused “Makiab’a” or “Mkofia” (Treasure in the city and life).

Therefore seems to be to explain the Gemara’s answer differently. There is a fundamental difference between a person who is committed and the person is not committed to anything. Who is the person who is committed is seeking to atone for his sins by a complete atonement is dedicated to offering unique for atonement. In any case he does not want all the partial atonement and sin offering which he belongs. But who is not committed to anything not looking for a special atonement for his sins, and therefore has a desire and belonging to the superficial general atonement of the sin offering for the sins that he was not aware of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Avraham Fall