The entire system of Temple sacrifices is predicated on the requirement for a person who sins to bring a specific offering to atone for their misdeed. Today, the Talmud raises a fascinating question: If a person designates an animal for sacrifice to atone for one sin, can that same sacrifice also atone for a not-yet-committed sin that the person might make in the future? And how might such a two-for-one opportunity affect a person’s relationship with God?
Before getting to those questions, a distinction is in order:
Do we say just as it is with regard to a sin offering, in that a sin offering atones for a sin one committed before its designation but not committed after designation, here too, (a burnt offering) atones for a sin committed before designation but not for after designation?
When a person has an opportunity to do a positive mitzvah and fails to do it, they must bring a burnt offering, an olah, to atone. If they violate a negative commandment, then a sin offering, or chatat, is required. In the latter case, we know that if someone violates a negative commandment twice, they have to offer up a separate sacrifice each time. So perhaps, the Gemara muses, it should be the same with a positive mitzvah. If, say, someone declines to give charity when asked, they must bring a burnt offering to atone. If they subsequently ignore the beggar a second time later that day, they also need to bring a second offering.
The Gemara brings a beraita to prove that one burnt offering can in fact cover several instances of the same violation of a positive mitzvah. But Rava disagrees, insisting that even with missed opportunities to fulfill positive mitzvot, it’s one sacrifice per sin. Then comes Rav Huna bar Yehuda with what I think is the most interesting statement on the daf, and one that — even if you’re not particularly enthralled by the minutiae of sacrifices — has meaning for the modern reader:
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say (the sacrifice) atoned for the person, but it did not atone before Heaven.
Rav Huna bar Yehuda says that while the single sacrifice might atone for the multiple missed opportunities to perform a mitzvah, it’s not what God truly wants. In effect, stop thinking about the details of the sacrifice and start thinking about what it means for a person to think they got away on a technicality. Each time a person fails to perform a positive mitzvah when they have an opportunity to do so, they’re turning their back on God. As a consequence, God isn’t going to accept their sacrifice because their heart isn’t in the right place.
We’ve already learned (and will hear more) about sacrifices that are invalidated when the priest who offers them doesn’t have the right mindset. Here, we get a glimpse of what it means for the common person with no real remorse who brings a sacrifice (and sacrifices the life of an animal, let’s not forget) to have God reject the offering because the person isn’t truly sorry.
Many of the prophets address this disconnect. Hosea, who lived during the time of the First Temple when such sacrificial services were conducted, states: “For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; devotion to God, rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6). I don’t think Hosea is necessarily recommending the suspension of the sacrificial service. Instead, and in keeping with the ethos of Rav Huna bar Yehuda, I think what he’s saying is this: Do the right thing in the first place, and then you’ll have no need to make a burnt offering. When you see a chance to do a mitzvah, take it.
Read all of Zevachim 6 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 20, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
