Chapter 7 of Numbers lays out the gifts that each tribe’s leaders brought to celebrate the dedication of the tabernacle in the desert. Starting with Nachshon son of Aminadav, the leader of Judah, each of the tribal leaders brought elaborate gifts of silver, three animals for a burnt offering, 12 animals for a peace offering and one goat for a sin offering. Where we might think of sin offerings as something that people bring in atonement for a specific sin, here each leader brings a generic sin offering as part of their celebration of the tabernacle.
On today’s daf, the Talmud explores whether such a generic sin offering brought as part of a gift can atone for specific sins.
Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering of Nachshon is fit; as the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), one law for all the sin offerings.
Rav believes that a generic sin offering can in fact atone for specific sins. Rav Mesharshiyya then challenges this teaching based on an earlier beraita.
Rabbi Shimon says: All meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake are fit, and satisfied the obligation of the owner. This is because meal offerings are not similar to slaughtered offerings.
The beraita states explicitly that while meal offerings can be used for something that was not originally intended, animal sacrifices cannot. If someone intended to bring a generic sin offering as part of a gift, they cannot use it to atone for a specific sin that requires its own offering. Having proven that Rav’s original statement is incorrect, Rav Mesharshiyya offers a potential restatement:
Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered on the condition that Nachshon be atoned for by it is fit, as there is no atonement for the dead.
According to Rav Mesharshiyya, Rav’s statement isn’t about generic gift sin offerings at all. Instead, it is about what happens if someone brings a specific sin offering to atone for the “sins of Nachshon” (or any other dead person). In such a case, since sin offerings can’t be brought on behalf of the dead, the sin offering can be used to atone for the offerer’s specific sins. The Talmud then challenges this restatement:
But let him state this about (a generic) a dead person. This teaches us that the (only) reason (it works) is that he is dead. Consequently, for a living person similar to that of Nachshon, it is unfit. And what is that? It is a nazirite’s sin offering or a metzora’s sin offering.
The Talmud points to the fact that Nachshon brought his sin offering not to atone for a specific sin, but to fulfill a commitment he had made. So the anonymous voice of the Talmud is arguing that if one brings a sin offering meant to fulfill the obligation of a nazirite or someone experiencing the affliction known as tzara’at, it doesn’t work. How could Rav have thought that it would?
The Talmud is going to offer another restatement of Rav’s original argument, challenge it and then offer a final restatement:
There is one who says Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering of Nachshon is unfit — a sin offering of Nachshon is (actually) a burnt offering.
A generic sin offering cannot be equivalent to a sin offering brought to atone for a specific sin, so if someone tries to make them equivalent, it doesn’t work. While the technical details here are fascinating, I’m also struck by the Talmud’s refusal to just disagree with Rav (and Mavog, whom he quotes). If Rav’s original statement can be effectively challenged, then why not just say that he got it wrong?
Instead, the rabbis restate and restate the position until it can no longer be effectively challenged. And while this shows a deep respect for Rav, it also shows little care for what Rav might have actually thought about this issue. This discussion reminds us that sometimes our respect for an individual can override the details of what that individual actually did or said. And while something is gained in these moves, something is also lost.
Read all of Zevachim 9 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 23, 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.
