Study Zevachim folio 7A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
לדברי רבי שמעון אין נפדין תמימים, לדברי חכמים נפדין תמימין!
according to the statement of R' Shimon, they may not be redeemed as long as they are unblemished, since they retain the status of offerings. But according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed even when they are unblemished, as the court initially stipulates that if they are not needed they will not assume the status of an offering. Apparently R' Shimon does not accept the notion that the court can stipulate that there be a delay in the consecration of communal offerings, and the baraita can be adduced as evidence that offerings atone for transgressions committed after their designation as offerings.
ועוד, הא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא: שעירי עצרת שקבל דמן בשני כוסות, ונזרק דמו של ראשון; שני למה הוא בא? על טומאה שאורעה בין [זריקה של] זה לזה. (נזרק דמו של שני למה הוא קריבין)
And furthermore, continued Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shmuel, one can otherwise infer from the goats sacrificed on Shavuot that an offering can atone for transgressions committed after designation; as R' Yirmeya asked R' Zeira: If the goats sacrificed on Shavuot were slaughtered simultaneously and their blood was collected in two cups, and the blood of the first goat was sprinkled, for what sin is the second goat brought? There was no time in the interim for other transgressions to occur. R' Zeira answered: It atones for any incident involving impurity that occurred between the sprinkling of the blood of that first goat and the sprinkling of the blood of this second goat.
עד כאן לא מיבעיא ליה – אלא עשה דלאחר שחיטה, אבל עשה דלאחר הפרשה – לא קא מיבעיא ליה!
One can infer: R' Yirmeya raised the dilemma only about whether or not an offering atones for the violation of a positive mitzva committed after its slaughter and before the sprinkling of the blood. But with regard to the violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after the designation of the offering, before its slaughter, he did not raise the dilemma. Apparently, it was obvious to him that the offering atones for such a violation.