Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

May 31, 2021 | ื›ืณ ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romiโ€™s 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, Bโ€™Ezrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

Yoma 50

Today’s daf is dedicated by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in memory of Marilyn Mirchin, Masha Bat Raizel v’Yitzchak. “Marilyn became my family when her daughter married my brother. She was known as Bubbe Marilyn not only to her own grandchildren but to my daughters as well. Her quiet, gentle manner and warm smile will be missed by all. May her neshama have an aliyah.”

Rabbi Yitzchak now questions Rabbi Ami’s opinion from the verses in the Torah which seem to indicate that “bull” would include also the blood. Rav Ashi supports Rabbi Yitzchak’s approach from the wording of the verse in the Torah. But an alternative reading is brought to support the others. The gemara questions why if the Kohen Gadol dies, this would not be a case of a sin offering whose owner died, which is left to die. Then clearly the other Kohen Gadol would have to slaughter a new bull! A debate ensues between Rav Amram and Rava regarding the status of the bull offering – is it considered a communal offering (in which case it does not have to be left to die) or is it considered an individual offering (but one who has partners and therefore it is not left to die? Rav Amram brings a mishna to support his reading but Rava understands the source differently. Abaye brings who sources against Rava that seem to imply there are those who hold it is a communal offering, but Rava explains them all as referring to partnership and not communal offering. The second source relates to a question regarding laws of substitution for the bull offering and the gemara delves into the question – both to understand exactly what the question was and attempts to find an answer to the question.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืคืจ ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ื•ืœื•


ยง Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa raised an objection to Rabbi Ami: โ€œAnd he shall remove the entire bull outside the campโ€ (Leviticus 4:12). This verse speaks of a bull that has been slaughtered and its fats and sacrificial parts have been burned, which proves that even after it has been slaughtered, it is still called a bull. Rabbi Ami replied: The animal itself is not called a bull at this stage; rather, it means that he should remove the entire carcass, all that remains of the bull.


ื•ืืช ืคืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืช ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืขื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืคืจืฉ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื“ื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืคืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืคืจ


The Gemara raises another difficulty by citing a verse: โ€œAnd the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the campโ€ (Leviticus 16:27). Once again, the verse proves that even after it has been slaughtered and its blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, the animal is still called a bull. Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that when it is intact, with its hide, its flesh, and its excrement, it is called a bull. When they disagree is with regard to the blood. One Sage holds that its blood is called a bull, and one Sage holds that blood alone is not called a bull.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืคืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื–ืืช ื™ื‘ื ืื”ืจืŸ ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืคืจ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ืื˜ื• ื‘ืงืจื ื™ื” ืžืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ื“ืžื• ื•ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืคืจ


Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the one who said that blood is called part of the bull, as it is written: โ€œWith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bullโ€ (Leviticus 16:3). Is that to say that he brings it in, to the Holy of Holies, with its horns? Rather, he enters with its blood, and yet the Torah calls that โ€œa bull.โ€ This proves that the blood itself is called a bull.


ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื‘ืžื” ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืื”ืจืŸ ืœื‘ื ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืคืจ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช


The Gemara asks: And the other one, who maintains that blood is not called a bull, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers that he can explain the verse as follows: With what did Aaron become qualified to enter the sacred place? With his bringing of a young bull for a sin-offering. However, the blood itself, which he brings inside, is not called a bull.


ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ืœืจื‘ื ืืžืจื™ ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื


ยง The Gemara returns to the issue of a replacement High Priest entering with the blood of the first bull: And let him derive the answer to this problem from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died. After all, the bull of the first High Priest is a sin-offering and its owner has died. Since there is a principle that a sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die, this should resolve the dilemma. Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say that Rav Amram said that the sin-offering bull of the High Priest is a communal sin-offering, as the High Priest brings it both on his own behalf and for his fellow priests, and a communal sin-offering is not left to die.


ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ื—ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืคืกื— ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœืื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ


As we learned in a mishna in tractate Temura that tannaโ€™im debate which offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said to him: But consider the Yom Kippur bull, and the meal-offering resembling a wafer brought specially by the High Priest, and the Paschal offering, each of which is an individual offering and overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity. Since Rabbi Meir says that these are individual offerings, is it not correct to say by inference that there is one who says that these offerings are communal?


ื•ืœื˜ืขืžื™ืš ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“


The Gemara rejects this proof. And according to your reasoning, consider that which was taught there: Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said to him: But there are the cases of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goats for a sin of idolatry, and the Festival peace-offering, which are all communal offerings and override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. According to the above reasoning, it can be claimed by inference that there is one who says that these are individual offerings, which is incorrect.


ืืœื ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืฉืžืขื™ื” ื“ืงืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ื—ื” ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ื—ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืคืกื— ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”


Rather, Rabbi Meir responded to the first tanna, as he heard him say in the form of a general principle: Communal sacrifices override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but individual sacrifices override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. In response to this claim, Rabbi Meir said to him: Is this statement with regard to an individual offering a general principle? But consider the Yom Kippur bull, and the meal-offering resembling a wafer of the High Priest, and the Paschal offering, each of which is an individual offering and overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”


And Rabbi Yaโ€™akov responded to the first tanna from a different perspective: Is this statement with regard to a communal offering a general principle, which overrides ritual impurity? But there are the cases of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goats for a sin of idolatry, and the Festival peace-offering, which are all communal offerings and override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.


ืืœื ื ืงื•ื˜ ื”ืื™ ื›ืœืœื ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื›ืœ ืฉื–ืžื ื• ืงื‘ื•ืข ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ืžื ื• ืงื‘ื•ืข ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ื—ื” ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ


Rather, grasp this principle: Any offering that has a fixed time for its sacrifice overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity even if it is an individual offering; and any offering of no fixed time overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity, and this is the case even if it is a communal offering. With regard to the issue at hand, as the emphasis of both Rabbi Meirโ€™s and Rabbi Yaโ€™akovโ€™s statements is whether the offerings they referred to override Shabbat and ritual impurity, not their classification as individual or communal offerings, nothing can be inferred from their comments in this regard. Consequently, it remains possible that the bull of the High Priest is an individual offering.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืคืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืชื• ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืจืขื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ื• ื•ื™ืžื›ืจื• ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื”


ยง Abaye raised an objection to Rava: Is the bull of the High Priest an individual offering? But we learned in a baraita: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and he separated others in their stead, and the first animals were subsequently found, all of the second set shall be left to die. And likewise, goats for a sin of idolatry that were lost and he separated others in their stead, all of them shall be left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall be left to graze until they become unfit, whereupon they are sold and their proceeds go for a free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This proves that the Yom Kippur bull is called a communal sin-offering.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืคืจ ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื“ืฉืขื™ืจ


Rava said to Abaye: What bull is referred to here? A bull for an unwitting communal sin. Abaye retorted: But the baraita taught: Of Yom Kippur, which clearly indicates that it is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rava answered: When the tanna of this baraita taught: Of Yom Kippur, he was referring only to the goat. That is, the baraita should be read as follows: The communal bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which is also a communal offering.


ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืคืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืจืขื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ื• ื•ื™ืžื›ืจื• ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื”


Abaye further asks: But wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost and he separated others in their stead, and the first animals were subsequently found, all of the second set shall be left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall be left to graze until they become unfit, whereupon they are sold and their proceeds go for a free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This baraita explicitly states that the bull of Yom Kippur is considered a communal offering.


ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื” ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ ืžืชื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื”


Rava answered him: Do not say: As a communal sin-offering is not left to die. Rather, say: As a sin-offering of partners is not left to die. Since some of the partners are still alive, the sin-offering is not left to die. The bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is considered a sin-offering of partners because it atones not only for the High Priest, but for his fellow priests, as well. The Gemara asks: And if ultimately the bull is not left to die, what is the practical difference whether the bull of the High Priest is considered a communal sin-offering or a sin-offering of partners? Why did Rava insist on calling it a sin-offering of partners?


ื“ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืจ ื‘ื”ื•ืจืื”


The Gemara answers that there is a difference between these two categories with regard to a court that issues an incorrect ruling to an entire community, e.g., a tribe of Israel, and the people act in accordance with that ruling. The halakha in this case is that the court must bring a bull for an unwitting communal sin. Rava insisted on referring to the bull that atones for all of the priests on Yom Kippur as a sin-offering of partners, not a communal sin-offering, for the following reason: If a court composed of priests issued a mistaken ruling, and the priests acted in accordance with that teaching, the priests do not bring a bull for this ruling, as they are not considered a community but a large partnership.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ)


The Gemara offers another solution to the question. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar raised the following dilemma:


ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืœืื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ


According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an offering of an individual, can one perform substitution for this animal or can one not perform substitution in this case? In other words, if the High Priest violated a prohibition and designated a substitute by saying that this bull should be switched with another, does the substitution take effect or not? Is it not correct to say by inference from the wording of Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma that there is one who says that these offerings are communal?


ืœื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ


The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is no proof, as one can say by inference that there is one who says that these offerings are of partners. There is no definitive proof that the bull of Yom Kippur is a communal sacrifice. In any event, the question of why the bull is not invalidated upon the death of the High Priest has been resolved, as the reason is either because it is a communal sacrifice or because it is a sacrifice of partners.


ื’ื•ืคื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื”


ยง Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar asked: According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an individual offering, can one perform substitution for this animal or can one not perform substitution? The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? What is the basis of his inquiry?


ืื™ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara suggests that his dilemma is as follows: Do we follow the one who consecrates the animal, i.e., the High Priest, as he was the one who paid for it, in which case it is considered an individual sacrifice and his substitution is effective? Or do we follow the one who seeks atonement by the offering, and as this bull atones both for the High Priest and the entire community of his fellow priests, it is considered a communal sacrifice, and therefore his substitution is not effective? The question is: Which party is followed for the purposes of substitution?


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื”ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื” ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara expresses surprise at this possible interpretation of Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma: It is obvious that we follow the one who seeks atonement, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: With regard to one who consecrates his animal for an offering but intends it for someone elseโ€™s atonement, if he subsequently redeems the animal, he adds a fifth to it. This is in accordance with the halakha that one who redeems an animal that he himself dedicated must add a fifth of its value to the redemption, whereas if the person for whom it atones redeems it, he does not add a fifth. And the one for whom the sacrifice atones can perform substitution for it, whereas the one who consecrated the animal cannot effect substitution, as he is not considered its owner for the halakhot of substitution.


ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื ืžืฉืœื• ืขืœ ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื˜ื•ื‘ืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉืœื•


And likewise, with regard to one who separates teruma from his wheat for the wheat of another, to spare his friend from having to separate his own teruma, although the friendโ€™s produce is now exempt from the obligation of teruma, the benefit of discretion is his, the one who separated the teruma. The one who separated the teruma is entitled to determine which priest receives the teruma, despite the fact that the teruma was separated for the crop of another. Similarly, when someone consecrates an animal for another person, it is the one who gains atonement that can perform substitution. If so, there is no place for Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma.


ืœืขื•ืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืงื‘ื™ืขื•ืชื ืžืชื›ืคืจื™ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืงื•ืคื™ื ืžืชื›ืคืจื™


The Gemara rejects this suggested explanation of Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma: Actually, it is obvious to Rabbi Elazar that we follow the one who seeks atonement by the offering, and this is his dilemma: Do his fellow priests achieve atonement by the essence of the offering, i.e., part of the offering is sacrificed on their behalf, which means they are partners in the bull? Or perhaps they achieve atonement incidentally, while the main atonement is that of the High Priest. If the atonement of the other priests is merely incidental, the High Priest can effect substitution with this bull.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื‘ื— ืžื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ื–ื‘ื— ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ื–ื‘ื— ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื›ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: There is a stricture that applies to the initial sacrifice, beyond the strictures that apply to the designated substitute; and there is a stricture that applies to the substitution, beyond the strictures that apply to the sacrifice. The baraita elaborates: There is a stricture that applies to the initial sacrifice, as the sanctity of the sacrifice applies to an individual as it does to a community, and the sacrifice overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, and one can perform substitution for the original sacrifice, which is not the case with regard to the substitute, to which these halakhot do not apply.


ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืžื•ืจื” ื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ื•ืœื™ืขื‘ื“ ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—


The baraita continues: There is a stricture that applies to the substitute beyond the strictures that apply to the initial sacrifice, in that the sanctity of the substitution takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal. And the substitute cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status; that is, it may only be sacrificed as an offering and eaten but under no circumstance can it be redeemed for its wool to be sheared and to be worked, which is not the case with regard to the initial sacrifice, as it can be redeemed in certain situations.


ื”ืื™ ื–ื‘ื— ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื™ ื“ื—ื™ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืคืจ ื•ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ืงื‘ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of this sacrifice? What exactly is the sacrifice referred to in this baraita? If we say it is the sacrifice of an individual, does the sacrifice of an individual override Shabbat and ritual impurity? Rather, if you say that we are dealing with the sacrifice of a community, can one perform substitution for a communal sacrifice? Rather, is it not the case that we are dealing here with the Yom Kippur bull, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is a sacrifice that has a fixed time? And likewise, one can perform substitution for this offering, as it is an offering of an individual. This interpretation resolves Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืœื ื‘ืื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ืื”ืจืŸ


The Gemara rejects this contention. Rav Sheshet said: No, this is no proof, as it can be claimed that the baraita is referring to the ram of Aaron that the High Priest sacrifices as a burnt-offering on Yom Kippur, as the verse states: โ€œWith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offeringโ€ (Leviticus 16:3). This offering is certainly the High Priestโ€™s alone and is therefore classified as the offering of an individual.


ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืคืจื• ืชืžื•ืจื” ื“ืคืจ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื“ื—ื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืงืจื‘ื” ื”ื ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื™ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื


The Gemara comments: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the offering referred to in the baraita, for if it should enter your mind to say that we are dealing with the bull of the High Priest, consider the following: Is it only Shabbat and ritual impurity that the substitution of the bull does not override, which indicates that one may sacrifice this substitute on a weekday? It is a substitute for a sin-offering, and the halakha is that the substitute for a sin-offering is left to die. Rather, we certainly must be dealing with the ram for a burnt-offering, as the substitute for a burnt-offering cannot be sacrificed.


ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืคืจื• ื•ืžืื™ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara rejects this supporting argument: No, it is actually possible that the offering referred to in the baraita is the Yom Kippur bull of the High Priest, and what is the substitution that was mentioned? It does not refer to a substitution of the bull, but rather the baraita deals with the general category of substitution, i.e., it means that the phenomenon of substitution in general includes halakhot that do not apply to offerings.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื‘ื— ื ืžื™ ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ืœื ืงืชื ื™


The Gemara asks: If so, one can also say that the sacrifice mentioned in the baraita means the general category of sacrifices, rather than a specific offering. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita is not teaching about a general category of sacrifices, i.e., it is definitely not dealing with the phenomenon of offerings in general.


ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืชืžื•ืจื” ื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ื•ืœื™ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืื™ ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื


The Gemara continues: From where do I know that this is so? From the fact that it is taught: There is a stricture that applies to the substitution beyond the strictures that apply to the initial offering, in that the sanctity of the substitution takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal, and the substitute cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status for its wool to be sheared and to be worked. And should it enter your mind to say: What is the sacrifice mentioned here, it means the general category of sacrifices; this cannot be the case, as there is an example of an offering to which these halakhot also apply,


Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romiโ€™s 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, Bโ€™Ezrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

alon shvut women

Par Kohen Gadol

Yoma Daf 50 - Today we look at the Bull of the Kohen Gadol and analyze whether it is a...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 45 – 51 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will complete the 4th chapter in Masechet Yoma and begin the 5th. We will continue learning the...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 50: Show Us Your Korbanot and We’ll Tell You Who You Are

Sin-offerings that could not be offered as sacrifices, and therefore were left to die: 5 cases. A more brutal death,...

Yoma 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 50

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคื—ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืคืจ ืฉื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ื•ืœื•


ยง Rabbi Yitzแธฅak Nappaแธฅa raised an objection to Rabbi Ami: โ€œAnd he shall remove the entire bull outside the campโ€ (Leviticus 4:12). This verse speaks of a bull that has been slaughtered and its fats and sacrificial parts have been burned, which proves that even after it has been slaughtered, it is still called a bull. Rabbi Ami replied: The animal itself is not called a bull at this stage; rather, it means that he should remove the entire carcass, all that remains of the bull.


ื•ืืช ืคืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืืช ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื‘ืขื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืคืจืฉ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื“ื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืคืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืคืจ


The Gemara raises another difficulty by citing a verse: โ€œAnd the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the campโ€ (Leviticus 16:27). Once again, the verse proves that even after it has been slaughtered and its blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, the animal is still called a bull. Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that when it is intact, with its hide, its flesh, and its excrement, it is called a bull. When they disagree is with regard to the blood. One Sage holds that its blood is called a bull, and one Sage holds that blood alone is not called a bull.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื ืื™ืงืจื™ ืคืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื–ืืช ื™ื‘ื ืื”ืจืŸ ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืคืจ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ืื˜ื• ื‘ืงืจื ื™ื” ืžืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ื“ืžื• ื•ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืคืจ


Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the one who said that blood is called part of the bull, as it is written: โ€œWith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bullโ€ (Leviticus 16:3). Is that to say that he brings it in, to the Holy of Holies, with its horns? Rather, he enters with its blood, and yet the Torah calls that โ€œa bull.โ€ This proves that the blood itself is called a bull.


ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื‘ืžื” ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืื”ืจืŸ ืœื‘ื ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืคืจ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช


The Gemara asks: And the other one, who maintains that blood is not called a bull, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers that he can explain the verse as follows: With what did Aaron become qualified to enter the sacred place? With his bringing of a young bull for a sin-offering. However, the blood itself, which he brings inside, is not called a bull.


ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ืœืจื‘ื ืืžืจื™ ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœื ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื


ยง The Gemara returns to the issue of a replacement High Priest entering with the blood of the first bull: And let him derive the answer to this problem from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died. After all, the bull of the first High Priest is a sin-offering and its owner has died. Since there is a principle that a sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die, this should resolve the dilemma. Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say that Rav Amram said that the sin-offering bull of the High Priest is a communal sin-offering, as the High Priest brings it both on his own behalf and for his fellow priests, and a communal sin-offering is not left to die.


ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ื—ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืคืกื— ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœืื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ


As we learned in a mishna in tractate Temura that tannaโ€™im debate which offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said to him: But consider the Yom Kippur bull, and the meal-offering resembling a wafer brought specially by the High Priest, and the Paschal offering, each of which is an individual offering and overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity. Since Rabbi Meir says that these are individual offerings, is it not correct to say by inference that there is one who says that these offerings are communal?


ื•ืœื˜ืขืžื™ืš ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“


The Gemara rejects this proof. And according to your reasoning, consider that which was taught there: Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said to him: But there are the cases of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goats for a sin of idolatry, and the Festival peace-offering, which are all communal offerings and override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. According to the above reasoning, it can be claimed by inference that there is one who says that these are individual offerings, which is incorrect.


ืืœื ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืฉืžืขื™ื” ื“ืงืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ื—ื” ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ื—ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืคืกื— ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”


Rather, Rabbi Meir responded to the first tanna, as he heard him say in the form of a general principle: Communal sacrifices override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but individual sacrifices override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. In response to this claim, Rabbi Meir said to him: Is this statement with regard to an individual offering a general principle? But consider the Yom Kippur bull, and the meal-offering resembling a wafer of the High Priest, and the Paschal offering, each of which is an individual offering and overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืœื ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”


And Rabbi Yaโ€™akov responded to the first tanna from a different perspective: Is this statement with regard to a communal offering a general principle, which overrides ritual impurity? But there are the cases of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goats for a sin of idolatry, and the Festival peace-offering, which are all communal offerings and override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.


ืืœื ื ืงื•ื˜ ื”ืื™ ื›ืœืœื ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื›ืœ ืฉื–ืžื ื• ืงื‘ื•ืข ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ืžื ื• ืงื‘ื•ืข ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ื—ื” ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ


Rather, grasp this principle: Any offering that has a fixed time for its sacrifice overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity even if it is an individual offering; and any offering of no fixed time overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity, and this is the case even if it is a communal offering. With regard to the issue at hand, as the emphasis of both Rabbi Meirโ€™s and Rabbi Yaโ€™akovโ€™s statements is whether the offerings they referred to override Shabbat and ritual impurity, not their classification as individual or communal offerings, nothing can be inferred from their comments in this regard. Consequently, it remains possible that the bull of the High Priest is an individual offering.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืคืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืชื• ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืจืขื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ื• ื•ื™ืžื›ืจื• ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื”


ยง Abaye raised an objection to Rava: Is the bull of the High Priest an individual offering? But we learned in a baraita: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and he separated others in their stead, and the first animals were subsequently found, all of the second set shall be left to die. And likewise, goats for a sin of idolatry that were lost and he separated others in their stead, all of them shall be left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall be left to graze until they become unfit, whereupon they are sold and their proceeds go for a free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This proves that the Yom Kippur bull is called a communal sin-offering.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืคืจ ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื“ืฉืขื™ืจ


Rava said to Abaye: What bull is referred to here? A bull for an unwitting communal sin. Abaye retorted: But the baraita taught: Of Yom Kippur, which clearly indicates that it is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rava answered: When the tanna of this baraita taught: Of Yom Kippur, he was referring only to the goat. That is, the baraita should be read as follows: The communal bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which is also a communal offering.


ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืคืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ืชื—ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืจืขื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ื• ื•ื™ืžื›ืจื• ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื”


Abaye further asks: But wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost and he separated others in their stead, and the first animals were subsequently found, all of the second set shall be left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall be left to graze until they become unfit, whereupon they are sold and their proceeds go for a free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This baraita explicitly states that the bull of Yom Kippur is considered a communal offering.


ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื” ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ ืžืชื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื”


Rava answered him: Do not say: As a communal sin-offering is not left to die. Rather, say: As a sin-offering of partners is not left to die. Since some of the partners are still alive, the sin-offering is not left to die. The bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is considered a sin-offering of partners because it atones not only for the High Priest, but for his fellow priests, as well. The Gemara asks: And if ultimately the bull is not left to die, what is the practical difference whether the bull of the High Priest is considered a communal sin-offering or a sin-offering of partners? Why did Rava insist on calling it a sin-offering of partners?


ื“ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืคืจ ื‘ื”ื•ืจืื”


The Gemara answers that there is a difference between these two categories with regard to a court that issues an incorrect ruling to an entire community, e.g., a tribe of Israel, and the people act in accordance with that ruling. The halakha in this case is that the court must bring a bull for an unwitting communal sin. Rava insisted on referring to the bull that atones for all of the priests on Yom Kippur as a sin-offering of partners, not a communal sin-offering, for the following reason: If a court composed of priests issued a mistaken ruling, and the priests acted in accordance with that teaching, the priests do not bring a bull for this ruling, as they are not considered a community but a large partnership.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ)


The Gemara offers another solution to the question. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar raised the following dilemma:


ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืœืื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ


According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an offering of an individual, can one perform substitution for this animal or can one not perform substitution in this case? In other words, if the High Priest violated a prohibition and designated a substitute by saying that this bull should be switched with another, does the substitution take effect or not? Is it not correct to say by inference from the wording of Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma that there is one who says that these offerings are communal?


ืœื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ


The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is no proof, as one can say by inference that there is one who says that these offerings are of partners. There is no definitive proof that the bull of Yom Kippur is a communal sacrifice. In any event, the question of why the bull is not invalidated upon the death of the High Priest has been resolved, as the reason is either because it is a communal sacrifice or because it is a sacrifice of partners.


ื’ื•ืคื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื”


ยง Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar asked: According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an individual offering, can one perform substitution for this animal or can one not perform substitution? The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? What is the basis of his inquiry?


ืื™ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara suggests that his dilemma is as follows: Do we follow the one who consecrates the animal, i.e., the High Priest, as he was the one who paid for it, in which case it is considered an individual sacrifice and his substitution is effective? Or do we follow the one who seeks atonement by the offering, and as this bull atones both for the High Priest and the entire community of his fellow priests, it is considered a communal sacrifice, and therefore his substitution is not effective? The question is: Which party is followed for the purposes of substitution?


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื”ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ื” ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara expresses surprise at this possible interpretation of Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma: It is obvious that we follow the one who seeks atonement, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: With regard to one who consecrates his animal for an offering but intends it for someone elseโ€™s atonement, if he subsequently redeems the animal, he adds a fifth to it. This is in accordance with the halakha that one who redeems an animal that he himself dedicated must add a fifth of its value to the redemption, whereas if the person for whom it atones redeems it, he does not add a fifth. And the one for whom the sacrifice atones can perform substitution for it, whereas the one who consecrated the animal cannot effect substitution, as he is not considered its owner for the halakhot of substitution.


ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื ืžืฉืœื• ืขืœ ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื˜ื•ื‘ืช ื”ื ืื” ืฉืœื•


And likewise, with regard to one who separates teruma from his wheat for the wheat of another, to spare his friend from having to separate his own teruma, although the friendโ€™s produce is now exempt from the obligation of teruma, the benefit of discretion is his, the one who separated the teruma. The one who separated the teruma is entitled to determine which priest receives the teruma, despite the fact that the teruma was separated for the crop of another. Similarly, when someone consecrates an animal for another person, it is the one who gains atonement that can perform substitution. If so, there is no place for Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma.


ืœืขื•ืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืงื‘ื™ืขื•ืชื ืžืชื›ืคืจื™ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืงื•ืคื™ื ืžืชื›ืคืจื™


The Gemara rejects this suggested explanation of Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma: Actually, it is obvious to Rabbi Elazar that we follow the one who seeks atonement by the offering, and this is his dilemma: Do his fellow priests achieve atonement by the essence of the offering, i.e., part of the offering is sacrificed on their behalf, which means they are partners in the bull? Or perhaps they achieve atonement incidentally, while the main atonement is that of the High Priest. If the atonement of the other priests is merely incidental, the High Priest can effect substitution with this bull.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื‘ื— ืžื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ื–ื‘ื— ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ื–ื‘ื— ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื›ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: There is a stricture that applies to the initial sacrifice, beyond the strictures that apply to the designated substitute; and there is a stricture that applies to the substitution, beyond the strictures that apply to the sacrifice. The baraita elaborates: There is a stricture that applies to the initial sacrifice, as the sanctity of the sacrifice applies to an individual as it does to a community, and the sacrifice overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, and one can perform substitution for the original sacrifice, which is not the case with regard to the substitute, to which these halakhot do not apply.


ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืžื‘ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื”ืชืžื•ืจื” ื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ื•ืœื™ืขื‘ื“ ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—


The baraita continues: There is a stricture that applies to the substitute beyond the strictures that apply to the initial sacrifice, in that the sanctity of the substitution takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal. And the substitute cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status; that is, it may only be sacrificed as an offering and eaten but under no circumstance can it be redeemed for its wool to be sheared and to be worked, which is not the case with regard to the initial sacrifice, as it can be redeemed in certain situations.


ื”ืื™ ื–ื‘ื— ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื™ ื“ื—ื™ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืคืจ ื•ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ืงื‘ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of this sacrifice? What exactly is the sacrifice referred to in this baraita? If we say it is the sacrifice of an individual, does the sacrifice of an individual override Shabbat and ritual impurity? Rather, if you say that we are dealing with the sacrifice of a community, can one perform substitution for a communal sacrifice? Rather, is it not the case that we are dealing here with the Yom Kippur bull, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is a sacrifice that has a fixed time? And likewise, one can perform substitution for this offering, as it is an offering of an individual. This interpretation resolves Rabbi Elazarโ€™s dilemma.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืœื ื‘ืื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ืื”ืจืŸ


The Gemara rejects this contention. Rav Sheshet said: No, this is no proof, as it can be claimed that the baraita is referring to the ram of Aaron that the High Priest sacrifices as a burnt-offering on Yom Kippur, as the verse states: โ€œWith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offeringโ€ (Leviticus 16:3). This offering is certainly the High Priestโ€™s alone and is therefore classified as the offering of an individual.


ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืคืจื• ืชืžื•ืจื” ื“ืคืจ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื“ื—ื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืงืจื‘ื” ื”ื ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื™ื ื•ืชืžื•ืจืช ื—ื˜ืืช ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื


The Gemara comments: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the offering referred to in the baraita, for if it should enter your mind to say that we are dealing with the bull of the High Priest, consider the following: Is it only Shabbat and ritual impurity that the substitution of the bull does not override, which indicates that one may sacrifice this substitute on a weekday? It is a substitute for a sin-offering, and the halakha is that the substitute for a sin-offering is left to die. Rather, we certainly must be dealing with the ram for a burnt-offering, as the substitute for a burnt-offering cannot be sacrificed.


ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืคืจื• ื•ืžืื™ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื”


The Gemara rejects this supporting argument: No, it is actually possible that the offering referred to in the baraita is the Yom Kippur bull of the High Priest, and what is the substitution that was mentioned? It does not refer to a substitution of the bull, but rather the baraita deals with the general category of substitution, i.e., it means that the phenomenon of substitution in general includes halakhot that do not apply to offerings.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื–ื‘ื— ื ืžื™ ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ืœื ืงืชื ื™


The Gemara asks: If so, one can also say that the sacrifice mentioned in the baraita means the general category of sacrifices, rather than a specific offering. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita is not teaching about a general category of sacrifices, i.e., it is definitely not dealing with the phenomenon of offerings in general.


ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืชืžื•ืจื” ื—ืœื” ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ื•ืœื™ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืื™ ื–ื‘ื— ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื


The Gemara continues: From where do I know that this is so? From the fact that it is taught: There is a stricture that applies to the substitution beyond the strictures that apply to the initial offering, in that the sanctity of the substitution takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal, and the substitute cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status for its wool to be sheared and to be worked. And should it enter your mind to say: What is the sacrifice mentioned here, it means the general category of sacrifices; this cannot be the case, as there is an example of an offering to which these halakhot also apply,


Scroll To Top