Horayot 6a — the Talmud in English

Even a sin-offering

this

is not eaten. Similarly Rabbi Yosei said

to expound from the verse [in Ezra 8] concerning those returning from the exile in the ascent of Ezra: "

Those who came from the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt-offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls

for all Israel." "Twelve he-goats as sin-offerings,

all as a burnt-offering

to Him."

And seemingly this is difficult: Is it so that

“all as a burnt-offering” enters your mind?

But it is also stated there, “twelve he-goats as sin-offerings”; and is it

possible that a sin-offering

is called

a burnt-offering?!

Rather,

necessarily, this is the meaning of the verse:

All,

its law is

like that of a burnt-offering: just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so too this sin-offering

is

not eaten.

And the reason that it is not eaten is:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

Those twelve bulls for burnt-offerings and twelve goats for sin-offerings that the children of the exile brought,

for

the sin of

idolatry they brought them. And Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

They brought them

for the idolatry that they had practiced in the days of Zedekiah.

In accordance with the law of a community that sinned in idolatry, which brings a bull and a goat, and whose law is that they are burned and are not eaten.

And we raise an objection: How did they bring twelve bulls and goats?

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that each tribe brings a bull,

you can find these twelve sin-offerings

that the returning exiles brought,

for example

in a situation

where twelve tribes sinned.

For they bring,

then they are obligated to bring

twelve goats.

Alternatively,

also in a situation where not all of them sinned, but

where seven tribes sinned, and the others,

the other tribes, also had to bring a goat

through being drawn along.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, even the tribes that did not sin bring one.

And

likewise

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who said that each tribe brings a bull and the court brings a bull, it is understood why they brought twelve goats, for

you can find it, for example,

in a situation

where eleven tribes sinned, so that they bring eleven goats

for these tribes,

and the other

bull,

of the court,

for it too must bring a bull according to Rabbi Shimon; and together they brought twelve bulls.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the court brings

a

bull and not the community,

and according to him they never bring anything but one bull, this is difficult: the

twelve

bulls and goats that the returning exiles brought—

how can you find it?

And we answer:

For example, where they sinned

on the basis of the first ruling, and the court retracted,

and then they sinned

on the basis of another ruling,

and then they sinned

again and again,

until twelve times.

And since they ruled and sinned twelve times, the court had to bring twelve goats.

And we raise an objection:

But they brought [they had already

died]

those who had sinned

in the days of Zedekiah; and how can these returnees, who returned from the Babylonian exile, now bring a sin-offering for those sinners who had already died? Is it not the case that a sin-offering whose owners died does not effect atonement, but goes to death?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: When we have learned,

that which we have received as a tradition, from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that

a sin-offering whose owners died

its law is

death,

and it does not effect atonement,

this applies to a

sin-offering

of an individual, but not to one of the community,

for a community, even though its members have already died, can attain atonement through a sin-offering that they designated,

because there is no

law of

death for a

sin-offering that the

community

designated, and they died. 3 .

And we inquire:

From where does Rav Pappa have this,

this general rule that a communal sin-offering whose members died effects atonement through it?

Perhaps from what is written, “In place of your fathers shall be your sons,”

and therefore, even though the sinners died, since their sons stand in their place and instead of them, they can offer the sin-offering of their fathers.

It is impossible to say this. For

if so, even with an individual likewise

let us say that his sons stand in his place and may offer his offerings even after he died. If so, in what manner would the rule apply that a sin-offering whose owners died does not effect atonement through it?

Rather, Rav Pappa's inference

is

from the goat

of the sin-offering

of the New Moon.

For the Merciful One said: bring

[they brought] this goat from money of

the chamber contribution,

which comes from the shekels of all Israel, to effect atonement for all of them.

But

certainly

they bring

[they died]

them,

already some of those

Israelites

who contributed their shekels to the chamber contribution,

and these

Israelites

who remain

[and did not die],

how do they bring

this sin-offering, which was purchased also with money belonging to those who had already died?

Rather, infer from this: a sin-offering whose owners died, when it is communal, is offered. 4 .

And we reject this:

Are they comparable,

the goat of the New Moon and a sin-offering whose owners died? Is it not the case that with the

goat of the New Moon

there is uncertainty:

perhaps they did not die

[they died] at all

from

those

of the community

who contributed the shekels from which the shekels for purchasing the sin-offering were taken; therefore it is only an uncertain sin-offering whose owners died , and it does not prevent the offering.

But here,

in the offering of those returning from the exile—the sinners in idolatry, who were in the generation of Zedekiah, for whom the offering was brought—

they certainly had already died,

and in a situation in which the sinners had certainly died, a sin-offering is not brought on their account.

Rather, the reason of Rav Pappa is from here:

it

is written

concerning the heifer whose neck is broken:

“Atone for Your people Israel whom You redeemed, O Lord.”

And we expound:

This atonement is fit to atone for those who came out of Egypt

if a slain person had been found in their time and they had not brought a heifer whose neck is broken.

From the fact that it is written, “

Your people Israel

whom You redeemed.”

That is, that it should atone for those whom You redeemed from Egypt, even though they had already died! And it is proven that an offering is brought on behalf of the community even if they have already died; and the same applies concerning the generation of Zedekiah: they brought a sin-offering on their account even after they had died .

And we reject this:

Are they comparable?

For in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken,

all of them—

all those who are liable to be atoned for by the heifer—

are present,

exist and are found. Therefore we say that

since

[from the fact that]

it atones

this heifer for the

living, it also atones for the dead.

But here,

in this atonement that was brought for the generation of Zedekiah,

were there

sinners who had remained

alive

from the days of Zedekiah until today, so that they could bring a sin-offering on their account?!

And we say:

Indeed, that is so;

certainly there were among them sinners who had remained alive from the days of Zedekiah,

as it is written: “And many of the priests and the Levites and the heads of the fathers’ houses

the elders who had seen the First Temple when the foundation of this Temple was laid before their eyes, wept in a loud voice.” Thus, among those who came from the exile there were elders who had been in the generation of Zedekiah, who ruled during the period of the destruction of the First Temple.

It follows that the principle “there is no death in the community” applies only in a situation in which the offering was designated and some of the owners died, in which case they are atoned for incidentally to the atonement of the living who remained until the time it was brought [and those who came up from Babylonia were included among those who acted according to the ruling of a beit din twelve times].

And we ask:

Perhaps they were few,

those who remained,

and they were not many,

and we have not found that a sin-offering whose majority of owners died is brought after it was designated?

And we answer:

Is it not written

in the continuation of the verse, “

and the people could not distinguish

the sound of the joyous shouting from the sound of the people’s weeping,

for the people were shouting with a great shout,

and the sound was heard from afar.”

And those who were weeping were the sinners in the days of Zedekiah. Since they could not distinguish the sound of those shouting with joy [those born after the generation of the destruction] because the weeping of the people prevailed over the joyous shouting, it is proven that many were the weepers who remained from the generation of Zedekiah .

And we ask: How did they bring a sin-offering for the sin of the generation of Zedekiah,

when they were intentional sinners

in their sin? A sin-offering atones only for one who sinned inadvertently, and not for one who sinned intentionally.

And we answer: Indeed, they brought a sin-offering on their account even though they had sinned intentionally, because

it was a temporary ruling,

and it was not according to the ordinary law .

And the Gemara proves:

It is also logical

that it was a temporary ruling.

For if you do not say so,

the verse there concerning the offerings of those returning from the exile will be difficult, for they also offered

“ninety-six rams and seventy-seven lambs”—corresponding to whom

did they offer them in this number? We have not found anywhere a similar number of offerings .

Rather,

necessarily, they offered that number because

it was a temporary ruling.

Likewise,

the reason they offered a sin-offering even though they had sinned intentionally is that

it was a temporary ruling.

The Sages taught:

When the majority of the community sinned inadvertently and transgressed one of all the mitzvot stated in the Torah according to the ruling of a beit din, even though

one member of the community

who sinned died, nevertheless

they are liable

to bring a bull.

But if

one of

the judges of

the beit din

that issued the erroneous ruling died,

they are exempt

from bringing a bull.

And we inquire concerning it:

Who is the tanna

who distinguishes between one member of the community dying and one of the judges of the beit din dying?

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rabbi Zeira, who said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya, who said in the name of Rav:

This beraita is

Rabbi Meir’s, who says that the beit din bring

the bull

and not the community.

Therefore,

it is the law that if

one member of the community dies, they are liable,

for one of those liable for the offering did not die,

for the entire beit din is standing

and they are the ones liable for the offering.

But if

one of the beit din dies,

for they are the owners of the offering,

they are exempt

from bringing a bull,

for it is a sin-offering whose one partner died

in it,

and for that reason they are exempt 12.

Rav Yosef raised an objection against this:

Why did they establish this beraita specifically according to the view of Rabbi Meir?

Let us establish it according to Rabbi Shimon, who says

also

the beit din

bring a bull

with the community,

and the reason that if

one member of the community dies, they are liable

is because

the community does not die.

Therefore, even though the community is obligated to bring the bull, the death of some of them does not prevent it as in the case of a sin-offering whose owners died, since the majority of the community that sinned still exists. But in a situation in which

one of

the judges of the

beit din dies, they are exempt

from bringing a bull,

as we say: it is a partnership sin-offering.

And if one of the partners dies, they no longer bring their sin-offering, even though the other partners remain, for the law of partners is not the law of a community, but rather that of individuals.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef: It is impossible to establish this beraita according to Rabbi Shimon, for

we have heard Rabbi Shimon say

not only that the communal sin-offering, which cannot be offered, does not die, but even

the sin-offering of partners

which cannot be offered [for any reason],

does not die.

As it was taught: The bull and the goat of Yom Kippur,

which the priest brings for his atonement and for the atonement of his fellow priests—and they are sin-offerings—

which were lost, and he separated others in their place,

and he offered them, and afterward the first bull and goat were found,

all of them shall die

in accordance with the law of a sin-offering whose owners have achieved atonement,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say:

their law is not death, but it is also impossible to offer them, for their owners have already achieved atonement; rather, one should do nothing with them, and

they shall graze

until a blemish occurs in them, and then it is possible to redeem them. [But before a blemish occurs in them it is impossible to redeem them, because unblemished living animals that were consecrated for the altar are not redeemed].

And the reason that their law is not death, like the law of a sin-offering whose owners have achieved atonement, is:

because

the principle is

that a communal sin-offering does not die.

And in the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, Aaron and the priests are partners in it, and partners have the status of the public. And from here it is learned that according to Rabbi Shimon, if one of the partners in a sin-offering dies, it does not die, just as a communal sin-offering does not die. Therefore, even when one of the judges dies, the remaining judges, who are partners in the bull for an erroneous matter, can bring it for their atonement.

And since this is so, it is impossible to establish the beraita according to Rabbi Shimon, for according to his words it is impossible to say that if one of the court dies, they are exempt.

Rabbi Yosef said

to Abaye: Is it from the law of the bull and goat mentioned

with regard to the priests that you said

to prove that partners have the status of the public?!

But

the priests are different,

for they themselves are considered the public, and not merely partners, because the priests

are called a congregation.

As it is written

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, “

He shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the congregation.”

And in this verse the priests are equated with the congregation, to say that they are themselves called a congregation. Therefore Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon said that their bull and goat shall graze, because they are considered communal sin-offerings, which do not die.

And since this is so, there is no proof from Rabbi Shimon’s words concerning the bull and goat regarding his view of a mere sin-offering of partners, whether its law is like that of a communal sin-offering or not. And the question returns: it is possible to establish the beraita—“if one of the court dies, they are exempt”—even according to Rabbi Shimon, and we shall explain that the reason for their exemption is that one of the court died, they being the partners in this offering; and if one of the partners in a sin-offering dies, the others are exempt from offering it.