Horayot 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

Even a sin-offering

this

is not eaten. Similarly, Rabbi Yosei said

to expound from the verse in Ezra, concerning those who returned from the exile in the days of Ezra’s ascent: "

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 goats for sin-offerings,

all is a burnt-offering

to Him.’"

And ostensibly this is difficult: Is it conceivable that

‘all is a burnt-offering’

could be understood literally? Was it not also stated there, “twelve goats for sin-offerings”? And is it

possible that a sin-offering

be called

a burnt-offering?!

Rather,

the verse must necessarily be interpreted as follows:

All,

its status 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:

As 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

idol worship, they brought them. And Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

They brought them

for the idol worship that they had practiced in the days of Zedekiah.

Their status was like that of a community that sinned through idol worship, which brings a bull and a goat; and their law is that they are burned and not eaten.

And we raise an objection: How could they have brought twelve bulls and goats?

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that each tribe brings a bull,

you can find a case for these twelve sin-offerings

that the returnees from the exile brought,

for example,

in a situation

where twelve tribes sinned.

For they would bring,

at that point they are obligated to bring

twelve goats.

Alternatively,

even in a case where not all of them sinned, but

seven tribes sinned, and the others,

the remaining tribes, were also required to bring a goat

through being drawn along.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, even 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 understandable why they brought twelve goats, because

you can find a case, for example,

in a situation

where eleven tribes sinned, so they brought eleven goats

for those tribes,

and the other

bull

of the court

was brought by the court, since according to Rabbi Shimon they too must bring a bull; together they brought twelve bulls.

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

a bull

and not the people,

according to him they never bring more than one bull. If so, the twelve

bulls

and goats that the returnees from the exile brought

how can one find a case for them?

And we answer:

For example, they sinned

on the basis of the first ruling, and the court changed its ruling,

and then they sinned again

on the basis of an additional ruling,

and then they sinned again

again and again,

up to twelve times.

Since they issued rulings and sinned twelve times, the court was required to bring twelve goats.

And we raise an objection:

But they brought [that is,

they had already died]

those who had sinned

in the days of Zedekiah. How could 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 cannot effect atonement; rather, it is left to die?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: When we learned

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

a sin-offering whose owners died

its status is

that it must die,

and it cannot effect atonement,

this applies to a

sin-offering

of an individual, but not to a communal offering,

because even if the community has already died, it can attain atonement through the sin-offering that it set aside,

because there is no

law of

death for a

sin-offering that was set aside by

the community,

and then they died. 3 .

And we inquire:

From where does Rav Pappa derive this,

this principle that a communal sin-offering whose owners died can effect atonement?

Perhaps he derives it from the verse, “In place of your fathers shall be your sons,”

and therefore, although the sinners died, since their sons stand in their place and take their position, the sons can offer the sin-offering of their fathers.

This cannot be said. For

if so, the same should also apply to an individual:

we should say that his sons stand in his place and offer his offerings even after he dies. If so, when would the principle apply that a sin-offering whose owners died cannot effect atonement?

Rather, Rav Pappa’s precise proof

is

from the goat

of the sin-offering

of the New Moon.

For the Merciful One stated that they bring

this goat [that is, they bring it] from money taken from

the collection of the chamber,

which comes from the half-shekels of all Israel in order to effect atonement for all of them.

But

certainly

some of them had died

[that is, they died]

of those

Israelites

who

had contributed their half-shekels to the collection of the chamber,

while those

Israelites

who remained

[that is, those who remained] and did not die,

how can they bring

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

Rather, conclude from this that a sin-offering whose owners died, when it is a communal offering, may be offered. 4 .

And we reject this:

Are the cases comparable?

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

goat of the New Moon

there is uncertainty:

perhaps none died

[that is, died]

of

those

members of the community

who contributed the half-shekels from which the money used to purchase the sin-offering was taken? Therefore, it is merely a possible case of a sin-offering whose owners died and does not prevent the offering from being sacrificed.

But here,

in the offering brought by those who returned from the exile, the sinners who had committed idolatry in the generation of Zedekiah, for whom the offering was brought,

certainly had already died,

and when the sinners had certainly died, a sin-offering is not brought on their behalf.

Rather, the reason given by Rav Pappa is from here:

it

is written

with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken:

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

And we derive:

This atonement is fit to atone for those who left 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 have redeemed.”

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

And we reject this:

Are the cases comparable?

With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken,

all of them—

all those who require atonement through the heifer—

are present,

they exist and are here. Therefore, it can be said that

since [

out of the fact that]

it atones

for the

living, it also atones for the dead.

But here,

with regard to this atonement brought on behalf of the generation of Zedekiah,

were there

sinners who had remained

alive

from the days of Zedekiah until the present, so that a sin-offering could be brought on their behalf?!

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: “But many of the priests and the Levites and the heads of the fathers’ houses

the elders who had seen the First House when this House was founded before their eyes, wept aloud.” Thus, among those who came from the exile there were elders who had lived in the generation of Zedekiah, who reigned during the period of the destruction of the First Temple.

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

And we ask:

Perhaps those who remained were few

among those who remained,

and 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:

It is 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 shouted with a great shout,

and the sound was heard from afar.”

Those who were weeping were the sinners of the days of Zedekiah. Since they could not distinguish the sound of those shouting joyfully [those born after the generation of the destruction] because the weeping of the people overcame the joyous shouting, it is proven that the weepers who remained from the generation of Zedekiah were numerous.

And we ask: How could they have brought a sin-offering for the sin of the generation of Zedekiah,

when they had sinned intentionally

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

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

it was an extraordinary temporary ruling,

and it did not follow the regular law.

And the Gemara proves:

It is also reasonable

that it was an extraordinary temporary ruling.

For if you do not say so,

the verse there concerning the offerings of those who returned from the exile would be difficult, since they also offered

“ninety-six rams and seventy-seven lambs.” For whom

did they offer them in this number? We do not find anywhere else a similar number of offerings.

Rather,

necessarily, they offered this number because

it was an extraordinary temporary ruling.

Likewise,

the reason they brought a sin-offering even though they had sinned intentionally was because

it was an extraordinary temporary ruling.

The Sages taught:

If the majority of the community erred and violated one of all the mitzvot stated in the Torah in accordance with the ruling of the beit-din, even though

one member of the community

who sinned

died,

they are nevertheless 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 about this:

Who is the tanna

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

Rav Hisda said that Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rav said:

This beraita

is Rabbi Meir’s, who says that the beit-din brings

the bull

and not the community.

Therefore,

it is logical that if

one member of the community dies, they remain liable,

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

as the entire beit-din remains,

and they are the ones liable for the offering.

But if

one of the members of the beit-din dies,

since 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 this reason they are exempt 12.

Rav Yosef challenged 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

that also

the beit-din

brings a bull

together with the community.

And the reason that if

one member of the community dies, they remain liable,

is

that a community does not die.

Therefore, although the community is liable to bring the bull, the death of some of its members 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 when

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 alive, because the law of partners is not the law of a community, but that of individuals.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

It is impossible to establish this beraita in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since

we have heard Rabbi Shimon say

that it is not only the communal sin-offering that cannot be sacrificed which does not die; even

the sin-offering of partners

which cannot be sacrificed [for any reason

does not die.]]

As it was taught in a beraita: The bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

which the koen brings for his atonement and for the atonement of his fellow koanim—and they are sin-offerings—

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

and he sacrificed the replacements, and afterward the original bull and goat were found,

all of them shall die,

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

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say:

They are not subject to death, but they also cannot be sacrificed, since their owners have already achieved atonement. Rather, one should do nothing with them, and

they shall graze

until a blemish occurs in them, at which point they can be redeemed. [Before a blemish occurs in them, however, they cannot be redeemed, because unblemished animals consecrated for the altar cannot be redeemed.]

The reason that they are not subject to death, as is a sin-offering whose owners have achieved atonement, is:

because

the principle is

that a communal sin-offering does not die.

In the case of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, Aaron and the koanim are partners in them, and partners have the status of the public. From here it is derived 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 unwitting decision of the court, can bring it for their atonement.

Since this is so, it is impossible to establish the beraita in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since according to his view it cannot be said that if one of the members 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 koanim

that you are saying, to prove that partners have the status of the public?!

But

the koanim are different,

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

are called a congregation.

As it is written

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur,

“For the koanim and for all the people of the congregation, he shall effect atonement”.

In this verse, the koanim are equated with the congregation, to teach that they are called a congregation in their own right. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon said that their bull and goat shall graze, since they are considered communal sin-offerings, which do not die.

Accordingly, Rabbi Shimon’s statement concerning the bull and goat provides no proof of his view regarding a mere sin-offering of partners—whether its status is that of a communal sin-offering or not. The question therefore returns: It is possible to establish the beraita stating that “if one of the members of the court dies, they are exempt” even according to Rabbi Shimon. We can explain that the reason for their exemption is that one of the court, who are the partners in this offering, died; and if one of the partners in a sin-offering dies, the remaining partners are exempt from sacrificing it.