Yoma 50a (נ.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nafḥa raised an objection to Rabbi Ami:

who holds that the expression is “with the bull, but not with the blood of the bull,” since after death it is no longer called “a bull”:

But it is written in the passage concerning the bull of the anointed priest, after its blood has been sprinkled and its sacrificial portions burned:

“And he shall take out the entire bull

outside the camp, to a pure place, to the ash dump. And he shall burn it on wood with fire”. \-

Thus, even after death it is called “a bull”?!

And we answer:

“That he shall take out all of it.”

That is, the verse does not call it “a bull” now, after death. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: He shall take out everything remaining of the bull that had been a bull while alive [Rashi].

And we still question this: Is it not written concerning the bull and goat of Yom Kippur [Leviticus 16:27]:

“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering

whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the Sanctuary—he shall take them outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their waste”?

Thus, even after slaughter the Torah calls it “a bull”?!

Rav Pappa

said

—he resolved the difficulty:

When the verse speaks

of the hide, flesh, and waste,

that is, of the animal’s fleshly body, when its hide, flesh, and waste are all together, as with the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, in this case

everyone agrees

that it is called “a bull.”

They disagree only concerning the blood

alone.

One master holds:

The

blood, too, is called “a bull.”

And the other master holds: The blood is not called “a bull.”

Rav Ashi said: It stands to reason that the opinion that says the blood is called “a bull”

is correct,

for it is written concerning the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur:

“With this shall Aaron come into the Sanctuary—

with a young bull.”

Does that mean he brings it in by its horns?

Does the priest grasp the bull itself by its horns and bring it into the Sanctuary?

Rather,

he necessarily enters

with its blood,

which he brings into the Sanctuary,

and he calls

its blood

“a bull”!

!

But the other master,

who holds that the expression is “with the bull, but not with the blood of the bull,” will say to you: The verse does not mean that he brings a bull into the Sanctuary, since only blood is brought there. Rather, this is the meaning of the verse:

“With what was Aaron rendered fit to enter the Sanctuary?”—

“With a young bull,”

alive, which he brings to the Temple courtyard and offers

as a sin-offering,

performing all his rites with it.

The Gemara now returns to the original ibaya, the question left unresolved above: When the first priest who slaughtered the bull dies, must the priest appointed in his place slaughter another bull?

And we question this:

Why should he need this conclusion?

Remove the problem’s proposed solution because

it is a sin-offering whose owner has died

—the first priest—

it is.

And

every

sin-offering whose owner has died

is destined to die

[for it is one of the five “sin-offerings destined to die,” whose law of death was transmitted as a halakha to Moses from Sinai].

Since its law is that it must die, it is certainly necessary to bring another bull?!

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava:

This is what

your students said:

Rav Amram said:

This sin-offering

is a communal sin-offering,

since the bull comes to effect atonement for all the priests.

And

since it is a communal sin-offering,

it is not destined to die.

As we learned in tractate Temura 14a that this bull is considered a communal offering, and not an individual offering belonging to the High Priest.

As we learned

there in the words of the first tanna: There are distinctions between communal offerings and individual offerings. Communal offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas individual offerings override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

Rabbi Meir said to him: Is it not the bull of Yom Kippur

belonging to Aaron,

and

likewise

the High Priest’s daily griddle-offering,

the griddle-offering brought by the High Priest every day, half in the morning and half in the evening? Since it is written concerning it, “a continual offering,” it is like the daily offering, and therefore overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.

And

likewise the

Paschal offering.

For

each of these

is an individual offering, and

nevertheless it

overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,

because its time is fixed, and its overriding Shabbat and ritual impurity is not due to its being a communal offering.

The Gemara now proves:

Is it not so

that one may infer

by implication

from Rabbi Meir’s words—who challenges the first tanna with the law of the High Priest’s Yom Kippur bull, which is an individual offering and nevertheless overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity—

that there is one who holds

that the first tanna [as understood by Rabbi Meir] maintains that this offering is not an individual offering but

a communal one,

and for this reason it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity [Rashi].

Thus, according to the first tanna, the Yom Kippur bull is a communal offering!

And Rava raised an objection to Rav Amram’s proof that the Yom Kippur bull is a “communal offering”:

But according to your reasoning,

that you understand that according to the first tanna these, too, are communal offerings, how will you explain that

which is taught

[in the Tosefta, Temura 1:7]:

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yehuda

[who is the first tanna of the Mishna, according to Rashi], who holds that every communal offering overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity:

“Is it not the bull

that comes to effect atonement for

the unwitting communal ruling,

when the Great Sanhedrin erred and ruled to permit a matter whose intentional violation carries karet, and the people erred and acted on the basis of their ruling, and afterward the court learned that it had erred,

and the goats for idolatry,

which come to atone for an erroneous ruling of the court concerning idolatry,

and

the

Festival peace-offering

that they bring on the Festivals [and the Gemara explains below, on 51a, why the Festival offering is considered a communal offering]—

for

all of these

are communal offerings,

and

yet

they

do not

override

either Shabbat or ritual impurity,

because their time is not fixed.

How, then, can you say that all communal offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity?

And would you say here as well:

“By implication, there is one who holds

that these offerings

are individual

offerings, and therefore do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity, although they are certainly communal offerings”?!

Rather, Rabbi Meir is responding to the first tanna

in this way:

Rabbi Meir understood

the first tanna

to say: A communal offering overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, while an individual offering overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity—

And concerning the first clause of the first tanna’s statement,

Rabbi Meir said to him:

Is it really so that

“an individual offering” is an absolute rule

that it does not override them?!

Is not the Yom Kippur bull, the High Priest’s griddle-offering, and the Paschal offering—individual offerings—which override Shabbat and ritual impurity?

And he said to him—

to the first tanna—

Rabbi Yaakov,

concerning the second clause of his statement:

Is it really so that

“a communal offering” is an absolute rule

that it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity?!

Is not the bull for an unwitting communal ruling, the goats for idolatry, and the Festival offering—communal offerings—which do not override either Shabbat or ritual impurity?

Rather, take this rule in your hand:

Anything whose time is fixed

is

an offering that overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity—

even when it is an individual offering,

such as the Yom Kippur bull, the High Priest’s griddle-offering, and the Paschal offering!

And anything whose time is not fixed

is

an offering that overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity—

even

when it is communal,

such as the bull for an unwitting communal ruling and the goats for idolatry; and the Festival offering [for it may be made up throughout all seven days, Rashi]], !

Since this is so, there is no proof from here that there is an authority who holds that it is a communal offering; rather, according to everyone it is an individual offering. The question therefore returns: What is the uncertainty concerning whether the second priest enters with the blood of the bull, when the first sin-offering has become disqualified?

Abaye raised an objection to Rava,

who held that no tanna maintains that the Yom Kippur bull is a communal offering: Is there really no tanna who holds that it is “a communal offering”? [Rabbi Ḥananel and the Tosafot of the Rosh, unlike the Siaḥ Yitzḥak]:

It was taught in a beraita:

There are five sin-offerings destined to die:

W

ild offspring of a sin-offering,

T

ransferred sanctity of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owners

d

ied, a sin-offering whose owners

a

chieved atonement through another offering, and a sin-offering that

p

assed its year—and their mnemonic is:

“And he prevented.”

[The Ritva.]

The bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and replacements were designated in their place,

and the replacements were offered [Meiri, Maimonides], and afterward the original animals were found—

then

all

of them, those that had been lost [Ritva],

must die,

since they cannot be offered the following year, as their year has passed; therefore they must die under the law of a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another [Rashi, Shevuot 11b]—

And likewise, the goats for idolatry that were lost and replacements were designated in their place must all die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,

for Rabbi Yehuda holds that even a communal sin-offering is destined to die [based on Rashi, Horayot 6a, ].

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:

The sin-offerings do not die; rather, they

graze until they develop a blemish

[a physical defect],

and they are sold, and the proceeds are used for free-will offerings

[for the summer offerings of the altar, which are burnt offerings brought on the altar when it is otherwise idle from offerings]—

And this is because

a “communal” sin-offering does not die—

the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai concerning the five sin-offerings destined to die was stated only with regard to an individual [Rashi].

Thus, we have found a tanna who holds that the Yom Kippur bull is a communal sin-offering. There is consequently room for the uncertainty whether the second priest enters with the blood of the bull, since the sin-offering did not become disqualified, in accordance with Rav Amram’s resolution. This is therefore a difficulty for Rava, who rejected it?!

Rava said to him,

to Abaye: In truth, according to everyone the Yom Kippur bull is an individual offering.

And what is meant by “the bull”

that the beraita teaches is a communal offering? It means

the bull for an unwitting communal ruling,

which is certainly a communal offering.

And we question this:

But

“the bull [and goat]”

“of Yom Kippur” is what it teaches?!

And we answer:

When it teaches

“of Yom Kippur,” it refers

to the goat,

but concerning the bull, it is speaking of the bull for an unwitting communal ruling.

And we question this:

But it was taught

explicitly in another beraita:

The Yom Kippur bull and the Yom Kippur goat that were lost, and replacements were designated in their place, must all die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda—

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They graze until they develop a blemish, are sold, and their proceeds are used for free-will offerings, since a “communal” sin-offering does not die,

so it is explicit that even the Yom Kippur bull is a communal offering?!

Therefore Rava gives another answer

Do not say

in the two beraitot

“a sin-offering

of the ‘community’ does not die”;

rather, say: “A sin-offering belonging to partners does not die,”

since the bull that brings atonement for all the priests is considered “a sin-offering belonging to partners”—

The reason that a sin-offering belonging to partners is not destined to die is as follows:

Rabbi Shimon holds that the five sin-offerings destined to die were all stated together to Moses at Sinai. Since the law of a substitute sin-offering does not apply to a sin-offering belonging to partners—for an offering belonging to partners cannot effect substitution—the same applies to the other sin-offerings destined to die: they do not apply to an offering belonging to partners.

Rabbi Elazar raised the following question: