Yoma 50a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa raised an objection to Rabbi Ami:

the one who holds, “by the bull and not by the blood of the bull,” since after death it is no longer called “bull”:

But it is written in the passage concerning the bull of the anointed priest, after the sprinkling of its blood and the burning of its fats:

“And he shall take out the entire bull

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

—

And we answer:

that he should take out all of it.

That is to say, the verse did not now, after death, call it “bull.” Rather, this is what it says: He shall take out everything that remains of the bull, which was a bull when it was alive [Rashi].

And we still raise a difficulty: But it is 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 out outside the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their refuse.”

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

Rav Pappa

said

and resolved:

When the verse speaks

of hide, flesh, and refuse,

that is, of the body of the flesh, when its hide, flesh, and refuse are all found together, as with the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, in this

everyone agrees

that it is called “bull.”

They disagree concerning blood

alone.

One master holds:

Also

blood is called “bull.”

And one master holds: Blood is not called “bull.”

Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable according to the one who says, “Blood is called ‘bull.’”

For it is written

concerning the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur:

“With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary—

with a young bull.”

Does he bring it in by its horns?

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

Rather,

he necessarily enters

with its blood,

bringing it into the Sanctuary,

and he calls

its blood

“bull”

!

And the other one,

the one who holds, “by the bull and not by the blood of the bull,” would say to you: The verse does not intend to say that he shall bring a bull into the Sanctuary, for only blood is brought in there. Rather, this is the meaning of the verse:

By what was Aaron rendered fit to enter the Sanctuary—

with a young bull,

alive, which he shall bring to the Temple courtyard and offer

as a sin-offering,

performing all his services with it.

And now the Gemara returns to the principal question that was left unresolved above: When the first priest who slaughtered the bull died, does the priest who was appointed [in his place] need to slaughter another bull?

And we raise a difficulty:

Let him derive it—

resolve the problem—from the fact

that it is a sin-offering whose owner died

[the first priest]

which it is.

And

every

sin-offering whose owner died

goes to death

[for it is one of the five “sin-offerings that die,” whose law of death was learned as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai].

And since its law is to die, it is certain that another bull must be brought?!

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava:

Thus

your students say:

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 does not go to death.

And so we learned in tractate Temura 14a that this bull is considered a communal offering, and not an individual offering of the High Priest.

For we learned

there, in the words of the first tanna: There is, among communal offerings, what is not among individual offerings: communal offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas individual offerings override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

Rabbi Meir said to him: But is there not the bull of Yom Kippur

of Aaron,

and

likewise

the griddle-offering of the High Priest,

the griddle-offering that the High Priest brings every day, half in the morning and half in the evening, since it is written concerning it “a continual meal-offering,” it is like the continual offering, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,

and

likewise the

Passover offering.

For

each of these

is an individual offering, and

nevertheless it

overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,

since its time is fixed, and the overriding of Shabbat and ritual impurity is not because it is a communal offering.

And now the Gemara proves:

Is it not so—

can one not infer

by implication

from Rabbi Meir’s words, who argues against the first tanna on the basis of the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which is an individual offering and nevertheless overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,

that there is one who says,

the first tanna [according to Rabbi Meir’s understanding], who holds that this offering is not an individual offering but a

communal offering,

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

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

! And Rava raised an objection to Rav Amram’s proof that the bull of Yom Kippur 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 [

Tosefta, Temura 1:7]:

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Judah

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

But is there not the bull

that comes to effect atonement for

the unwitting matter of the community,

when the Great Court erred and instructed that a matter whose intentional violation carries karet was permitted, and the people erred and acted on the basis of their instruction, and afterward the Court learned that it had erred;

and the goats of idolatry,

which come to effect atonement for an erroneous instruction of the Court concerning idolatry;

and

the

festival offering

that they bring on the festivals [and the Gemara explains below, 51a, why the festival offering is considered a communal offering].

For

all these

are communal offerings,

and

nevertheless

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 also say here:

By implication, there is one who says:

These offerings

are individual

offerings, and therefore they do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity—but surely they are definitely communal offerings?!

Rather, Rabbi Meir is responding to the first tanna

:

That he heard

Rabbi Meir

the first tanna say: A communal offering overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, and an individual offering overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity—

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

Rabbi Meir said to him:

Is it so that

“an individual offering” is an absolute rule,

that it does not override?!

But is there not the bull of Yom Kippur, the griddle-offering of the High Priest, and the Passover offering, which are individual offerings, and they override Shabbat and ritual impurity?

And he said to him—

to the first tanna—

Rabbi Yaakov,

concerning the last clause of his words:

Is it so that

“a communal offering” is an absolute rule,

that it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity?!

But is there not the bull for the unwitting matter of the community, the goats of idolatry, and the festival offering, which are communal offerings, and they do not override either Shabbat or ritual impurity?

Rather, take this principle in your hand:

Everything whose time is fixed

is

an offering that overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity—

even when it is an individual offering,

such as the bull of Yom Kippur, the griddle-offering of the High Priest, and the Passover offering!

And everything whose time is not fixed

is

an offering that overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity—

even

when communal,

such as the bull for the unwitting matter of the community, the goats of idolatry, and the festival offering [for it can be made up throughout all seven days, Rashi

]! And since this is so, there is no proof from here that there is one who says that it is a communal offering; rather, according to everyone it is an individual offering. And the question returns: What is the uncertainty whether the 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 there is no tanna who would hold that the bull of Yom Kippur is a communal offering: Is it so that there is no tanna who would hold, “It is a communal offering” [Rav Hai Gaon and Tosafot of the Rosh, unlike “Siach Yitzhak” ]:

But it was taught:

There are five sin-offerings that die:

V

alding offspring,

T

ransferred sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owners

d

ied, and a sin-offering whose owners

a

chieved atonement through another, and a sin-offering that

p

assed its year—and your mnemonic is:

“And she prevented” [the Ritva].

[The Ritva.]

A bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and others were designated in their place

and they offered them [Meiri, Maimonides], and the first ones were found—

Behold,

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

those that had been lost [Ritva],

shall die,

because since it is impossible to offer them the following year, for their year has passed, they therefore die according to the law of a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement [Rashi, Shevuot 11b]—

And likewise, goats of idolatry that were lost and others were designated in their place—all of them shall die; these are the words of Rabbi Judah,

for Rabbi Judah holds that even a communal sin-offering goes to death [based on Rashi, Horayot 6a ].

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:

The sin-offerings shall not die; rather,

they shall graze until they develop a blemish

[a defect shall occur in them],

and they shall be sold, and their proceeds shall be designated for free-will offerings

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

And because

a “communal” sin-offering does not die

—the halakha given to Moses at Sinai concerning the five sin-offerings that die was stated only with regard to an individual [Rashi].

Thus, we have found a tanna who holds that the bull of Yom Kippur is a communal sin-offering—and there is room for uncertainty whether the second one enters with the blood of the bull, since the sin-offering did not become disqualified, in accordance with Rav Amram’s answer; and this is a difficulty against Rava, who rejected it?!

He said to him

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

what is the “bull”

that is taught in the beraita to be a communal offering? It is

the bull for the unwitting matter of the community,

which is certainly a communal offering.

And we raise a difficulty:

But “‘the bull’ [and goat]

“the bull” [and the goat]

of ‘Yom Kippur’ is what it teaches?!”

And we answer:

When it teaches

“of Yom Kippur,” it refers

to the goat; but the bull speaks of the unwitting matter of the community.

but the bull refers to the bull for an erroneous ruling of the community.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught

explicitly in another beraita:

A bull of Yom Kippur and a goat of Yom Kippur that were lost and others were designated in their place—all of them shall die; these are the words of Rabbi Judah—

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

thus explicitly, that even the bull of Yom Kippur is a communal offering?!

And therefore Rava answers another answer:

Do not say

in the two beraitot

“A sin-offering

of the ‘community’ does not die”—

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

because the bull, which effects atonement for all the priests, is considered a “sin-offering of partners”—

And the reason that a sin-offering of partners does not go to death is:

Because Rabbi Shimon holds that the five sin-offerings that die were stated all at once to Moses at Sinai; and since a transferred sin-offering is not applicable to a sin-offering of partners, for a joint offering does not effect transfer, the same law applies that the other sin-offerings that die do not apply to a joint offering.

And we raise an objection: since, in the end, even Rava concedes that the bull of Yom Kippur is an offering of partners, if so:

what difference does it make

to Rava to reject Rav Amram’s proof from the Mishna that it is a “communal offering”? For the essence of Rav Amram’s answer to the question that we raised earlier—“Let him derive it from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners died, and a sin-offering whose owners died goes to death”—is also resolved if it is an offering of partners, since it does not go to death. And although Rav Amram calls it a “communal offering,” whereas according to Rava, who rejected the proof from the Mishna, this is not a “communal” offering but an “offering of partners,” what difference is there in this?!

And we answer: Rava did not disagree with Rav Amram—and say, “The bull of Yom Kippur is not a ‘communal’ offering but an ‘offering of partners’”—in order to reject the essence of his answer; rather, it was in order to establish the matter precisely, that the priests are not considered a “community.”

And from this the students knew:

that the priests do not bring a bull

for an error of the “community”

in a ruling

that the court ruled, permitting a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by excision and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering [and just as each tribe brings one], since the priests are not a “community,” [and see further explanation in the note ].

Come and hear

that there is one who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is a “communal” offering:

For Rabbi Elazar asked:

Rabbi Elazar raised the following question: