Yoma 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

According to

Rabbi Meir,

who says

in the Mishna cited on the previous amud:

the bull

of

Yom Kippur

is

an individual offering—

does it

effect a substitution [when one takes an unconsecrated animal and says: “This is instead of that,” does the verse “And it shall be, it and its substitute shall be sacred” apply],

or does it not effect a substitution [and the Gemara will explain below the basis of the uncertainty]?

And from the fact that Rabbi Elazar says: “According to the one who says”—is it not

by inference that there is one who says that the

offering

is a communal offering [and according to this tanna there is no room for uncertainty, since there is no substitution with regard to a communal offering]?!

We reject this:

No, do not infer that there is one who says that it is a communal offering. Rather, infer as follows:

do not infer that there is someone who says that it is a communal offering. Rather, infer as follows:

By inference, there is one who says that the

offering

is a partners’ offering [and according to him there is no room for uncertainty, since there is no substitution with regard to a partners’ offering].

In the matter itself, Rabbi Elazar asked: According to the one who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an individual offering, does it effect a substitution or does it not effect a substitution?

We ask: What

is Rabbi Elazar asking

?!

For surely it is obvious to us that his fellow priests attain atonement through it, and a partners’ offering does not effect a substitution; so what is there to be uncertain about here [Rashi]?! [Rashi:

Rashi:

If we say

that

this is what he is asking:

If

the question is whether

we follow the one who consecrates—

the High Priest, who consecrated it from his own property—

we follow,

and he is called the owner of the offering with regard to substitution; and since an individual consecrated it from his own property and not from jointly owned property, the offering does effect a substitution?

Or do we follow the one who attains atonement—

he, his household, and his fellow priests—

we follow,

and they are called the owners of the offering with regard to substitution; and since many attain atonement through it, it has multiple owners and is jointly owned, and therefore does not effect a substitution?

It is impossible to explain the question in this manner, for

it is obvious that we follow the one who attains atonement—

as

it was

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

a. There is a distinction with regard to the redemption of consecrated property between the owners who redeem their consecrated property and others who redeem it: the owners add a fifth to the redemption payment, whereas others do not add a fifth. This law applies both to consecrated property for the repair of the Temple, which is initially designated for redemption, and to offerings that developed a blemish and are therefore redeemed.

b. Only the owners can effect a substitution; another person cannot effect a substitution.

c. One who separates his teruma may give it to any priest he wishes, and he thereby possesses the right of benefit from a Jew who says to him: “Here is this sela; give this teruma to my daughter’s son, who is a priest.”

a. If a person consecrated an animal on the condition that another attain atonement through it and thereby fulfill his obligation [Rashi], then—

the one who consecrates

is called the “owner” with regard to redemption, and therefore

adds a fifth

when he redeems it after it becomes blemished. But the other person, who attains atonement through this offering, is merely like any other person and does not add a fifth—

and the reason is that it is written: “And if the one who consecrated it redeems his house, he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his.” Thus we learn that the one who consecrates adds a fifth, but not the one who attains atonement.

The one who attains atonement,

and not the one who consecrates, is the one who

effects a substitution with it,

because he is called the “owner of the offering” with regard to substitution. b.

And one who contributes from his own produce to

the pile

of another

in order to permit it for use has the right to give the teruma to any priest he wishes; it is his, and therefore

the right of benefit is his. If an Israelite comes and says: “Here is this sela; give the teruma to my daughter’s son, who is a priest,” the sela is his, since he has the right to give it to any priest he wishes [Rashi].

for if an Israelite comes and says: “Here is this sela; give the teruma to my daughter’s son, who is a priest,” the sela belongs to him, since he has the ability to give it to any priest he wishes [Rashi].

And the reason is that it is stated: “When you have finished tithing all the tithe of your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite,” etc. Thus the verse makes the giving dependent upon the one who tithes from his own property.

We have therefore learned that with regard to substitution, the one who attains atonement is called the owner of the offering. The same applies to Rabbi Elazar’s question concerning substitution: the one who attains atonement is considered the “owner of the offering,” and since they are partners, it does not effect a substitution. [This has been explained on the basis of the implication of Rashi’s wording; see note

.] And we explain:

Rabbi Elazar certainly holds

that

we follow the one who attains atonement, and this is what he is asking:

Do

his fellow priests

and the household of the priest, who attain atonement through the bull, attain atonement through it

as a fixed matter [their atonement is fixed]?

That is, like other people who attain atonement for whom others set aside an offering: the animal is acquired for them for atonement, and here too a portion of it is acquired for them, “and it becomes a sin-offering belonging to partners with regard to substitution” [Rashi’s wording]—

Or perhaps:

his fellow priests and his household [Tosafot] attain atonement through it only

in a floating manner [their atonement floats].

That is, their atonement is not fixed in it, but floats above the atonement of the High Priest, like something floating on water; “the offering is not called by their name, and with regard to substitution it is an individual offering” of the High Priest [Rashi].

Come and hear:

The offering has a stringency

whose sanctity comes to it through the owners’ consecration [the initial consecration]—

over a substitute

of that offering;

and there is a stringency with regard to an

offering whose sanctity comes to it through

substitution—

over an offering,

as the beraita proceeds to explain:

The offering has a stringency

over a substitute: a.

The offering—

as the beraita proceeds to explain which offering it is discussing—

applies to both an individual and the community.

b.

And

the offering

overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,

c.

And

the offering

effects a substitution.

Unlike a substitute,

for substitution does not apply to the community; offering a substitute does not override Shabbat or ritual impurity, since there is no fixed time for offering it; and it does not cause another animal to become a substitute, since it is written: “And it shall be, it and its substitute shall be sacred,” and we expound: “it and its substitute,” but not the substitute of a substitute.

A substitute has a stringency over an offering:

A substitute takes effect upon a permanent blemish,

and the animal becomes sanctified with intrinsic sanctity,

and

this sanctity is effective for it in the following respect: if one seeks to redeem it,

it does not leave for ordinary use

so as to be permitted

to be shorn

of its wool

or to be worked [to perform labor with it]; it is permitted only for slaughter and eating.

to perform work with it]; it is permitted only for slaughter and eating.

Unlike an offering

that had a blemish at the time of consecration [its blemish preceded its consecration], which is not sanctified with intrinsic sanctity but only with monetary sanctity, and is redeemed and becomes entirely ordinary property; even shearing and labor are permitted [but if its consecration preceded its blemish, it too is not permitted, through redemption, for shearing and labor].

And now we seek to prove that the bull of Yom Kippur effects a substitution, for:

This offering

discussed by the beraita,

what are its circumstances?

If you say

that it is an offering

of an individual—

this cannot be explained as follows:

For

does

an individual’s offering

override Shabbat and ritual impurity?!

Yet the beraita states: “The offering has a stringency in that it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.”

Rather, you should explain that the beraita is discussing an offering

interpret it as referring to an offering

of the community

—but this too is impossible:

For

does

an offering

of the community

effect a substitution?!

Yet the beraita states: “And it effects a substitution.”

Rather, is it not

necessary to explain that the beraita is discussing an offering

of the bull

of Yom Kippur, since all that is stated in the beraita applies fully to it: “Applies to both an individual and the community,” since it is a sin-offering, and a sin-offering applies both to an individual and to the community.

“It applies both to an individual and to a community,” since it is a sin-offering, and a sin-offering applies both to an individual and to a community.

“And it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,”

since

its time is fixed

on Yom Kippur and it has no compensatory offering. Every offering whose time is fixed overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, even when it is an individual offering, as explained on the previous amud.

And it effects a substitution

because

it

may be said that this tanna holds that

it is an individual offering.

We have therefore learned that the bull of Yom Kippur effects a substitution, and Rabbi Elazar’s question has been resolved.

Rabbi Sheshet

said, rejecting this:

No, it is not as you said: this beraita is discussing Aaron’s bull on Yom Kippur. Rather, it is discussing

it is not as you said: that this beraita is referring to Aaron’s bull on Yom Kippur. Rather, it is referring to

Aaron’s ram

on Yom Kippur, an offering through which only Aaron attains atonement, and it therefore certainly effects a substitution.

This is also logically compelling,

that, as Rabbi Sheshet explained, the beraita is discussing Aaron’s ram—which is a burnt-offering—and not Aaron’s bull, which is a sin-offering:

For if it enters your mind that

that the beraita is discussing

Aaron’s bull, which is a sin-offering, is what the beraita is discussing, how can the beraita state: “The offering has a stringency over a substitute, in that the offering overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, unlike a substitute”?!

of Aaron, which is a sin-offering, how could the beraita state: “There is an additional stringency with an offering over a substitution offering, because the offering pushes aside Shabbat and ritual impurity, unlike a substitution offering”?!—

For is it so that

the substitute of the bull,

which is a sin-offering,

does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but on an ordinary day it may be offered?!

But

it is the substitute of a sin-offering, and the substitute of a sin-offering

indeed

goes to die

and not to be offered, since it is one of the five sin-offerings that are left to die.

We reject the inference that compelled the Gemara to conclude that the beraita is not discussing Aaron’s bull:

No, it is not as you said. Rather,

it is not as you said. Rather,

in fact, it may be said that the beraita is discussing

the beraita is discussing

Aaron’s bull,

and as for your difficulty—how can it state: “The offering has a stringency over a ‘substitute,’” implying that the substitute is not offered on Shabbat but is offered on an ordinary day—there is no difficulty:

For

what

is meant by the offering’s stringency over a

“substitute,”

as stated in the beraita? It does not mean, as we understood until now, the substitute of that particular offering—

but rather:

the category of substitute. That is, the matters that apply to an offering, namely Aaron’s bull, do not apply to something whose name is substitute: even when a substitute is offered—such as the substitute of a burnt-offering—it does not override Shabbat or ritual impurity.

that is, the laws that apply to an offering—in this case, Aaron’s bull—do not apply to something called a substitution offering. Even when a substitution offering is offered, such as the substitute of an elevation-offering, it does not push aside Shabbat or ritual impurity.

We ask: All the give-and-take of the Gemara until now proceeded from the assumption that the beraita was discussing a single offering in which all the details mentioned in the beraita applied. On that basis we were forced to explain that the beraita was discussing Aaron’s bull or his ram. But according to your explanation, there is a difficulty:

If so, since the “substitute” mentioned in the beraita does not necessarily refer to a particular substitute, and can be explained as “the category of substitute”—

then

“offering” as well

can be explained as not referring to a particular offering. The beraita’s intention would be to say that among the things bearing

“the category of offering”

there are all the stringencies mentioned in the beraita, some applying to this offering and some to another. And this is what it says:

There is a stringency with regard to offerings: some of them apply both to an individual and to the community—

and there are offerings that override Shabbat and ritual impurity, such as a communal offering or an individual offering whose time is fixed—

and there are offerings that effect a substitution—

unlike everything bearing the name “substitute,” to which these matters do not apply.

We answer: From the beraita itself it can be proven that

“the category of offering”

is

not what it states; rather, the beraita is discussing a particular offering—

but, on the contrary, the beraita is speaking of a particular sacrifice—

From where?

From the fact that it states

in the beraita:

“A substitute has a stringency, in that a substitute takes effect upon a permanent blemish and does not leave for ordinary use to be shorn or worked,

unlike an offering.”

And if it should enter your mind: What is meant by “sacrifice”—“the designation of a sacrifice”,

then necessarily the beraita’s intent is that there is no sacrifice whatsoever upon which sanctity takes effect when it is a permanent blemish, and it does not become non-sacred so that it may be shorn and used for labor -