Yoma 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

And what do you mean by

“communal offerings”

? Is there a difficulty with my statement?!

There is a distinction between the obligation to bring the shekels and the communal offerings that come from the collection of the Chamber:

The

difference is that]

offerings

of the

community

that are brought from the first of Nisan onward do not come from the collection of the previous year,

as

the words of

Rabbi Tavi

who

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoshiya: As Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya: The verse states

[Numbers 28:14, concerning the burnt offering of the New Moon]:

“This is the burnt offering of the New Moon in its renewal

for the months of the year.” The verse mentions redundant expressions of “month,” and from this the Sages derived:

“Renew and bring Me

the offerings of the year

from a new collection.”

Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to the goats of Yom Kippur that were lost that they are not sacrificed in the following year.

And we raise a difficulty: Rabbi Yehuda spoke of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur and said that both of them must die.

This works

, as Rava’s answer does indeed resolve the matter concerning the

goat

that comes from the funds of the collection of the Chamber; but concerning the

bull

that comes from the High Priest’s own funds,

what can be said—

why do we not say that it should be sacrificed in the following year?

And we answer: The Sages issued a

decree

prohibiting the sacrifice of the bull

lest [

they come to sacrifice the

goat [

that comes from the collection of the Chamber] in the following year.

And we raise an objection to Rava’s statement:

But

is it

because of a decree

that the Sages said that they must

die?!

Because of a decree, it would have sufficed to say that the bull should graze until it develops a blemish, and another should be brought with the proceeds of its sale.

Furthermore,

even concerning the goat there is a difficulty:

That statement of

Rabbi Tavi in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya [

who said that communal offerings do not come from the old collection]

is a mitzva

alone,

not an absolute requirement,

but if one sacrificed from the old collection, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: With regard to communal offerings that come on the first of Nisan

and thereafter,

it is a mitzva to bring them from the new [

from the collection of the new year].

But if one brought them from the old, he fulfilled his obligation

after the fact,

although he lacks fulfillment of the mitzva.

Since, after the fact, if one sacrificed the communal offerings from the old collection he fulfilled his obligation, it is not appropriate to put the goat to death because of something that is merely a mitzva.

Rava’s answer is rejected. The difficulty therefore returns: Why are the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost not sacrificed in the following year [according to Rabbi Yehuda]?

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said

another answer:

Because the lottery

that was conducted in this year

does not establish designation from one year for the next,

therefore it is impossible to sacrifice in the following year the goat that remained from this year.

And we raise a difficulty:

Let us bring

another goat in the following year

and conduct a lottery

over them as at first! And we answer: This is not done because of a

decree,

as the Sages were concerned that if they bring in the following year the goat that remained from the previous year,

perhaps

people will not see that a new lottery was conducted over the goats, and

will say: The lottery establishes designation from one year for the next

even without conducting a second lottery.

And we raise a difficulty: Rabbi Yehuda spoke of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur and said that both of them must die, and

this works

, as Rabbi Zeira’s answer does indeed resolve the matter concerning the

goat

that is sanctified through a lottery.

But concerning the

bull [

which does not require a lottery],

what can be said—

why do we not say that it should be sacrificed in the following year?

And we answer: The Sages issued a

decree

prohibiting the sacrifice of the bull

lest [

they come to sacrifice the

goat

in the following year.

And we raise an objection:

But

is it

because of a decree

that the Sages said that they must

die?!

It would have sufficed to say that the bull should graze [and another should be brought with the proceeds of its sale]!

Rabbi Zeira’s answer is rejected, and the difficulty returns: Why are the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost not sacrificed in the following year [according to Rabbi Yehuda]?

And the following answer

was stated by the Sages [

the students of Abaye]

before Abaye:

The Sages issued a

decree

prohibiting the sacrifice of the bull in the following year

because

they were concerned that perhaps the High Priest would die during this year, and they would sacrifice his bull; that would be

a sin offering whose owner has died,

which is prohibited to sacrifice.

And we raise a difficulty:

This works

, as this answer indeed resolves the matter concerning the

bull

belonging to the High Priest [and there is concern that he may die]. But concerning the

goat

belonging to the community,

what can be said—

why is it not sacrificed in the following year?

And we answer: The Sages issued a

decree

prohibiting the sacrifice of the

goat lest [

they also come to sacrifice the

bull.

And we raise an objection:

But

is it

because of a decree

that the Sages said that they must

die?!

It would have sufficed to say that the goat should graze [and another should be brought with the proceeds of its sale]!

This answer is rejected, and the difficulty returns: Why are the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur not sacrificed in the following year [according to Rabbi Yehuda]?

Rather,

another answer must be given:

The Sages issued a

decree

prohibiting the sacrifice of the goat in the following year

because it is a sin offering whose year has passed.

They were concerned that by the next Yom Kippur a full year would have elapsed since this goat was born. A sin offering is fit for sacrifice only during the first year of its life. The Gemara immediately challenges the one who gave this answer: Why do you call this a

decree?!

Certainly, a full year will have elapsed by the next Yom Kippur, and consequently

it itself [

the goat itself]

is a sin offering whose year has passed,

and it is prohibited by Torah law to sacrifice it!

And the one who gave the answer resolves his statement:

That is not difficult.

There is a case in which, by the next Yom Kippur, the goat would not be disqualified by Torah law as a sin offering whose year has passed.

As

the words of

Rabbi

below:

As it was taught:

With regard to one who sells a house in a walled city, he may redeem it until a year has elapsed. And it is stated concerning this [Leviticus 25:30]:

“A complete year.” “

Complete” teaches that he

counts three hundred sixty-five days, corresponding to the number of days

in the

solar

year. The solar year is longer than the lunar year by eleven days. And even if they declare the year a leap year [in which case the lunar year is longer than the solar year], one always follows the solar year.

And the Sages say:

In an ordinary year [which is not a leap year],

he counts twelve lunar months from day to day,

as the Jewish people count according to the months of the moon.