Parallel
יומא 50:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
According to him who holds that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is a private sacrifice, is a substitute made for it valid or not? Does not this imply that there is one who considers it a community-offering? - No, the inference is that there is one who considered it an offering of partners. [To turn to] the main text: R. Eleazar asked: According to him who holds that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is an offering of an individual, is a substitute made for it valid or not? What is his question? [Shall we say, as to] whether [the validity of a substitute] is dependent on him who consecrated it, or on him who attains atonement thereby? Obviously [it may be objected] we make it dependent on him who obtains atonement thereby. for R. Abbuha said in the name of R. Johanan: He who consecrates must add the fifth to and he who obtains atonement thereby can render valid a substitute, and one who separates the priestly gift from his own produce for that of his neighbour has the benefit of the pleasure! In truth it is obvious that the matter depends on him who obtains atonement, and this is what he asked: Have his fellow-priests a definite share in the atonement or do they receive their forgiveness merely by implication? Come and hear: There are some aspects of the original sacrificial animal severer than those of a substitute animal, there are some aspects in which the substitute animal has more rigid rules than the original sacrificial animal. More severe are the regulations touching the original inasmuch as it applies both to an individual and to a community, suspends the Sabbath law, and the law concerning levitical impurity, and renders a substitute [valid,] all these things not applying to the substitute animal. More severe are the regulations touching a substitute animal than those of the original sacrificial animal, inasmuch as a substitute is effected even if it have a permanent blemish, and it cannot be made available [on redemption] for profane use, either to be shorn, or put to work, all these things not applying to the original animal. Now what kind of sacrifice is meant here? If we are to assume an individual's sacrifice [is meant]. how could it suspend the laws of either Sabbath or those touching levitical impurity; if, again, the reference be to a community sacrifice, how could it be replaced? Hence the reference here must be to the [high priest's] bullock, and [it is stated that] ‘it suspends both Sabbath and impurity laws’ because it has a definite time; and ‘renders its substitute [valid]’ — because It is the offering of an individual! -Said R. Shesheth: No, the reference here is to the ram of Aaron. Thus, indeed, does it also appear logical. For if we were to assume the reference is to the bullock, [the question would arise, Is it] that the substitute of the bullock does not suspend the Sabbath or the laws of impurity, but on a week-day it can be offered; surely is it not the substitute of a sin-offering, and ‘the substitute of a sin-offering is left to die’?-No! in truth, [the reference here is to] his bullock, and what does substitute mean here? [That which goes by] the name of substitute. — But,if so, sacrifice here, too. should mean [that which goes by the name of] an original sacrifice? — No, he does not deal with [whatever goes by the name of] an original sacrifice. Whence that?-Since it states: ‘There are restrictions In the law regarding substitute animals, in that even a permanently blemished animal is affected, and it cannot be made available for profane use either to be shorn or put to work’. Now if the thought should arise in you that the word ‘sacrifice’ here meant [whatever goes by] the name of an original sacrificial animal, surely there is
—