יומא 50 — Soncino English Talmud

¹R. Isaac the Smith raised the following objection to R. Ammi's view: ‘Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth’. — [It means]: he shall take it out in its completeness. And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering? — R. Papa answered: Nobody disputes with regard to skin, flesh, and excrement, the dispute applies only to the blood, one holding blood to be designated ‘bullock’, the other holding that blood is not designated ‘bullock’. R. Ashi said: It seems reasonable to hold with the view that blood is designated ‘bullock’, for it is written: Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place; with a young bullock. Now does he bring it in with its horns? [Is it not] rather, with its blood, and yet it is called ‘bullock’. And the other? [It means this:] ‘How is Aaron legally permitted to enter the Sanctuary? With a young bullock for a sin-offering’. — But derive it from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died and ‘a sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die’? -Said Rabin the son of R. Ada to Raba: Your own disciples said in the name of R. Amram: This is a community sin-offering and the sin-offering of the community is not left. For we learned: R. Meir said: ‘Are not the bullock of ‘the Day of Atonement and the pancakes of the high priest and the paschal lamb each offerings of an individual and yet they suspend the law of Sabbath and the laws touching levitical impurity?’ Would you not infer therefrom that there must be a view according to which these are considered offerings of the congregation? But according to your own arguments when it states: R. Jacob said to him: But are there not the bullock to be offered for an error of the congregation, and the he-goats to be offered up for idolatry and the festive offering, all of which are community-offerings, and yet they suspend neither the laws of the Sabbath, nor those of levitical impurity? Would you infer from this that there must be a view that they are sacrifices of an individual? Rather [what you must therefore say is] he answered the first Tanna whom he heard saying that a community-sacrifice suspends the laws both of the Sabbath and those touching levitical impurity, whilst the sacrifice of an individual suspends neither the laws of the Sabbath nor those affecting levitical uncleanness, whereupon R. Meir said: ‘Is [the law concerning] the offering of an individual a general rule, is there not the bullock of the Day of Atonement? Are there not the pancakes of the high priest and the paschal lamb, all of which are private offerings, and yet they suspend both the Sabbath and the impurity laws?’ And also R. Jacob said: ‘Is the law concerning the offering of the community a rule, are there not the bullock for an error of the community, and the he-goats for idolatry, and the festive offering, all of which are community-offerings yet suspend neither the laws of the Sabbath, nor those touching levitical impurity?’ Rather accept this principle: Whatsoever has a fixed time, suspends both the laws of the Sabbath and those touching levitical impurity, even [though the sacrifice concerned be that] of an individual; and whatsoever has no definite time fixed suspends neither the Sabbath laws nor those affecting levitical uncleanness even if a community-offering [were involved]. Abaye raised the following objection: If the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement had been lost and other [animals] had been set aside in their stead, then they must all be left to die; similarly, if the he-goats [offered in expiation] for idolatry had been lost and others had been set aside in their stead, they must all be left to die; this is the view of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: They should be left to go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice, whereupon they should be sold and the money realized should go to the fund for [providing] freewill-offerings. because ‘a community-sacrifice is not left to die’. Bullock here refers to the bullock offered up for an error of the community. — But the text reads ‘of the Day of Atonement’? — This refers to the he-goat. But it was stated: If the bullock of the Day of Atonement and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement had been lost and others were set aside in their stead, they must all be left to die, this is the view of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: They should be left to go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice, whereupon they should be sold and the money realized for them should go to the fund for providing freewill-offerings. because a community-offering is not left to die’? — Do not read: ‘For a community-sacrifice is not left to die’, read rather, for ‘a sacrifice belonging to partners is not left to die’. What is the practical difference? — That the priests will not have to bring a sacrifice for an error in a legal decision. — Come and hear: For R. Eleazar asked:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:Lev. IV, 12. The animal is slain already and yet Scripture calls it a ‘bullock’.
^ᵇnote:I.e., all that is left of it the emphasis being on ‘the whole’.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. XVI, 27. This shows that the body of the bullock itself after it is slain is still designated ‘bullock’.
^ᵈnote:Whether blood by itself is equivalent to the whole animal so that the terms may be used indiscriminately or not?
^ᵉnote:Lev. XVI, 3.
^ᶠnote:How will he explain this verse?
^ᵍnote:with such ministrations in view is Aaron permitted to enter the sanctuary, to perform all details in connection with the bullock.
^ʰnote:That another priest may not enter with the blood of a bullock slain by the first priest who died.
^ⁱnote:Tem. 15a.
^ʲnote:Hence no further ministration is possible with it.
^ᵏnote:Bullock of the Day of Atonement.
^ˡnote:V. Tem. 14a (Mishnah); v. next note.
^ᵐnote:This is omitted in Mishnah Tem. hence var. lec. ‘it has been taught’ instead of ‘we have learnt’, v. note 2.
^ⁿnote:In accord with the view of the first Tanna, whom R. Meir opposes, that only community-offerings can suspend these laws.
^ᵒnote:Tosef. Tem. I.
^ᵖnote:To the same first Tanna whom R. Meir opposes.
^ᵠnote:Brought by the pilgrims to the Temple on the occasion of a festival (Ex. XXIII, 14).
^ʳnote:The assumption being that only thus could they fail to suspend either of the laws.
^ˢnote:The Pancakes of the high priest are to be offered at a definite time every day, whereas the festive offering may be brought for seven days following the festival, hence having no definite time.
^ᵗnote:Hence we have no proof that any Tanna is of the opinion that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is a community-sacrifice.
^ᵘnote:Infra 65a.
^ᵛnote:When they are found again, they are deprived of food until they die.
^ʷnote:Because of a blemish or their repulsive appearance.
^ˣnote:Hence we see that these Tannaim consider the bullock of the Day of Atonement a community-offering, in clear contradiction of the statement above.
^ʸnote:In the cited Baraithas.
^ᶻnote:The bullock brought by the high priest on the Day of Atonement being considered a sacrifice belonging to partners because all the priests share in the atonement effected by it.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since in either case the animal is not left to die, whether we call it a community sacrifice or one belonging to partners?
^ᵃᵇnote:If the Beth din by error had wrongly advised the priests, such error would not be considered ‘error of the community’, as when a whole tribe by mistake transgresses the law, but would be considered a sacrifice of partners, which is not left to die. Herein lies the practical difference, hence the justification of the distinction.

²According 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^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ᵃᶜnote:V. Lev. XXVII, 10.
^ᵃᵈnote:A substitute for a congregational sacrifice is not valid. V. Tem. 13a.
^ᵃᵉnote:A substitute for a sacrifice of partners is not valid, 13a.
^ᵃᶠnote:This is the problem: If it is determined by the one who consecrated then in his case the substitute would be valid, since it is the high priest, from whose possession it comes, who consecrated it. If, however, it depends on those who obtain forgiveness, then no such substitution would be possible. There are many. i.e., his fellow-priests, who obtain forgiveness with the bullock, and no substitute can be made in the case of a sacrifice of partners. (9) If someone consecrates an animal for his fellow, whose duty is thereby to be fulfilled, and it suffers a blemish and he wishes to redeem it, the one who consecrated it is considered its owner and must add a fifth to its value (v. Lev. XXVII, 19). whereas he who is to obtain atonement thereby, would not have to add the fifth, because Scripture insists (ibid.): And he that sanctified...will redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the valuation.
^ᵃᵍnote:He has the privilege of bestowing it upon whatever priest he chooses. This shows that there is no question that the validity of a substitute is determined by the one who consecrated the original sacrifice. What point then was there in R. Eleazar's question?
^ᵃʰnote:Through the bullock of the high priest, i.e., are they to be considered partners in the sacrifice from the time of its dedication.
^ᵃⁱnote:Jast.: circuit, transference in direction. Rashi: floating, unsettled condition. Goldschmidt: from Syriac: the bearer (of atonement). i.e., the high priest.
^ᵃʲnote:No substitute for a substitute is valid.
^ᵃᵏnote:The animal itself, even though it be blemished, partakes of sacrificial holiness, although unfit for the altar.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e.. even after redemption the substitute may neither be shorn nor put to work, though its flesh may be consumed as non-holy meat.
^ᵃᵐnote:If the original sacrificial animal had been blemished the owner who consecrated it could consecrate only its value, hence the animal on redemption was made available for profane use without any reservation.
^ᵃⁿnote:Which solves the question of R. Eleazar.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e.,the ram brought by the high priest for his own atonement on the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 3.
^ᵃᵖnote:V. Lev. ibid.
^ᵃᵠnote:The teaching speaks here of a substitute in general, not of a substitute of any particular original sacrificial animal. The restriction concerning substitutes lies in the fact that no substitute ever suspends the law of the Sabbath, even though the substitute be offered up.
^ᵃʳnote:Without referring to any original sacrifice in particular; why then refer the term either to his bullock or the ram of Aaron?