(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 50

YOMA 49-50 (6 & 7 Adar) were dedicated by Harav Avi Feldman & family in memory of his father, the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman) of Milwaukee (Yahrzeit: 6 Adar)


QUESTION: If the Kohen Gadol dies after his bull has been slaughtered, at least some Amora'im contend that his replacement may offer the blood of that same bull, and need not slaughter his own bull. The Gemara challenges this view by drawing on the well-known Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that when the owner of a Korban Chatas dies, the Korban that he separated (or its blood) may no longer be offered on the Mizbe'ach and instead must be put to death (or spilled, in the case of blood). Since the Kohen Gadol's bull is a Korban Chatas, how can it be offered after his death?

The Gemara answers, citing Rav Amram, that the Kohen Gadol's bull is a "Chatas Tzibur," a public Korban Chatas offering, and the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that requires putting the animal to death does not apply to a public Chatas, only to a private Chatas.

Later on the page, the Gemara cites the source for this distinction. In a Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon as to what happens to a public Chatas for which another animal was already offered in its place. Rebbi Yehudah holds that the leftover Chatas is put to death because there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that once the owner of a Chatas has offered another animal in its place the remaining animal is put to death. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon argue that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not apply to public Chata'os; instead the remaining animal is left to graze until it gets a Mum (blemish), and its value is used to buy Olah offerings. The opinion expressed by Rav Amram reflects that of the latter two Tana'im, who teach that if another animal is offered in its place, a Chatas Tzibur is not put to death. For the same reason, if the owner of a Chatas Tzibur died, the Chatas will not be put to death.

But how does this justify *offering*, l'Chatchilah, the blood of a previous Kohen Gadol's Chatas? Even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon require that the animal be left to graze until it gets a Mum. They do not permit offering a Chatas Tzibur on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah if another animal was already offered in its place, so the same should apply to a Chatas Tzibur when its owner dies!


(a) TOSFOS in Temurah (15b DH Ka Karvah) and TOSFOS YESHANIM and the RITVA here suggest that the only reason the Chatas is left to graze according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, is because there is no other way to offer it on the Mizbe'ach -- since the proper Korban has already been brought, and the Tzibur no longer have a need to offer this animal as a Korban. (A Chatas may not be brought as a Nedavah, a voluntary offering.) It is not because the Chatas is *disqualified* from being offered once another has been offered instead of it. For this reason the Chatas Tzibur whose owner has died does not have to graze, since the Tzibur still *does* have to bring a Korban Chatas in this case, and they may as well bring this one.

(b) TOSFOS in our Sugya (DH Chatas) suggests that indeed a Chatas Tzibur *does* become disqualified if another one was offered in its place, and that is why it must graze. However, this is only a Rabbinic enactment in order that people should not offer Chatas *Yachid* after its owner offered another animal in its place. Mid'Oraisa the Chatas Tzibur may be offered on the Mizbe'ach.

If so, Tosfos suggests, the Rabbinic enactment only applies when another animal was offered instead of the Chatas Tzibur. If the owner of a Chatas Tzibur (i.e. the Kohen Gadol) dies, it will not be confused with a case in which the owner of a Chatas Yachid dies, so there is no reason to enact that the Chatas Tzibur cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach and must graze. The reason for this is, firstly, because the Kohen Gadol who died is only *one* of its owners (the other Kohanim are also owners, as the Gemara explains on 50b) and the other owners are still alive. It is not entirely comparable to a situation when the only owner of a Chatas Yachid dies, and the animal is without *any* of its original owners. Secondly, in the case of the Kohen Gadol's death, another Kohen Gadol is appointed in his place, so it still does have its owner, in a sense.

(c) TOSFOS YESHANIM suggests further, citing his Rebbi, that in the case of the death of the Kohen Gadol, even *Rebbi Yehudah* will agree that his Chatas Tzibur will not be put to death. The rule is that "Ein Tzibur Mes," a collective group cannot be said to die when one of its members (or even all of them) pass away, since there are always new members in the group. Therefore there is *no such thing* as a Chatas Tzibur whose owner has died, or a Kohen Gadol's bull whose owners have all died. (The owners of the Kohen Gadol's bull are all of the Kohanim, and we know that an entire Shevet -- such as all of the Kohanim -- will never be wiped out [Bava Basra 115b]. Therefore it is impossible for *all* of the owners of the bull to have died, as the TOSFOS YESHANIM explains is DH u'Mai.)

The other Rishonim, who reject this simple approach, apparently understood that in the case of the Kohen Gadol's bull, the real owner of the bull is none other but the Kohen Gadol himself. The other Kohanim are only considered partners insofar as they are atoned through it, which is enough to make it a "Chatas Tzibur," but not enough to make them all considered to be actual owners. The Torah itself describes the bull as Aharon's own! Therefore when the Kohen Gadol dies, it can be said that the owners of the bull have died, even though the other Kohanim are still alive. (See next Insight)


QUESTION: Rebbi Elazar asked, according to the opinion that considers Aharon's bull to be a private Korban and not a public one (Rebbi Meir on 50a - RASHI), may a Temurah be made of it? We know that the other Kohanim gain atonement when it is offered. Is their atonement direct (mi'Kiv'a) or only "along with" the Kohen Gadol (mi'Kufya). If their atonement is direct, the Korban is brought for them as much as for the Kohen Gadol, and it should be considered a joint Korban. A Temurah cannot be made for a joint Korban. On the other hand, if the main atonement is only for the Kohen Gadol, and the others are atoned along with him, it is a private Korban and a Temurah can be made of it.

How can Rebbi Elazar entertain the possibility that "the opinion that calls the bull a private Korban" considers it a joint Korban? The Gemara at the top of the page made it clear that by calling it a private Korban, the Tana means to *exclude the possibility* that it is a public Korban! If so, it is obvious that that opinion will allow a Temurah to be made from the bull!

ANSWER: (a) TOSFOS DH l'Divrei explains that although Rebbi Meir does call the bull a "private offering," Rebbi Elazar was not sure as to Rebbi Meir's true intention. Did he mean that it was literally a private Korban, and it was brought exclusively by the Kohen Gadol himself? Or did he mean that it was private as opposed to being publicly owned *by the entire nation*. (Rebbi Meir was responding to the Tana Kama who implied that it was treated like Korbanos that are owned by the *entire nation*.) However, it is not literally privately owned; it is owned by all of the Kohanim.

That is what Rebbi Elazar meant to ask. When Rebbi Meir used the term "private Korban," did he mean it literally, or not? Is it fully private, or a joint Korban?

(b) From Rashi DH b'Kevi'usa it may perhaps be deduced that there are two types of ownership: (1) Ownership of the actual animal that is offered, and (2) ownership of the animal solely insofar as *gaining atonement* from the offering. Rebbi Meir indeed considers the bull to be privately *owned* by the Kohen Gadol, for no other Kohen dedicated to Hekdesh the bull itself; it came from the Kohen Gadol's own pocket. However, he may agree that *as far as atonement* is concerned, the other Kohanim are also considered to be owners of the bull. Since making a Temurah depends on the person that the bull atones for, if the bull atones for more than one person, it may be considered a joint Korban *as far as Temurah* is concerned.

This approach would answer a question posed by the TOSFOS YESHANIM on our Sugya. Tosfos Yeshanim (DH Oseh Temurah) wonders why Rebbi Elazar only asked if a *Temurah* may be made from the bull. Why didn't he ask whether it must be put to death if the Kohen Gadol dies, as is done to a private Korban, or whether it may be offered even after his death, like a public Korban (see previous Insight).

According to Rashi, the answer may be that the bull is certainly put to death (and its blood spilled) if the Kohen Gadol dies, since it is unquestionably a private Korban (according to Rebbi Meir) as far as the bull itself is concerned. It only might be considered a joint Korban as far as Temurah, since the laws of Temurah depend on the person who gains atonement from the offering, and not on the person whose offering it is. (M. Kornfeld)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,