POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafYoma 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)
1) THE PAR AND NOT ITS BLOOD OR EVEN WITH ITS BLOOD (cont'd)
(a) Question: The Pasuk refers to the Par after Zerikah as a
2) USING THE BLOOD OF THE PAR AFTER THE KOHEN DIES (cont'd)
(b) Answer: That means the requirement to take out the entire
(c) Question: The Par HaChatas is called a Par!?
(d) Answer (R. Papa): There is no argument that the Torah refers
to the entirety of the animal as Par; the argument is
whether the blood alone can be called Par.
1. R. Ashi brought an indication from the Par of the Kohen
Gadol on Yom Kipur that the blood is called Par.
2. Perhaps it means that the Par (once live and offered
properly) is what enables Aharon to enter.
(a) Question: It should be a Chatas whose owners have died
(which must be killed as one of the five Chatos HaMeisos)!?
(b) Answer (Ravin b. R. Ada speaking to Rava citing the latter's
student, R. Amram): It is a Chatas HaTzibur which is not
1. R. Meir in the Mishnah asserts that it is a Korban
Yachid [and yet is Docheh Shabbos and Tumah].
(c) Question (Abaye to Rava): We find that the Par of Yom Kipur
is a Chatas HaTzibur and yet there is a doubt whether the
second Kohen may enter with the blood of the first!?
2. From R. Meir we infer the existence of an opposing
opinion, ie. that it is a Korban Tzibur.
3. (Rava) If you make such an inference, then you would
have to infer from R. Yakov (in that Mishnah) the
existence of an opinion that Par He'elem, Seirei Avodas
Kochavim and Chagigah are Korbanos Yachid!
4. Rather, both R. Meir and R. Yakov are addressing the
Tana Kama who holds that being Docheh Shabbos and Tumah
depends on being a Korban Tzibur (and not a Korban
5. They are asserting that neither is a determinant, but
rather a fixed time for the Korban determines whether
or not it is Docheh.
(d) Answer (Rava): No, it is a Korban Yachid and the "Par" being
referred to is the Par He'elem of the Tzibur.
(e) Question: But it says *of Yom Kipur*?!
(f) Answer: It refers to the Sair (but the Par is Par He'elem).
(g) Question: But the Beraisa explicitly lists both!?
(h) Answer (Rava): It is not a Chatas HaTzibur, but rather a
Chatas HaShutafin, which does not go LeMisah.
(i) Question: Why fuss over the difference?
(j) Answer: We need to be precise so that Kohanim should not
bring a Par He'elem because they are Shutafin, not a Tzibur.
(a) The above establishes that there *is* an opinion that Par of
Yom Kipur is a Korban "Tzibur" as indicated by the question
asked by R. Elazar, as to whether, according to R. Meir, it
can create a Temurah?
1. He refers to R. Meir as holding that the Par of Yom
Kipur is a Korban Yachid.
(b) No, this may infer the opinion that it is a Korban Shutafin.
2. This infers the existence of an opinion that it is a
(c) Question: What was R. Elazar's doubt?
1. The doubt may not relate to the question of whether we
consider the donor (the Kohen Gadol) or the ones atoned
(d) Answer: As to whether or not the Kohanim, his brethren,
fully take ownership of the Korban (Keviyusa) or does the
atonement over hover over them (Kufia), thus affecting
2. Such a doubt is not legitimate since it would be clear
that we follow the ones atoned.
3. This is true, given the Halachos regarding Temurah and
Terumah which R. Avahu cited in R. Yochanan's name.
(e) The Beraisa lists the Chumros of Zevach over Temurah and the
(f) Question: What type of Zevach does the Beraisa speak of?
1. It cannot be a Zevach Yachid, since we speak of it
being Docheh Shabbos and Tumah.
(g) It must be speaking of a Par Yom Kipur which is Docheh
(since it is time-specific), and it makes a Temurah (since
it is considered owned by an individual).
2. It cannot be Tzibur, since we speak of it creating a
(h) Thus we see that it can make a Temurah.
(i) (R. Sheishes) No, it may well speak of the Ayil of Aharon on
Yom Kipur (not the Par Chatas).
1. This is indicated by the reference to Zevah having the
Chumrah of Dechiyah over a Temurah.
(j) Not necessarily, since it may not speak of the Temurah of
*that animal* but rather of general Temuros.
2. A Temurah of a Chatas is *never* brought (not only on
Shabbos) since it is LeMisah!
(k) Question: If so, then Zevach may also be generic!?
(l) Answer: The Beraisa does not say the generic Zevach, rather
it is specific.
1. If it meant a generic Zevach then its "Chumrah" would
not hold given Bechor and Ma'aser Beheimah.
(m) Question: Why does the Beraisa speak of a specific Zevach
and yet use the term Temurah generically?
2. Those do apply to Ba'al Mum, and they do not go out
(n) Answer: Because all Temuros have like Halachos, whereas
Zevachim have the exceptional Bechor and Ma'aser.