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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

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)



(a) Rebbi Ami also agrees that the Pasuk "ve'Hotzi es Kol ha'Par" teaches us that, even after the bull had been Shechted, it was still called a bull.

(b) He reconciles the Pasuk "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas" (which also refers to the animals after they have been Shechted) with the Derashah "be'Par" 've'Lo be'Damo' by differentiating between the skin, the flesh and the dung - which *are* called 'Par', and the blood - which, in his opinion, is *not*.

(c) When the Torah writes "be'Zos Yavo Aharon el ha'Kodesh" - it is not referring to the *body*, but to the *blood*, from which we see, says Rav Ashi, that even the blood of the bull is also called 'Par'.

(d) Rebbi Ami will explain the Pasuk to refer to the Korban that is first brought in the form of a bull, with skin, flesh, and dung: When he has brought this Korban, the Torah is saying, he is permitted to enter the Kodesh Kodashim.

(a) A Chatas whose owner died - had to die.

(b) The bull of Yom Kipur, the Chavitei Kohen Gadol and the Korban Pesach - are all Korbenos Yachid, yet each of them overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah.

(c) That being the case, asks Rebbi Meir, how can the Tana Kama of the Beraisa say that every Korban *Tzibur* *overrides* Shabbos and Tum'ah, and every Korban *Yachid* does *not*.

(d) We try to prove from Rebbi Meir's statement that the Tana Kama, with whom Rebbi Meir disagrees, must hold that the bull of Yom Kipur is a Chatas Tzibur - which in turn, will explain why the Gemara asked above what had to be done with the bull of Yom Kipur if the Kohen Gadol died (and did not simply rule that it had to die).

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov queries the Tana Kama from the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, the communal goats of Avodah-Zarah and the Chagigah, all of which are Korbenos Tzibur, yet they do not over-ride Shabbos or Tum'ah - if the inference that we just made in Rebbi Meir's querying of the Tana Kama was correct, then, by the same token, the Tana Kama will disagree with Rebbi Ya'akov, and will hold that the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and the communal goats of Avodah-Zarah are Korbenos Yachid, which is obviously not feasible.

(b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Ya'akov are not querying whether the Korbanos in question are Korbanos Yachid or Tzibur - since this in fact unanimous (that the first set of Korbanos - including the bull of Yom Kipur) are Korbanos Yachid, and the second set, Korbenos Tzibur. Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Ya'akov are querying the Tana Kama's differentiation between a Korban Yachid and a Korban Tzibur, which does not appear to be correct.

(c) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Ya'akov, it is those Korbanos which have a fixed time (and cannot therefore be postponed) that over-ride Shabbos and Tum'ah (irrespective of whether they are Korbenos Tzibur or Korbanos Yachid).

(d) The Korban Chagigah (in spite of the fact that it is brought on Yom-Tov) is considered 'Ein Zemano Kavu'a' - because it has seven days of Tashlumin (i.e. six days, besides the first day of Yom-Tov, on which to make up for not having brought it on the first day).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa holds that the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur, as well as the goat of Avodah-Zarah, that were lost, re-placed and then found, must die. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon hold that they are sent to graze, to be redeemed the moment they become blemished, and the proceeds used for Nedavah of Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon hold that the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur, as well as the goat of Avodah-Zarah, that were lost, re-placed and then found, are sent to graze - because 'Ein Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.

(c) We amend the Beraisa (to reconcile this with what we learned above - that the bull of Yom Kipur is *not* a Korban Tzibur) - by explaining the bull to mean the bull of He'elam Davar shel Tzibur - which *is* a Korban Tzibur (and not that of Yom Kipur - which is *not*).

(d) On the basis of another Beraisa, which specifically quotes Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon with regard to the *bull of Yom Kipur*, too, and in view of the earlier Beraisa, which referred to it as a Korban *Yachid*, we amend their statement of 'she'Ein Chatas *Tzibur* Meisah' to 'she'Ein Chatas *ha'Shutfin* Meisah'.

(a) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon learn this principle from Temurah (since all five Chata'os that die must have the same specifications). We know that Temurah does not apply to a Korban ha'Shutfin - from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im Hamir Yamir" (which is written in the singular).

(b) The practical difference between whether the Chatas brought on behalf of the Kohanim is termed a Chatas Tzibur, or a Chatas ha'Shutfin - will manifest itself with regard to a Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur consisting of all the Kohanim. Rava did not want to call them a Tzibur (like each of the other tribes), because then they would be obligated to bring a Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur. But in fact, the Kohanim (i.e. the tribe of Levi) are not called a Kahal, and they do not therefore bring a Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur; so Rava referred to them as 'Shutfin'.

(c) the Kohanim (the tribe of Levi) are not called a 'Kahal' - because they do not receive a regular inheritance in Eretz Yisrael, like each of the other tribes does.




(a) Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamu'a) asks whether, according to Rebbi Meir, who calls the bull of Yom Kipur a Korban Yachid, it can make a Temurah. This does not imply that, according to the Rabbanan, it is a Korban *Tzibur*, but that it is a Korban *ha'Shutfin*.

(b) In spite of the undeniable fact that it atones for all the Kohanim, Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah is whether (regarding making a *Temurah*) we follow the person who is *being atoned for* (in this case, the Kohanim), or after the *owner* who declared the animal Hekdesh (in this case, the Kohen Gadol - who paid for the bull out of his own pocket).

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, regarding a case where one person pays for another's Kaparah ...

1. ... should the designated animal become *blemished* - it is the *owner* who pays the extra fifth if he wishes to redeem it;
2. ... but the one who is being *atoned for* who has the legal right to declare a *Temurah*.
3. ... it is the *owner* of the crops, not the one whose crops are being covered - who has the choice of *Kohen*.
(d) From Rebbi Yochanan, it is the person who is being atoned for who has the right to declare a Temurah (because *he* is considered the owner in this regard), and not the person who pays. Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah regarding the Kohen Gadol's bull is - whether it atones for them because they are (co-) *owners* (as is the case when one person provides an animal to atone for his friend), or whether really it is *Aharon's* bull, only it covers the other Kohanim as well (in which case, they will not have the right to declare a Temurah).
(a) An original Korban has four stringencies over a Temurah. *Three* of them are: that it applies even to a communal Korban, that it over-rides Shabbos and that it over-rides Tum'ah. The fourth stringency is that it is possible to declare a Temurah on it (which one cannot do on a Temurah).

(b) Whether one declares a blemished animal Hekdesh, or one declares it a Temurah, the Kedushah is effective. The difference between them is that in the former case, it only becomes Kedushas Damim - and can be completely redeemed, to do with as one pleases; whereas by a Temurah, it becomes Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, and may be redeemed only in order to eat, but not to be shorn or worked with. (Note: Had the animal become blemished only *after* it was declared Hekdesh, then the Hekdesh animal would have the same Din as the Temurah).

(c) The Gemara asks to which Korban the Tana is referring - because, if it was ...

  1. ... a Korban Yachid - then it would not override Shabbos and Tum'ah.
  2. ... a Korban Tzibur - then it would not make a Temurah.
(a) We try to establish the Beraisa by the bull of the Kohen Gadol - which overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah because it has a fixed time, yet it can make a Temurah because it is considered a Korban Yachid.

(b) So we see that the bull of Yom Kipur is considered a Korban Yachid and can indeed make a Temurah - resolving the She'eilah of Rebbi Elazar at the beginning of the Amud.

(c) We reject this proof on the grounds that the Tana could also have been referring, not to the bull of Aharon, but to his ram - which also overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah, because it has a fixed time, and it can make a Temurah, because it is purely a Korban Yachid.

(d) We then try to prove that the Beraisa *must* in fact be referring to Aharon's ram, and not to the bull - because if it was, how could the Tana say that the Temurah of the bull does not override Shabbos and Tum'ah, implying that a *Tahor Temurah during the week* would indeed be *Kasher* to do on the Mizbe'ach? But that cannot be, since (unlike the *ram*, which is an *Olah*), the *bull* is a *Chatas*, and the Temurah of a Chatas has to die?

(a) We finally remain with the possibility that the Tana is referring to the bull, and explain Temurah to mean 'Shem Temurah' - meaning that 'Chomer be'Zevach mi'bi'Temurah, she'ha'Zevach ... ' does not refer to the Zevach of the Temurah, but that there is nothing that is called *Temurah* that overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah (even those that *are* brought), whereas by *Zevach* there *are*.

(b) We do not also explain *'Zevach'* to mean *Shem Zevach*, in which case the Kashya from Korban Yachid and Korban Tzibur will fall away (and the need to establish the Beraisa by any one particular Korban) - because the Tana is clearly not referring to Shem Zevach. If he *were*, then how could he say 'Chomer Temurah mi'be'Zevach she'ha'Temurah Chalah al Ba'al Mum Kavu'a ... since this will apply by 'Shem Zevach', too - i.e. by a Bechor or by Ma'aser Beheimah (neither of which can be redeemed at all, even if they are blemished). So 'Zevach' must refer to the specific Zevach under discussion (the Kohen Gadol's ram or even the bull).

(c) The reason that the Tana refers to Shem *Temurah* but not to Shem *Zevach*, is precisely because all Temuros are the same with regard to all the points mentioned in this Beraisa (i.e. not applying to Korban Tzibur, overriding Tum'ah and Shabbos, making a Temurah, and the prohibition of redeeming to shear or to work with); whereas not all Zevachim are the same - as we see by the leniency of Kedushas ha'Guf not being effective by blemished animals, which does not apply to Bechor or to Ma'aser.

Next daf


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