Yoma 100

לדברי האומר פר יום הכפורים קרבן יחיד עושה תמורה או אינו עושה תמורה לאו מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דצבור

According to him who holds that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is a private sacrifice, is a substitute made for it valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 10.');">¹</span> or not?

לא מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דשותפין

Does not this imply that there is one who considers it a community-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A substitute for a congregational sacrifice is not valid. V. Tem. 13a.');">²</span> - No, the inference is that there is one who considered it an offering of partners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A substitute for a sacrifice of partners is not valid, 13a.');">³</span>

גופא בעי רבי (אליעזר) לדברי האומר פר יוה"כ קרבן יחיד עושה תמורה או אינו עושה תמורה מאי קא מיבעיא ליה

[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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 10.');">¹</span> What is his question?

אי בתר מקדיש אזלינן אי בתר מתכפר אזלינן

[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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> Obviously [it may be objected] we make it dependent on him who obtains atonement thereby.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span>

פשיטא דבתר מתכפר אזלינן דא"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש והמתכפר עושה בה תמורה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 10.');">¹</span> and one who separates the priestly gift from his own produce for that of his neighbour has the benefit of the pleasure!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">⁵</span>

והתורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה שלו

In truth it is obvious tha the matter depends on him who obtains atonement, and this is what he asked: Have his fellow-priests a definite share in the atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the bullock of the high priest, i.e., are they to be considered partners in the sacrifice from the time of its dedication.');">⁶</span> or do they receive their forgiveness merely by implication?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: circuit, transference in direction. Rashi: floating, unsettled condition. Goldschmidt: from Syriac: the bearer (of atonement) . i.e., the high priest.');">⁷</span>

לעולם פשיטא ליה דבתר מתכפר אזלינן והכי קא מיבעיא ליה אחיו הכהנים בקביעותא מתכפרי או דילמא בקופיא מתכפרי

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No substitute for a substitute is valid.');">⁸</span>

ת"ש חומר בזבח מבתמורה וחומר בתמורה מבזבח חומר בזבח שהזבח נוהג ביחיד כבצבור ודוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה ועושה תמורה מה שאין כן בתמורה

More severe are the regulations touching a substitute animal than those of the original sacrificial animal, inasmuch as a substitute is effected<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal itself, even though it be blemished, partakes of sacrificial holiness, although unfit for the altar.');">⁹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁰</span>

חומר בתמורה מבזבח שהתמורה חלה על בעל מום קבוע ואינה יוצאה לחולין ליגזז וליעבד משא"כ בזבח

all these things not applying to the original animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span> Now what kind of sacrifice is meant here?

האי זבח היכי דמי אילימא דיחיד מי דחי שבת וטומאה אלא דצבור מי עושה תמורה אלא לאו דפר ודוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה דקביע ליה זמן ועושה תמורה דקרבן יחיד הוא

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?

אמר רב ששת לא באילו של אהרן

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the question of R. Eleazar.');">¹²</span> -Said R'Shesheth: No, the reference here is to the ram of Aaron.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the ram brought by the high priest for his own atonement on the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 3.');">¹³</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך דפרו תמורה דפר שבת וטומאה הוא דלא דחיא הא בחול מקריב קרבה הא תמורת חטאת היא ותמורת חטאת למיתה אזלא

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. ibid.');">¹⁴</span>

לא לעולם פרו ומאי תמורה שם תמורה

and 'the substitute of a sin-offering is left to die'? -No! in truth, [the reference here is to] his bullock, and what doe substitute mean here? [That which goes by] the name of substitute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁵</span>

אי הכי זבח נמי שם זבח שם זבח לא קתני

- But,if so, sacrifice here, too. should mean [that which goes by the name of] an original sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without referring to any original sacrifice in particular; why then refer the term either to his bullock or the ram of Aaron?');">¹⁶</span>

ממאי מדקתני חומר בתמורה שהתמורה חלה על בעל מום קבוע ואינה יוצאה לחולין ליגזז וליעבד ואי סלקא דעתך מאי זבח שם זבח והא איכא

- 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 regardin 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