Yoma 99

איתיביה רבי יצחק נפחא לר' אמי (ויקרא ד, יב) והוציא את כל הפר שיוציא את כולו

R'Isaac the Smith raised the following objection to R'Ammi's view: 'Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 12. The animal is slain already and yet Scripture calls it a 'bullock'.');">¹</span> - [It means]: he shall take it out in its completeness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all that is left of it the emphasis being on 'the whole'.');">²</span>

ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת אמר רב פפא בעור ובשר ופרש דכולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בדם מר סבר דם איקרי פר ומר סבר דם לא איקרי פר

And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVI, 27. This shows that the body of the bullock itself after it is slain is still designated 'bullock'.');">³</span> - R'Papa answered: Nobody disputes with regard to skin, flesh, and excrement, the dispute applies only to the blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether blood by itself is equivalent to the whole animal so that the terms may be used indiscriminately or not?');">⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי מסתברא כמאן דאמר דם איקרי פר דכתיב (ויקרא טז, ג) בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש בפר בן בקר אטו בקרניה מעייל ליה אלא בדמו וקרי ליה פר

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 3.');">⁵</span>

ואידך במה הוכשר אהרן לבא אל הקדש בפר בן בקר לחטאת

Now does he bring it in with its horns? [Is it not] rather, with its blood, and yet it is called 'bullock'.

ותיפוק ליה דחטאת שמתו בעליה היא וחטאת שמתו בעליה למיתה אזלא א"ל רבין בר רב אדא לרבא אמרי תלמידיך אמר רב עמרם חטאת צבור היא ולא למיתה אזלא

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How will he explain this verse?');">⁶</span> [It means this:] 'How<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' with such ministrations in view is Aaron permitted to enter the sanctuary, to perform all details in connection with the bullock.');">⁷</span>

דתנן אמר לו ר"מ והלא פר יום הכפורים וחביתי כהן גדול ופסח דקרבן יחיד הוא ודוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה לאו מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דצבור

is Aaron legally permitted to enter the Sanctuary? With a young bullock for a sin-offering'.

ולטעמיך דקתני אמר לו רבי יעקב והלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים וחגיגה דקרבן צבור ואין דוחין לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דיחיד

- But derive it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That another priest may not enter with the blood of a bullock slain by the first priest who died.');">⁸</span> from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died and 'a<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 15a.');">⁹</span>

אלא לתנא קמא קא מהדר ליה דשמעיה דקאמר קרבן צבור דוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה וקרבן יחיד אינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה אמר לו רבי מאיר קרבן יחיד כללא הוא והלא פר יום הכפורים וחביתי כהן גדול ופסח דקרבן יחיד הוא ודוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה

sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no further ministration is possible with it.');">¹⁰</span> -Said Rabin the son of R'Ada to Raba: Your own disciples said in the name of R'Amram: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bullock of the Day of Atonement.');">¹¹</span>

ואמר לו רבי יעקב קרבן צבור כללא הוא והלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים וחגיגה דקרבן צבור הוא ואין דוחין לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה

is a community sin-offering and the sin-offering of the community is not left. For we learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tem. ');">¹²</span>

אלא נקוט האי כללא בידך כל שזמנו קבוע דוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה אפילו ביחיד וכל שאין זמנו קבוע אינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה ואפילו בצבור

R'Meir said: 'Are not the bullock of 'the Day of Atonement and the pancakes of the high priest and the paschal lamb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is omitted in Mishnah Tem. hence var. lec. 'it has been taught' instead of 'we have learnt', v. note 2.');">¹³</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accord with the view of the first Tanna, whom R. Meir opposes, that only community-offerings can suspend these laws.');">¹⁴</span>

איתיביה אביי פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולם ימותו וכן שעירי עבודת כוכבים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולם ימותו דברי רבי יהודה רבי (אליעזר) ורבי שמעון אומרים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת צבור מתה

But according to your own arguments when it states:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Tem. I.');">¹⁵</span> R'Jacob said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the same first Tanna whom R. Meir opposes.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה מאי פר פר העלם דבר של צבור והא של יוה"כ קתני כי קתני אדשעיר

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brought by the pilgrims to the Temple on the occasion of a festival (Ex. XXIII, 14) .');">¹⁷</span> all of which are community-offerings, and yet they suspend neither the laws of the Sabbath, nor those of levitical impurity?

והתניא פר של יוה"כ ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולם ימותו דברי רבי יהודה רבי (אליעזר) ורבי שמעון אומרים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת צבור מתה

Would you infer from this that there must be a view that they are sacrifices of an individual?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption being that only thus could they fail to suspend either of the laws.');">¹⁸</span> 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?

לא תימא שאין חטאת צבור מתה אלא אימא שאין חטאת השותפין מתה ומאי נפקא מינה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we have no proof that any Tanna is of the opinion that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is a community-sacrifice.');">²⁰</span>

דלא מייתו כהנים פר בהוראה

Abaye raised the following objection:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 65a.');">²¹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they are found again, they are deprived of food until they die.');">²²</span>

ת"ש דבעי ר' (אליעזר)

then they must all be left to die; similarly, if t he-goats [offered in expiation] for idolatry had been lost and others had been set aside in their stead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they are found again, they are deprived of food until they die.');">²²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of a blemish or their repulsive appearance.');">²³</span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we see that these Tannaim consider the bullock of the Day of Atonement a community-offering, in clear contradiction of the statement above.');">²⁴</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they are found again, they are deprived of food until they die.');">²²</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the cited Baraithas.');">²⁵</span> 'For a community-sacrifice is not left to die', read rather, for 'a sacrifice belonging to partn is not left to die'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> What is the practical difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in either case the animal is not left to die, whether we call it a community sacrifice or one belonging to partners?');">²⁷</span> - That the priests will not have to bring a sacrifice fo an error in a legal decision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁸</span> - Come and hear: For R'Eleazar asked: