Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "PARIM" THAT WERE BROUGHT FOR IDOLATRY

(a) (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Question: Why does it say "You will take a second Par for a Chatas" - we already know that one is an Olah, one is a Chatas!
(b) Answer: One might have thought that the Chatas may be eaten by the (Maharsha - Kohanim, who are called) Levi'im - "A second Par" teaches that it is like the Olah, which is not eaten.
(c) R. Yosi says, similarly, "Those that returned from exile (in Bavel) offered Olos...12 Parim...all were Olos".
(d) Question: The verse says "12 goats (were) Chata'os"!
(e) Answer: Rather, just as Olos are not eaten, also these Chata'os.
(f) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The Korbanos were brought for idolatry.
(g) (Rav Yehudah): The idolatry was done in the days of Tzidkiyahu (at the end of the first Mikdash).
(h) Question: According to R. Yehudah, we understand why there were 12 Se'irim - the 12 Shevatim sinned, or the majority; the other Shevatim brought on account of the sinners.

1. We can also explain according to R. Shimon - 11 Shevatim sinned, and Beis Din brought one.
2. But according to R. Meir, only Beis Din brings - why were 12 brought?

(i) Answer #1: They sinned 12 times (on account of 12 mistaken rulings of Beis Din).
(j) Question: The sinners died, how could a later generation bring the Korbanos!
(k) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Regarding an individual's Chatas, if the owner died, the Chatas must die - this does not apply to a Tzibur.

1. Question: Why not?

i. Suggestion: "Your children will be in place of your fathers".
ii. Rejection: If so, this should apply even to an individual!

2. Answer #1: We learn from the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh:

i. The Torah says that we buy them from Terumas ha'Lishkah (half-Shekels given by the Tzibur), even though some of the donors died!
ii. We infer, a Chatas Tzibur may be brought even if the owners died.

3. Objection: There, we are not sure that the owners died - but the returning exiles knew that the sinners died!
4. Answer #2: "Atone for Your nation Yisrael that You redeemed, Hash-m" - Eglah Arufah (a calf beheaded when a murdered corpse is found) is worthy to atone for those that Hash-m redeemed from Mitzrayim.
5. Objection: There, the calf is beheaded primarily to atone for the living, it also atones for the dead;

i. Here, it was not an atonement for the living!

(l) Answer #2: Indeed, some of the sinners were alive - "Many of the Kohanim...(that saw the first Mikdash)..."

1. Question: Perhaps they were the minority (Rashi - of those that returned from exile; Tosfos ha'Rosh - of those who sinned in Bayis Rishon)!
2. Rejection: "The joyful sounds of the trumpets could not be heard, because of the crying (of those who had seen Bayis Rishon, i.e. they were the majority)."

(m) Objection: The idolatry was b'Mezid, why were Korbanos brought for it?!
(n) Answer #2 (to Question (j)): Hash-m decreed (this one time) that they could atone for what was done b'Mezid.
(o) Support - Question: "Ninety-eight rams, 77 lambs" - why were these brought?
(p) Answer: We must say, it was a special decree of Hash-m to bring them - similarly, the Chata'os were also by special decree.

(a) (Beraisa): (Beis Din ruled mistakenly, and most of Yisrael sinned.) If one of the Tzibur died, the Par is still brought; if one of the Beis Din died, it is not brought.
(b) Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): It is R. Meir, who says that Beis Din brings the Par, not the Tzibur;

1. If one of the Tzibur died, it is brought, since the Beis Din is still alive;
2. If one of the Beis Din died, they are exempt - this is like when one of the partners in a Chatas dies (we leave the Chatas to die).

(d) Question (Rav Yosef): We can establish the Beraisa like R. Shimon, who says that Beis Din *and* the Tzibur bring Parim!

1. If one of the Tzibur died - the Par is still brought, since death of the Tzibur does not mandate that its Chatas die;
2. If one of the Beis Din died, they are exempt - this is like when one of the partners in a Chatas dies.

(e) Objection (Abaye): It cannot be R. Shimon, he holds that there is no case when the Chatas of partners must die!

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If the Par and Sa'ir (that atone for the Kohanim and Tzibur, respectively) of Yom Kipur were lost, and others were offered in their place, and the first animals were found, they must die;
2. R. Shimon says, they graze (until they become blemished, we sell them and buy Olos Nedavah) - the Chatas of a Tzibur (i.e Kohanim, they are partners in it) need never be left to die.

(f) Answer (Rav Yosef): Kohanim are not regular partners, the Torah equated their law to that of the Kahal - "He will atone for the Kohanim and all ha'Kahal".

(g) Question: If so, Kohanim should bring a Par (like any other Shevet) if they sin by following a mistaken Hora'ah!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps they do!
2. Rejection: If so, there would be 13 Parim for the Shevatim (the Tana'im who obligate every Shevet only obligate 12 for the Shevatim)!

(h) Answer (Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yakov): Shevet Levi (which includes the Kohanim) does not bring because it is not considered a Kahal - "I will make you a Kahal...(an inheritance)" - whoever does not have an inheritance is not considered a Kahal.
(i) Question: If so, only 11 Shevatim bring!
(j) Answer #1 (Abaye): "Efrayim and Menasheh will be like Reuven and Shimon (two Shevatim)".
(k) Objection (Rava): "They will be (like Reuven and Shimon)...in their inheritance" - not for anything else!

1. Question: They are like two Shevatim regarding the Degalim (encampment in the Midbar)!
2. Answer: That was only to honor the Degalim.
3. Question: Each has its own Nasi (leader), like two Shevatim!
4. Answer: That was only to honor the Nesi'im.

i. (Beraisa) Question: Shlomo inaugurated the Beis ha'Mikdash for seven days - why did Moshe inaugurate the Mishkan for 12 days?
ii. Answer: This was to honor the Nesi'im (so each could offer Korbanos on 'his' day).

(l) Question: Is Abaye's answer valid?
(m) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon): In five cases, a Chatas must die:

1. It gave birth (the child has Kedushas Chatas, it must die);
2. Temuras Chatas (Reuven said, this animal should be in place of my Chatas - the animal *also* gets Kedushas Chatas, it must die);
3. Its owner died;
4. The owner (lost the Chatas and) offered another in its place (and then found the original animal);
5. The animal was not offered within its first year (so it is disqualified).
6. The first three cases never apply to the Tzibur:

i. The Tzibur never brings female animals;
ii. Temurah does not apply to Korbanos Tzibur;
iii. Death of the Tzibur does not mandate that its Chatas die.

7. Suggestion: Perhaps in cases 4 and 5 (another was offered in its place, or if it was not offered within its first year) a Chatas of the Tzibur must die - we have no source to say otherwise!
8. Rejection: We learn the unknown from the explicit - the law of the child or Temurah of a Chatas, or a Chatas whose owner died (in all three cases, it must die) applies only to individuals;

i. Also the law of a Chatas whose owner offered another in its place, or that was not offered within one year (that it must die) applies only to individuals!

9. Question: How can we learn these two cases, which can occur, from the first three cases, which never occur?!
10. Answer: R. Shimon had a tradition from Sinai, four Chata'os must die, all apply in the same setting.

i. The tradition cannot apply to a Tzibur, it must (only) apply to an individual.

3) THE "CHATAS" OF A "KOHEN MASHU'ACH"

(a) (Mishnah): If a Kohen Mashu'ach (a Kohen Gadol anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah) ruled (mistakenly) for himself, and sinned b'Shogeg (by relying on his ruling), he brings a Par;
(b) If he intentionally perverted the law, and later sinned b'Shogeg; or, if he ruled mistakenly, and later sinned b'Mezid, he is exempt;

1. The Hora'ah of a Mashu'ach for himself is like the Hora'ah of Beis Din for the Tzibur.

(c) (Gemara) Question: Why must it teach that if he ruled mistakenly, and sinned b'Shogeg, he brings a Par - this is obvious!
(d) Answer (Abaye): The case is, he ruled, and forgot his reason; at the time he sinned, he thought - 'I rely on my reason, whatever it was'.

1. One might have thought, this is like Mezid, for had he recalled his reason, perhaps he would have realized his mistake and not sinned, he should be exempt - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.