ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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)
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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;
(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
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*.
(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
(c) The Gemara asks to which Korban the Tana is referring - because, if it
- ... a Korban Yachid - then it would not override Shabbos and Tum'ah.
- ... 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
(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.