THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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)
1) OFFERING A PUBLIC "CHATAS" AS A "KORBAN" AFTER ITS OWNER DIED
QUESTION: If the Kohen Gadol dies after his bull has been slaughtered, at
least some Amora'im contend that his replacement may offer the blood of
that same bull, and need not slaughter his own bull. The Gemara challenges
this view by drawing on the well-known Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that when
the owner of a Korban Chatas dies, the Korban that he separated (or its
blood) may no longer be offered on the Mizbe'ach and instead must be put to
death (or spilled, in the case of blood). Since the Kohen Gadol's bull is a
Korban Chatas, how can it be offered after his death?
The Gemara answers, citing Rav Amram, that the Kohen Gadol's bull is a
"Chatas Tzibur," a public Korban Chatas offering, and the Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai that requires putting the animal to death does not apply to a
public Chatas, only to a private Chatas.
Later on the page, the Gemara cites the source for this distinction. In a
Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon as to what
happens to a public Chatas for which another animal was already offered in
its place. Rebbi Yehudah holds that the leftover Chatas is put to death
because there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that once the owner of a
Chatas has offered another animal in its place the remaining animal is put
to death. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon argue that the Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai does not apply to public Chata'os; instead the remaining animal is
left to graze until it gets a Mum (blemish), and its value is used to buy
Olah offerings. The opinion expressed by Rav Amram reflects that of the
latter two Tana'im, who teach that if another animal is offered in its
place, a Chatas Tzibur is not put to death. For the same reason, if the
owner of a Chatas Tzibur died, the Chatas will not be put to death.
But how does this justify *offering*, l'Chatchilah, the blood of a previous
Kohen Gadol's Chatas? Even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon require that the
animal be left to graze until it gets a Mum. They do not permit offering a
Chatas Tzibur on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah if another animal was already
offered in its place, so the same should apply to a Chatas Tzibur when its
(a) TOSFOS in Temurah (15b DH Ka Karvah) and TOSFOS YESHANIM and the RITVA
here suggest that the only reason the Chatas is left to graze according to
Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon, is because there is no other way to offer it
on the Mizbe'ach -- since the proper Korban has already been brought, and
the Tzibur no longer have a need to offer this animal as a Korban. (A
Chatas may not be brought as a Nedavah, a voluntary offering.) It is not
because the Chatas is *disqualified* from being offered once another has
been offered instead of it. For this reason the Chatas Tzibur whose owner
has died does not have to graze, since the Tzibur still *does* have to
bring a Korban Chatas in this case, and they may as well bring this one.
(b) TOSFOS in our Sugya (DH Chatas) suggests that indeed a Chatas Tzibur
*does* become disqualified if another one was offered in its place, and
that is why it must graze. However, this is only a Rabbinic enactment in
order that people should not offer Chatas *Yachid* after its owner offered
another animal in its place. Mid'Oraisa the Chatas Tzibur may be offered on
If so, Tosfos suggests, the Rabbinic enactment only applies when another
animal was offered instead of the Chatas Tzibur. If the owner of a Chatas
Tzibur (i.e. the Kohen Gadol) dies, it will not be confused with a case in
which the owner of a Chatas Yachid dies, so there is no reason to enact
that the Chatas Tzibur cannot be offered on the Mizbe'ach and must graze.
The reason for this is, firstly, because the Kohen Gadol who died is only
*one* of its owners (the other Kohanim are also owners, as the Gemara
explains on 50b) and the other owners are still alive. It is not entirely
comparable to a situation when the only owner of a Chatas Yachid dies, and
the animal is without *any* of its original owners. Secondly, in the case
of the Kohen Gadol's death, another Kohen Gadol is appointed in his place,
so it still does have its owner, in a sense.
(c) TOSFOS YESHANIM suggests further, citing his Rebbi, that in the case of
the death of the Kohen Gadol, even *Rebbi Yehudah* will agree that his
Chatas Tzibur will not be put to death. The rule is that "Ein Tzibur Mes,"
a collective group cannot be said to die when one of its members (or even
all of them) pass away, since there are always new members in the group.
Therefore there is *no such thing* as a Chatas Tzibur whose owner has died,
or a Kohen Gadol's bull whose owners have all died. (The owners of the
Kohen Gadol's bull are all of the Kohanim, and we know that an entire
Shevet -- such as all of the Kohanim -- will never be wiped out [Bava Basra
115b]. Therefore it is impossible for *all* of the owners of the bull to
have died, as the TOSFOS YESHANIM explains is DH u'Mai.)
The other Rishonim, who reject this simple approach, apparently understood
that in the case of the Kohen Gadol's bull, the real owner of the bull is
none other but the Kohen Gadol himself. The other Kohanim are only
considered partners insofar as they are atoned through it, which is enough
to make it a "Chatas Tzibur," but not enough to make them all considered to
be actual owners. The Torah itself describes the bull as Aharon's own!
Therefore when the Kohen Gadol dies, it can be said that the owners of the
bull have died, even though the other Kohanim are still alive. (See next
2) WHEN PUBLIC PROPERTY IS PRIVATE
QUESTION: Rebbi Elazar asked, according to the opinion that considers
Aharon's bull to be a private Korban and not a public one (Rebbi Meir on
50a - RASHI), may a Temurah be made of it? We know that the other Kohanim
gain atonement when it is offered. Is their atonement direct (mi'Kiv'a) or
only "along with" the Kohen Gadol (mi'Kufya). If their atonement is direct,
the Korban is brought for them as much as for the Kohen Gadol, and it
should be considered a joint Korban. A Temurah cannot be made for a joint
Korban. On the other hand, if the main atonement is only for the Kohen
Gadol, and the others are atoned along with him, it is a private Korban and
a Temurah can be made of it.
How can Rebbi Elazar entertain the possibility that "the opinion that calls
the bull a private Korban" considers it a joint Korban? The Gemara at the
top of the page made it clear that by calling it a private Korban, the Tana
means to *exclude the possibility* that it is a public Korban! If so, it is
obvious that that opinion will allow a Temurah to be made from the bull!
(a) TOSFOS DH l'Divrei explains that although Rebbi Meir does call the bull
a "private offering," Rebbi Elazar was not sure as to Rebbi Meir's true
intention. Did he mean that it was literally a private Korban, and it was
brought exclusively by the Kohen Gadol himself? Or did he mean that it was
private as opposed to being publicly owned *by the entire nation*. (Rebbi
Meir was responding to the Tana Kama who implied that it was treated like
Korbanos that are owned by the *entire nation*.) However, it is not
literally privately owned; it is owned by all of the Kohanim.
That is what Rebbi Elazar meant to ask. When Rebbi Meir used the term
"private Korban," did he mean it literally, or not? Is it fully private, or
a joint Korban?
(b) From Rashi DH b'Kevi'usa it may perhaps be deduced that there are two
types of ownership: (1) Ownership of the actual animal that is offered, and
(2) ownership of the animal solely insofar as *gaining atonement* from the
offering. Rebbi Meir indeed considers the bull to be privately *owned* by
the Kohen Gadol, for no other Kohen dedicated to Hekdesh the bull itself;
it came from the Kohen Gadol's own pocket. However, he may agree that *as
far as atonement* is concerned, the other Kohanim are also considered to be
owners of the bull. Since making a Temurah depends on the person that the
bull atones for, if the bull atones for more than one person, it may be
considered a joint Korban *as far as Temurah* is concerned.
This approach would answer a question posed by the TOSFOS YESHANIM on our
Sugya. Tosfos Yeshanim (DH Oseh Temurah) wonders why Rebbi Elazar only
asked if a *Temurah* may be made from the bull. Why didn't he ask whether
it must be put to death if the Kohen Gadol dies, as is done to a private
Korban, or whether it may be offered even after his death, like a public
Korban (see previous Insight).
According to Rashi, the answer may be that the bull is certainly put to
death (and its blood spilled) if the Kohen Gadol dies, since it is
unquestionably a private Korban (according to Rebbi Meir) as far as the
bull itself is concerned. It only might be considered a joint Korban as far
as Temurah, since the laws of Temurah depend on the person who gains
atonement from the offering, and not on the person whose offering it is.