Previous daf

1)

(a) The Torah writes in Naso (in connection with the inauguration of the Levi'im) "u'Far Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas". Seeing as the Torah has already written there "Ve'asah es ha'Echad Chatas ve'es ha'Echad Olah la'Hashem", Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa explains "u'Far Sheini" to mean - that the Torah, comparing the Chatas to the Olah, requires the Chatas to be entirely burned (rather than eaten by the Kohanim, as most Chata'os are).

(b) The problem that Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa has with the Pasuk "ha'Ba'im me'ha'Shevi B'nei ha'Golah Hikrivu Olos le'Elokei Yisrael" is - that seeing as the Torah is speaking about the twelve goats that they brought as Chata'os, how can it then refer to them as Olos?

(c) So he explains the Pasuk - in a similar way to Rebbi Shimon in the previous Beraisa; namely, that they were completely burned like Olos (like the Din of Cha'ta'os ha'Penimiyos [whose blood was brought inside the Kodesh]).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa explains that they brought these Korbanos to atone for the sin of Avodah-Zarah. According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - it was actually the generation of Tzidkiyahu Hameleach (who had gone into exiles seventy years earlier) who had ben guilty of that sin.

(a) We have a problem as to why they brought twelve goats, according to Rebbi Meir. There is no problem according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because it speaks either when all twelve tribes sinned, in which case each of the twelve tribes would have been obligated to bring one goat, or when seven tribes (or even one [see Chok Nasan]) sinned, and the remaining tribes each brought a Par because of 'G'reirah'.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon - eleven tribes sinned, in which case they would bring one bull each, and the twelth would have been brought by the Beis-Din.

(b) The problem according to Rebbi Meir - is that even if all twelve tribes sinned, why they would need to bring more than one bull.

(c) We resolve it - by establishing that they sinned twelve times.

(a) A Chatas whose owner dies - has to be left to die ('Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai').

(b) Rav Papa attributes the fact that Yisrael brought these twelve Chata'os for their ancestors who had already died - to the fact a Tzibur does not die.

(c) The problem with the Pasuk "Tachas Avosecha Yiy'hu Banecha" that we suggest as the source for Rav Papa's statement is - that in that case, by the same token, the children of the deceased owner should be allowed to bring the Korban in his stead.

(d) So we attempt to prove it from the goat that the Kohanim brought together with the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh (which was purchased with the money from Terumas ha'Lishkah) - despite the fact that some of the owners may have died.

(a) We reject the proof from the goat of Rosh Chodesh as Rav Papa's source - since there it is only a Safek, whereas in our case, it is certain that some of the sinners died (see Metzapeh Eisan and Me'lo ha'Ro'im).

(b) We then cite the Pasuk "Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael *Asher Padisa, Hashem*" as a possible source - with reference to all those who were redeemed from Egypt (see Maharatz Chayos [and who had definitely died by the time the Beis-Hamikdash was built]), a proof that 'Ein Tzibur Meisah'.

(c) We cannot refute this proof by arguing that ...

1. ... unlike there (by Eglah Arufah [where at least all those who had sinned were definitely alive]), in our case, the sinners (from the generation of Tzidkiyahu) were not - because Ezra specifically refers to 'many of the Kohanim and Levi'im ... ' (from Tzidkiyahu's time) who were still alive at that time.
2. ... even if some of the original sinners were alive, the majority were not - because he also describes how the sound of the blowing of Simchah was drowned by those who weeping (from embarassment).

(d) We ...

1. ... answer the Kashya that they sinned on purpose (whereas a Chatas comes for a Shogeg, and not for a Meizid) by attributing it to a Hora'as Sha'ah (a special ruling by Beis-Din for that time only), and ...
2. ... we prove this from the Pasuk itself - which describes the ninety-six rams and seventy-seven lambs which they also brought, and which have no source other than a Hora'as Sha'ah.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that if one member of the Tzibur dies, they nevertheless remain obligated to bring the bull, whereas if a member of Beis-Din dies, they are Patur. Rav Chisda ... Amar Rav establishes the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Meir - because he is the one who places the onus of bringing the bull on the Beis-Din.

(b) Rav's ruling is based on the principle - that if one of the joint owners of a Chatas dies, the Chatas has to die.

(c) This does not contravene the principle that we just learned 'Ein Tzibur Meisah' - since Beis-Din are not called a Tzibur (Kahal).

(d) Rav Yosef asks why, by the same token, the author cannot be Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Beis-Din as well as the Kahal, are obligated to bring a bull, to which Abaye replied - that according to Rebbi Shimon, the Chatas of partners (meaning any joint owners that are not considered a Kahal), does not die either.

(a) Abaye's reply is based on another Beraisa, which discusses the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur that got lost, were replaced, and were found before the replacement animals were brought. Rebbi Yehudah says all the animals must die. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon hold - 'Yir'u (ad she'Yista'avu ... ' [meaning that they should be allowed to graze until they obtain a blemish, when they are sold, and the proceeds go to Hekdesh]).

(b) This does not mean that Rebbi Yehudah considers the Chatas of partners worse than that of a Tzibur - because he holds 'Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.

(c) Rav Yosef repudiates Abaye's proof from the latter - by citing the Pasuk "al ha'Kohanim ve'al Kol Am ha'Kahal Yechaper" - which implies that the Kohanim are considered a Kahal.

(d) We disprove Rav Yosef's argument however, from the thirteen bulls that Rebbi Shimon obligates in our Mishnah, in the event that all the tribes sinned be'Shigegas Hora'ah, since, according to him - they ought to bring one additional bull for the Kohanim.

7)

(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Hin'ni Mafrecha Ve'hirbisicha, u'Nesticha li'Kehal Amim, Ve'nasati es ha'Aretz ha'Zos le'Zar'acha Acharecha Achuzas Olam" - that only those tribes which received an inheritance in Eretz Yisrael are counted as a Kahal (to preclude the tribe of Levi, which did not).
2. ... Efrayim u'Menasheh ki'Reuven u'Shimon Yih'yu Li" - that (to make up for the deficiency), Efrayim and Menasheh are counted as two tribes.

(b) Rava disproves the previous statement from the Pasuk there "Al Shem Acheihem Yikar'u be'Nachalasam", - which implies that Efrayim and Menasheh are only considered two tribes as regards inheritance, but not in other matters (such as the 'Par He'elam Davar').

(c) According to Rava then, the twelfth tribe is 'Levi, which is considered a Kahal ...

(d) ... but not the Kohanim.

(a) Despite the fact that Efrayim and Menasheh are only considered two tribes as regards inheritance, each had its own ...

1. ... flag - because their encampment followed the same pattern as their inheritance (as we shall see).
2. ... Nasi - in keeping with the dignity of the flags.

(b) And we prove this concept from Moshe, who organized twelve days of inauguration for the Mishkan (in honor of the twelve princes) - when seven would have sufficed, like Shlomoh Hamelech did when he inaugurated the Beis-Hamikdash.

(c) The source of the order of the flags, and the twelve tribes that they incorporated - was Ya'akov Avinu, who ordered his sons to carry his coffin in the same order that they would later encamp, and divided Eretz Yisrael into the equivalent twelve portions.

(d) When we ask 'Mai Havi Alah', we mean to ask -whether we accept Abaye's ruling, that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Chatas ha'Shutfin Einah Meisah' (in which case the author of the Beraisa 'Meis Echad mi'Beis-Din Peturin' can only be Rebbi Meir, and not Rebbi Shimon, as we explained).

(a) The Beraisa lists five Chata'os that must die. Four of them are a V'lad (the baby born to a) Chatas, the Temurah (swap) of a Chatas, a Chatas whose owner has died and a Chatas that got lost and another brought in its place before it was found. The fifth is - a Chatas that has passed its first birthday.

(b) The Tana goes on to say that, in the case of a Tzibur, there is no ...

1. ... V'lad Chatas - because the Tzibur never bring a female animal.
2. ... Temuras Chatas - because the Din of Temurah is confined to a Korban Yachid.
3. ... a Chatas whose owner died - because 'Ein Tzibur Meisah'.

(c) As regards a Chatas that got lost and another is brought in its place before it is found, and one whose first year came to an end - (which are practically applicable to a Korban Tzibur), he says - that he received no tradition as to whether they apply to them Halachically or not.

(d) He concludes however - that we learn what is not known from what is (in which case they will not apply to a Korban Tzibur, and we will apply the Din of 'Yir'eh').

(a) The problem with learning the latter two from the former three (as we just did) is - that we cannot learn a Halachah on something that is possible from something that is not.

(b) We answer that - Rebbi Shimon had a tradition that all the Chata'os that die apply under the same circumstances, either to a Korban Yachid, or to a Korban Tzibur as well (and if one doesn't apply, then none of them do).

(c) In actual fact, the Halachah only requires four Chata'os to die. We say five - because we are not certain to which one out of the five the Din 'Yir'eh' applies.

(d) This Beraisa resolves our She'eilah, in that, according to Rebbi Shimon - just as the first two ('Chatas she'Meisah' and 'Chatas Temurah') do not apply to partners (for the same reason as they do not apply to a Tzibur), neither do the other three (due to the same principle as they do not apply to a Tzibur).

11)

(a) If a Kohen Mashi'ach issues an erroneous ruling but acted on purpose, or vice-versa, he is Patur from a Chatas. He is Chayav to bring a Par (like the Tzibur) - only if both his ruling and his subsequent action were done be'Shogeg'.

(b) In the cases where he is Patur - he does not bring anything, since a Kohen Gadol is not Chayav a Korban for Shigegas Ma'aseh (as we shall see in the Sugya).

(a) The problem with the Reisha of the Mishnah, which actually spells out this ruling, is - that it seems obvious and hardly warrants mentioning.

(b) So, to create a Chidush, we establish the case when the Kohen Gadol forgot which ruling he issued, and proceeded to perform the sin on condition that this is what he originally ruled.

(c) We might otherwise have thought that he would be Patur - because, since he is aware that this may not be what he permitted, and, should he have recalled what he ruled, he might have retracted, this would be considered Meizid, and he would be Patur.