Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PAR AND NOT ITS BLOOD OR EVEN WITH ITS BLOOD (cont'd)

(a) Question: The Pasuk refers to the Par after Zerikah as a Par!?
(b) Answer: That means the requirement to take out the entire Par.
(c) Question: The Par HaChatas is called a Par!?
(d) Answer (R. Papa): There is no argument that the Torah refers to the entirety of the animal as Par; the argument is whether the blood alone can be called Par.

1. R. Ashi brought an indication from the Par of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur that the blood is called Par.
2. Perhaps it means that the Par (once live and offered properly) is what enables Aharon to enter.

(a) Question: It should be a Chatas whose owners have died (which must be killed as one of the five Chatos HaMeisos)!?
(b) Answer (Ravin b. R. Ada speaking to Rava citing the latter's student, R. Amram): It is a Chatas HaTzibur which is not LeMisa.

1. R. Meir in the Mishnah asserts that it is a Korban Yachid [and yet is Docheh Shabbos and Tumah].
2. From R. Meir we infer the existence of an opposing opinion, ie. that it is a Korban Tzibur.
3. (Rava) If you make such an inference, then you would have to infer from R. Yakov (in that Mishnah) the existence of an opinion that Par He'elem, Seirei Avodas Kochavim and Chagigah are Korbanos Yachid!
4. Rather, both R. Meir and R. Yakov are addressing the Tana Kama who holds that being Docheh Shabbos and Tumah depends on being a Korban Tzibur (and not a Korban Yachid).
5. They are asserting that neither is a determinant, but rather a fixed time for the Korban determines whether or not it is Docheh.

(c) Question (Abaye to Rava): We find that the Par of Yom Kipur is a Chatas HaTzibur and yet there is a doubt whether the second Kohen may enter with the blood of the first!?
(d) Answer (Rava): No, it is a Korban Yachid and the "Par" being referred to is the Par He'elem of the Tzibur.
(e) Question: But it says *of Yom Kipur*?!
(f) Answer: It refers to the Sair (but the Par is Par He'elem).
(g) Question: But the Beraisa explicitly lists both!?
(h) Answer (Rava): It is not a Chatas HaTzibur, but rather a Chatas HaShutafin, which does not go LeMisah.
(i) Question: Why fuss over the difference?
(j) Answer: We need to be precise so that Kohanim should not bring a Par He'elem because they are Shutafin, not a Tzibur.

(a) The above establishes that there *is* an opinion that Par of Yom Kipur is a Korban "Tzibur" as indicated by the question asked by R. Elazar, as to whether, according to R. Meir, it can create a Temurah?

1. He refers to R. Meir as holding that the Par of Yom Kipur is a Korban Yachid.
2. This infers the existence of an opinion that it is a Korban Tzibur.

(b) No, this may infer the opinion that it is a Korban Shutafin.
(c) Question: What was R. Elazar's doubt?

1. The doubt may not relate to the question of whether we consider the donor (the Kohen Gadol) or the ones atoned (the Kohanim).
2. Such a doubt is not legitimate since it would be clear that we follow the ones atoned.
3. This is true, given the Halachos regarding Temurah and Terumah which R. Avahu cited in R. Yochanan's name.

(d) Answer: As to whether or not the Kohanim, his brethren, fully take ownership of the Korban (Keviyusa) or does the atonement over hover over them (Kufia), thus affecting Temurah.
(e) The Beraisa lists the Chumros of Zevach over Temurah and the opposite.
(f) Question: What type of Zevach does the Beraisa speak of?

1. It cannot be a Zevach Yachid, since we speak of it being Docheh Shabbos and Tumah.
2. It cannot be Tzibur, since we speak of it creating a Temurah.

(g) It must be speaking of a Par Yom Kipur which is Docheh (since it is time-specific), and it makes a Temurah (since it is considered owned by an individual).
(h) Thus we see that it can make a Temurah.
(i) (R. Sheishes) No, it may well speak of the Ayil of Aharon on Yom Kipur (not the Par Chatas).

1. This is indicated by the reference to Zevah having the Chumrah of Dechiyah over a Temurah.
2. A Temurah of a Chatas is *never* brought (not only on Shabbos) since it is LeMisah!

(j) Not necessarily, since it may not speak of the Temurah of *that animal* but rather of general Temuros.
(k) Question: If so, then Zevach may also be generic!?
(l) Answer: The Beraisa does not say the generic Zevach, rather it is specific.

1. If it meant a generic Zevach then its "Chumrah" would not hold given Bechor and Ma'aser Beheimah.
2. Those do apply to Ba'al Mum, and they do not go out LeChulin.

(m) Question: Why does the Beraisa speak of a specific Zevach and yet use the term Temurah generically?
(n) Answer: Because all Temuros have like Halachos, whereas Zevachim have the exceptional Bechor and Ma'aser.