________________________________________________________

OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF

prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

daf@dafyomi.co.il, www.dafyomi.co.il

Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

________________________________________________________

  Previous
Previous
YOMA 51 Next
Next
Ask the Kollel
Ask the
Kollel

1) WHO OWNS PAR YOM KIPUR? [Yom Kipur:Par]

(a) Gemara

1. 49b - Question: If the Kohen Gadol died after Shechitah of his Par, can the new Kohen Gadol Mechaper with its blood?

i. Do we expound "(the Kohen Gadol will enter the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim) b'Far" - even with the blood of a Par (even if he was not Kohen Gadol while it was a live Par)?

ii. Or, do we expound (he will enter) "B'Far" - with a Par (that was alive while he was Kohen Gadol), not with the blood of a Par (which died before he was Kohen Gadol)?

2. Answer #1 (R. Chanina and R. Ami): (He enters) "B'Far", but not with the blood of a Par;

3. Answer #2 (Reish Lakish and R. Yitzchak): (He enters) "B'Far", even with the blood of a Par.

4. Question (Mar Zutra - Mishnah): None of the following is considered a Seh for Pidyon Peter Chamor (to redemption money it even if it is worth less than the donkey):

i. A calf, Chayah, slaughtered animal...(this shows that a Seh after Shechitah is not called a Seh. The same applies to a Par!)

5. Answer: (Normally, a dead Seh is also called a Seh.) Pidyon Peter Chamor is different because we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Seh-Seh" from Korban Pesach (which must be alive).

6. 50a - Rav Ashi: Presumably, the Halachah follows the opinion that even the blood is called 'Par', for the verse discusses entering the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim with a Par, and he brings in only blood!

i. The other opinion explains the verse to permit to enter the Kodesh by doing the Avodos to a (live) Par (in the Azarah).

7. Question: If the Kohen Gadol died, his Par should be like a Chatas whose owner died, and it should be left to die!

8. Answer (Ravin bar Rav Ada): It is a Chatas of the Tzibur, it need not die.

9. Abaye: Tana'im argue about this!

i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If the Par or Sa'ir of Yom Kipur was lost and a replacement was designated (and the lost animal was found after Kaparah through the replacement), it (the found animal) must die;

ii. The same applies to a goat for (Helam Davar of) idolatry that was lost (and found after Kaparah), it must die;

iii. R. Elazar and R. Shimon say, it is Ro'eh (grazes) until it gets a Mum, then it is redeemed and the redemption money goes to Nedavah, for a Korban Tzibur does not die.

10. 50b - Question (R. Elazar): Is Par Yom Kipur a Korban Yachid, which can make Temurah, or is it like a Korban Tzibur, which cannot make Temurah?

i. Question: What is the root of his question?

ii. Answer #1: He is unsure whether the law depends on the one who made it Hekdesh (a Yachid) or on the Miskaper (for whom it atones, i.e. the Kohanim, who are a Tzibur).

iii. Objection: Surely it depends on the Miskaper! R. Yochanan (his Rebbi) taught that only the Miskaper can make Temurah.

iv. Answer #2: Rather, he knew that the law depends on the Miskaper. He asked whether the Kohanim are considered the owners, or if (it is the Kohen Gadol's, just) they get Kaparah along with him.

11. Answer (Beraisa): There are stringencies of a Zevach (this will be explained) over (its) Temurah, and vice-versa:

i. The stringencies of Zevach are that it applies to individuals and the Tzibur, it overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah, and it makes Temurah.

ii. The stringency of Temurah is that it takes effect on an animal that already has a Mum (and gives it Kedushas ha'Guf) to forbid shearing or working with it even after it is redeemed.

iii. Question: The Beraisa says that the 'Zevach' is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah, so it cannot discuss a Korban Yachid. It says that the Zevach makes Temurah, so it cannot discuss a Korban Tzibur!

iv. Answer #1: It discusses Par Yom Kipur. This shows that Par Yom Kipur makes Temurah.

12. Rejection (and Answer #2 - Rav Sheshes): No, it discusses the Kohen Gadol's ram of Yom Kipur.

13. Support: It cannot discuss the Par, for the Beraisa says that the Temurah is not Docheh Shabbos (implying that it may be offered on a weekday). The Temurah of the Par can never be offered!

14. 51b - Question: R. Elazar should learn from "Asher Lo" that the Par belongs totally to Kohen Gadol!

i. Beraisa: The Kohen Gadol pays for the Par; the Tzibur does not.

ii. Suggestion: Perhaps the Tzibur does not pay because it does not atone for them, but Kohanim pay, for it atones for them!

iii. Rejection: "Asher Lo".

iv. Suggestion: Perhaps the Kohanim should not pay, but if they did, it is Kosher!

v. Rejection: "Asher Lo" is repeated to disqualify even b'Di'eved.

15. Answer - counter-question: You hold that the other Kohanim do not own it. If so, how does it Mechaper for them?

i. Answer: You must say that the Torah made Aharon's money 'Hefker' (it is as if all Kohanim are partners in it). Likewise, it (is considered a Korban of partners and) cannot make Temurah because the Torah made Aharon's money 'Hefker'.

16. Megilah 9b - Mishnah: The only differences between a serving Kohen Gadol and Kohen she'Avar are Par Yom Kipur and Asiris ha'Eifah (the Kohen Gadol's daily Minchah).

17. Tosefta (1:4, brought in Yerushalmi 5a): A case occurred, Yosef ben Ilim substituted for the Kohen Gadol. When he left, he said to the king 'Were the Par and Sa'ir (Minchas Bikurim's text - Ayil) from my money, or from the Kohen Gadol's?' The king understood his intent.

i. The king: Is it not enough that you served once in front of the Creator? You also seek to be Kohen Gadol permanently?!

ii. Yosef understood that he was deposed from being Kohen Gadol.

(b) Rishonim

1. Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom Kipur 5:13): The Kohen Gadol buys the Par Yom Kipur with his own money - "Asher Lo". Nevertheless, Hash-m makes the Kohanim partners in it. If not, it could not be Mechaper for them. Therefore, if the Kohen Gadol died before Shechitah, the new Kohen Gadol is Shochet the same Par. It need not die like a Chatas whose owner died. If the Kohen Gadol died after Shechitah, the new Kohen Gadol is Mechaper with its blood.

i. Source (Kesef Mishneh): The Rambam rules like the opinion that "b'Far" means even with its blood, because Rav Ashi favors this opinion.

ii. Rebuttal (R. Chananel 50a DH v'Af Al Gav): The Gemara rejected Rav Ashi's reason for favoring this opinion.

iii. Question: The Rambam rules like the opinion that a dead Seh is normally called a Seh. Pidyon Peter Chamor is an exception, because of the Gezerah Shavah from Pesach. However, in Hilchos Bechoros (12:8) the Rambam says that 'Seh' connotes alive!

iv. Answer (Lechem Mishneh): Perhaps the Rambam in Bechoros means that Seh regarding Pidyon must be alive because there is a Gezeirah Shavah.

2. Riva (in Tosfos Yeshanim 12b DH Sheni) and Tosfos (Megilah 9b DH Ein Bein Kohen ha'Meshamesh): In the Yerushalmi, Yosef asked 'Was the Par from the Kohen Gadol's money (for I was a mere substitute), or from mine (for from now on I will be the serving Kohen Gadol)?'

i. Rebuttal (Tosfos Yeshanim ibid.): Yosef asked rhetorically, wasn't the Par mine (because it says "b'Far", not with its blood)? If so, it is fitting that I continue to be Kohen Gadol!

ii. Support (Shirei Korban 5a DH mi'Sheli): It appears that Yosef asked after Yom Kipur. Surely, if he was unsure he would have asked on Yom Kipur before offering!

iii. Rejection (Hagahos ha'Gra on the Tosefta 1:8): The text should say 'are the Par and Sa'ir that we (will) offer today from the Kohen Gadol's money, or from mine?'

iv. Note: Presumably, other corrections to the text are also needed. Our text says 'When he left...'Is it not enough that you served once in front of the Creator'...he know that he was deposed. Seemingly, Yosef needed to ask, lest the Korban be Pasul! We must say that the king was angry because it should have been clear that Yosef was only substituting for the day. It was brazen to even ask if he would continue to be Kohen Gadol.

3. Tosfos Yeshanim (49b DH Shochat): Likewise, if the Kohen Gadol became Pasul his animal is used. The replacement is the Kohen Gadol's Shali'ach, so "Asher Lo" is fulfilled. The Gemara discusses when the Kohen Gadol died to teach that it is not like an individual's Chatas whose owner died.

i. Shirei Korban (5a DH mi'Sheli): The Rambam did not explain who pays for the Par Yom Kipur when a Kohen substitutes for a Pasul Kohen Gadol.

ii. Gilyon ha'Shas (Yoma 5a (2)): The Rambam says that even when the Kohen Gadol dies his Par is offered, all the more so when a substitute (who is like a Shali'ach) serves in place of a Kohen Gadol who became Pasul!

4. Question: Even though a Chatas Tzibur does not die (when the owner died), it may not be offered. It is Ro'eh!

5. Answer (Tosfos 50a DH Chatas): Mid'Oraisa, a Chatas Tzibur may be offered. Mid'Rabanan, it is Ro'eh when we are concerned lest it be confused with a Chatas Yachid whose owner died. Here we do not decree because the Kohanim are still alive, and another Kohen offers in place of the dead Kohen Gadol.

i. Likutei Halachos (Zevach Todah DH u'Maskinin): Really, partnership applies only to voluntary Korbanos. We call the Par a Korban Shutafim because it need not die if the Kohen Gadol dies.

Next
Next

Dafyomi Advancement Forum homepage
D.A.F. Homepage


Insights to
the Daf
 • 
Background
to the Daf
 • 
Review
Questions
 • 
Review
Summary
 • 
Point by
Point
 • 
English
Charts

Revach
l'Daf
 • 
Review
Quiz
 • 
Hebrew
Charts
 • 
Yosef
Da'as
 • 
Chidonim
on the Daf
 • 
Galei
Masechta
 • 
Video/Audio
Lectures


Other Masechtos  •  Join Mailing Lists  •  Ask the Kollel
Dafyomi Calendar  •  חומר בעברית
Donations  •  Feedback  •  Links