אף חטאת לא נאכלת so too, this sin-offering is not eaten.
כיוצא בו אמר רבי יוסי (עזרא ח, לה) הבאים מהשבי הגולה הקריבו [עלות] לאלהי ישראל פרים שנים עשר וגו' הכל עולה הכל עולה סלקא דעתך אפשר שחטאת עולה אלא הכל כעולה מה עולה לא נאכלת אף חטאת לא נאכלת דתניא רבי יהודה אומר על עבודת כוכבים הביאום ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל על עבודת כוכבים שעשו בימי צדקיהו Similarly, Rabbi Yosei said that it is stated with regard to those who returned to Zion from Babylonia in the days of Ezra: “The children of the captivity who came out of exile sacrificed burnt-offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve goats as a sin-offering; all this was a burnt-offering unto the Lord” (Ezra 8:35). The question arises: Does it enter your mind to say: “All this was a burnt-offering”? Is it possible that a sin-offering is a burnt-offering? Rather, say: All this was like a burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so too, this sin-offering is not eaten, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: It was as atonement for idol worship that they brought them; and Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It was atonement for the idol worship that they practiced during the days of Zedekiah.
בשלמא לרבי יהודה משכחת לה להני שנים עשר חטאות כגון דחטאו שנים עשר שבטים דמייתו שנים עשר שעירים אי נמי דחטאו שבעה שבטים ושארא אינך בגרירה ולרבי שמעון נמי משכחת לה כגון דחטאו אחד עשר שבטים דמייתו אחד עשר שעירים ואידך דב"ד אלא לרבי מאיר דאמר בית דין מביאין ולא צבור שנים עשר היכי משכחת ליה כגון דחטאו והדר חטאו והדר חטאו עד תריסר זימני The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, whose opinion is cited in the mishna, you find liability for these twelve sin-offerings in a case where twelve tribes sinned by engaging in idol worship, as in that case they bring twelve goats. Alternatively, you find liability in a case where seven tribes sinned, and the rest of these tribes that did not sin are drawn after the majority of tribes that sinned and each brings a sin-offering. And according to Rabbi Shimon as well, you find liability for these twelve sin-offerings in a case where eleven tribes sinned, as in that case they bring eleven goats and the other goat is brought by the court. But according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the court brings an offering and the public does not, and only one bull is sacrificed, how do you find this a case of liability to bring twelve offerings? The Gemara answers: It is in a case where they sinned, and then sinned again, and then sinned again, until they sinned twelve times.
והא מייתי להו הנהו דחטאו The Gemara asks: But didn’t those who sinned by engaging in idol worship during the time of Zedekiah and the Babylonian exile already die? How can their descendants bring a sin-offering on their behalf? The status of those animals is that of a sin-offering whose owner has died, which is disqualified from sacrifice on the altar.
אמר רב פפא כי גמירי חטאת שמתו בעליה במיתה הני מילי ביחיד אבל לא בצבור לפי שאין מיתה בצבור מנא ליה לרב פפא הא אילימא מדכתי' (תהלים מה, יז) תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך אי הכי אפילו ביחיד נמי Rav Pappa said: When it is learned as a tradition that the fate of a sin-offering whose owners have died is to allow the animal to die without its being sacrificed, this matter applies specifically with regard to an individual who died but not with regard to a congregation, because there is no death with regard to a congregation; the entity of the congregation remains even when specific members die. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Pappa derive this? If we say that he derives it from that which is written: “Instead of your fathers shall be your sons” (Psalms 45:17), indicating that as long as the sons are alive it is as though the fathers are alive, then if so, the same should be true even with regard to an individual as well, and sons should be able to sacrifice the sin-offerings of their dead fathers.
אלא דוקיא דרב פפא משעיר דראש חדש דאמר רחמנא מייתי מתרומת הלשכה והא מייתי להו מישראל והנך דפיישי היכי מייתו אלא שמע מינה חטאת שמתו בעליה בצבור קרבה Rather, the inference of Rav Pappa is from the goat of the New Moon, as the Merciful One states: Bring those sin-offerings from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, where the half-shekels contributed by the Jewish people every Adar are stored. But haven’t some of the Jewish people died since Adar? If so, how can those who remain bring a sin-offering if some of the owners of the offering have died? Rather, learn from it that a sin-offering whose owners have died may be sacrificed in the case of a communal offering.
מי דמי שעיר ר"ח דלמא לא מייתו מצבור אבל הכא ודאי מייתו אלא טעמא דרב פפא מהכא דכתיב (דברים כא, ח) כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ה' ראויה כפרה זו שתכפר על יוצאי מצרים מדכתיב אשר פדית The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? In the case of the goat of the New Moon, perhaps no one from the public died in the interim. But here, in the case of those who returned to Zion from Babylonia, those who engaged in idol worship in the days of Zedekiah certainly died, as many years have passed since then. Rather, the reason for the opinion of Rav Pappa is from here, as it is written in the confession recited by the Sages during the rite of the heifer whose neck is broken: “Atone for Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, Lord” (Deuteronomy 21:8). This atonement is fit to atone even for those who emerged from Egypt, from the fact that it is written: “Whom You have redeemed.” The reference is to those whom God redeemed from Egypt, even though they died long ago.
מי דמי התם כולהו איתינון מגו דמכפרה אחיים מכפרה נמי אמתים אלא הכא מי הוו חיים אין הכי נמי דכתיב (עזרא ג, יב) ורבים מהכהנים והלוים וראשי האבות וגו' The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken, all the residents of the city on whose behalf the rite was performed are present when they perform the rite, and since it atones for the living, it also atones for the dead. But here, in the case of those returning from Zion, are any of the people who worshipped idols during the time of Zedekiah alive when the offering is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that there were people from that period still alive, as it is written: “Many of the priests and Levites and heads of patrilineal houses, the elders that had seen the first house standing on its foundation, wept with a loud voice when this house was before their eyes. And many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12).
ודלמא מועטין הוו ולא רבים הוו הכתיב (עזרא ג, יג) (ולא הכירו בקול) [ואין העם מכירים קול] תרועת השמחה לקול בכי העם [וגו'] והקול נשמע עד למרחוק The Gemara challenges: But perhaps those elders were few in number, and were not many, and the majority of those present consisted of people who were not alive during the days of Zedekiah. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “And the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; as the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard far off” (Ezra 3:13)? This indicates that the weeping elders who survived from the era of Zedekiah outnumbered the younger people.
והא מזידין הוו הוראת שעה היתה הכי נמי מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי (עזרא ח, לה) אילים תשעים וששה כבשים שבעים ושבעה כנגד מי אלא הוראת שעה היתה הכא נמי הוראת שעה היתה The Gemara asks: But didn’t those who engaged in idol worship in the era of Zedekiah do so intentionally? Sin-offerings are brought for unwitting, not intentional sins. The Gemara answers: It was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances to enable them to sacrifice a sin-offering to atone for an intentional sin. The Gemara comments: So too it is reasonable, as if you do not say so, then with regard to these “ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs,” to what do they correspond? Rather, the sacrifice of those rams and lambs was a provisional edict. Here too, concerning sin-offerings for intentional transgressions, it was a provisional edict.
ת"ר מת אחד מן הצבור חייבין אחד מבית דין פטורין מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא אמר רבי זירא אמר רב ירמיה אמר רב רבי מאיר היא דאמר ב"ד מביאים ולא צבור הלכך מת אחד מן הצבור חייבין דהא קאים כוליה בית דין מת אחד מבית דין פטורין דהויא לה חטאת שמת אחד מן השותפין ומשום הכי פטורין § On a related note, the Sages taught: If the court unwittingly issued a ruling and the congregation performed a transgression on the basis of that ruling, and before the offering was brought one member of the public died, they are liable to bring an offering. If one member of the court died, they are exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who stated this halakha? Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Yirmeya said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Meir, who says: The court, and not the public, brings the offering. Therefore, if one member of the public died the court is liable, as the entire court remains intact. If one member of the court died the court is exempt, as the halakha here is like the halakha of a sin-offering that one of the partners who co-own the offering died, and due to that reason the court is exempt.
מתקיף לה רב יוסף ונוקמה כרבי שמעון דאמר בית דין עם הצבור מת אחד מן הצבור חייבין דאין צבור מתים מת אחד מבית דין פטורין כדאמרינן דחטאת שותפין היא Rav Yosef objects to this: And let us establish this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The court, together with the public, brings the offering. Therefore, if one member of the public died the court is still liable, as the public does not die. But if one member of the court died the court is exempt, in accordance with that which we say, that it is a sin-offering belonging to partners.
א"ל אביי שמעינן ליה לר"ש דאמר חטאת שותפין אינה מתה דתניא פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהם ימותו כולן דברי רבי יהודה ר"א ור"ש אומר ירעו לפי שאין חטאת צבור מתה Abaye said to Rav Yosef: We heard with regard to Rabbi Shimon that he says: A sin-offering belonging to partners is not left to die, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where a bull and a goat of Yom Kippur were lost, and one designated other animals in their place, and then the lost animals were found, they shall all be left to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall graze until they develop a blemish, due to the fact that a communal sin-offering is not left to die. The bull sacrificed on Yom Kippur belongs to the priests, and is therefore a sin-offering belonging to partners; nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon holds that its status is not that of a bull whose owners died.
א"ל רב יוסף כהנים קא אמרת שאני כהנים דאיקרו קהל דכתיב (ויקרא טז, לג) על הכהנים ועל כל עם הקהל יכפר Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Priests, you say? Priests are different, as they are characterized as a congregation in and of themselves, as it is written: “And for the priests and for all the people of the congregation he shall atone” (Leviticus 16:33).