לדברי האומר פר יום הכפורים קרבן יחיד עושה תמורה או אינו עושה תמורה לאו מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דצבור
According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an offering of an individual, can one perform substitution for this animal or can one not perform substitution in this case? In other words, if the High Priest violated a prohibition and designated a substitute by saying that this bull should be switched with another, does the substitution take effect or not? Is it not correct to say by inference from the wording of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma that there is one who says that these offerings are communal?
לא מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דשותפין
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is no proof, as one can say by inference that there is one who says that these offerings are of partners. There is no definitive proof that the bull of Yom Kippur is a communal sacrifice. In any event, the question of why the bull is not invalidated upon the death of the High Priest has been resolved, as the reason is either because it is a communal sacrifice or because it is a sacrifice of partners.
גופא בעי רבי (אליעזר) לדברי האומר פר יוה"כ קרבן יחיד עושה תמורה או אינו עושה תמורה מאי קא מיבעיא ליה
§ Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar asked: According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an individual offering, can one perform substitution for this animal or can one not perform substitution? The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? What is the basis of his inquiry?
אי בתר מקדיש אזלינן אי בתר מתכפר אזלינן
The Gemara suggests that his dilemma is as follows: Do we follow the one who consecrates the animal, i.e., the High Priest, as he was the one who paid for it, in which case it is considered an individual sacrifice and his substitution is effective? Or do we follow the one who seeks atonement by the offering, and as this bull atones both for the High Priest and the entire community of his fellow priests, it is considered a communal sacrifice, and therefore his substitution is not effective? The question is: Which party is followed for the purposes of substitution?
פשיטא דבתר מתכפר אזלינן דא"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש והמתכפר עושה בה תמורה
The Gemara expresses surprise at this possible interpretation of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma: It is obvious that we follow the one who seeks atonement, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to one who consecrates his animal for an offering but intends it for someone else’s atonement, if he subsequently redeems the animal, he adds a fifth to it. This is in accordance with the halakha that one who redeems an animal that he himself dedicated must add a fifth of its value to the redemption, whereas if the person for whom it atones redeems it, he does not add a fifth. And the one for whom the sacrifice atones can perform substitution for it, whereas the one who consecrated the animal cannot effect substitution, as he is not considered its owner for the halakhot of substitution.
והתורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה שלו
And likewise, with regard to one who separates teruma from his wheat for the wheat of another, to spare his friend from having to separate his own teruma, although the friend’s produce is now exempt from the obligation of teruma, the benefit of discretion is his, the one who separated the teruma. The one who separated the teruma is entitled to determine which priest receives the teruma, despite the fact that the teruma was separated for the crop of another. Similarly, when someone consecrates an animal for another person, it is the one who gains atonement that can perform substitution. If so, there is no place for Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma.
לעולם פשיטא ליה דבתר מתכפר אזלינן והכי קא מיבעיא ליה אחיו הכהנים בקביעותא מתכפרי או דילמא בקופיא מתכפרי
The Gemara rejects this suggested explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma: Actually, it is obvious to Rabbi Elazar that we follow the one who seeks atonement by the offering, and this is his dilemma: Do his fellow priests achieve atonement by the essence of the offering, i.e., part of the offering is sacrificed on their behalf, which means they are partners in the bull? Or perhaps they achieve atonement incidentally, while the main atonement is that of the High Priest. If the atonement of the other priests is merely incidental, the High Priest can effect substitution with this bull.
ת"ש חומר בזבח מבתמורה וחומר בתמורה מבזבח חומר בזבח שהזבח נוהג ביחיד כבצבור ודוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה ועושה תמורה מה שאין כן בתמורה
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: There is a stricture that applies to the initial sacrifice, beyond the strictures that apply to the designated substitute; and there is a stricture that applies to the substitution, beyond the strictures that apply to the sacrifice. The baraita elaborates: There is a stricture that applies to the initial sacrifice, as the sanctity of the sacrifice applies to an individual as it does to a community, and the sacrifice overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, and one can perform substitution for the original sacrifice, which is not the case with regard to the substitute, to which these halakhot do not apply.
חומר בתמורה מבזבח שהתמורה חלה על בעל מום קבוע ואינה יוצאה לחולין ליגזז וליעבד משא"כ בזבח
The baraita continues: There is a stricture that applies to the substitute beyond the strictures that apply to the initial sacrifice, in that the sanctity of the substitution takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal. And the substitute cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status; that is, it may only be sacrificed as an offering and eaten but under no circumstance can it be redeemed for its wool to be sheared and to be worked, which is not the case with regard to the initial sacrifice, as it can be redeemed in certain situations.
האי זבח היכי דמי אילימא דיחיד מי דחי שבת וטומאה אלא דצבור מי עושה תמורה אלא לאו דפר ודוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה דקביע ליה זמן ועושה תמורה דקרבן יחיד הוא
The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of this sacrifice? What exactly is the sacrifice referred to in this baraita? If we say it is the sacrifice of an individual, does the sacrifice of an individual override Shabbat and ritual impurity? Rather, if you say that we are dealing with the sacrifice of a community, can one perform substitution for a communal sacrifice? Rather, is it not the case that we are dealing here with the Yom Kippur bull, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is a sacrifice that has a fixed time? And likewise, one can perform substitution for this offering, as it is an offering of an individual. This interpretation resolves Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma.
אמר רב ששת לא באילו של אהרן
The Gemara rejects this contention. Rav Sheshet said: No, this is no proof, as it can be claimed that the baraita is referring to the ram of Aaron that the High Priest sacrifices as a burnt-offering on Yom Kippur, as the verse states: “With this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 16:3). This offering is certainly the High Priest’s alone and is therefore classified as the offering of an individual.
הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך דפרו תמורה דפר שבת וטומאה הוא דלא דחיא הא בחול מקריב קרבה הא תמורת חטאת היא ותמורת חטאת למיתה אזלא
The Gemara comments: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the offering referred to in the baraita, for if it should enter your mind to say that we are dealing with the bull of the High Priest, consider the following: Is it only Shabbat and ritual impurity that the substitution of the bull does not override, which indicates that one may sacrifice this substitute on a weekday? It is a substitute for a sin-offering, and the halakha is that the substitute for a sin-offering is left to die. Rather, we certainly must be dealing with the ram for a burnt-offering, as the substitute for a burnt-offering cannot be sacrificed.
לא לעולם פרו ומאי תמורה שם תמורה
The Gemara rejects this supporting argument: No, it is actually possible that the offering referred to in the baraita is the Yom Kippur bull of the High Priest, and what is the substitution that was mentioned? It does not refer to a substitution of the bull, but rather the baraita deals with the general category of substitution, i.e., it means that the phenomenon of substitution in general includes halakhot that do not apply to offerings.
אי הכי זבח נמי שם זבח שם זבח לא קתני
The Gemara asks: If so, one can also say that the sacrifice mentioned in the baraita means the general category of sacrifices, rather than a specific offering. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita is not teaching about a general category of sacrifices, i.e., it is definitely not dealing with the phenomenon of offerings in general.
ממאי מדקתני חומר בתמורה שהתמורה חלה על בעל מום קבוע ואינה יוצאה לחולין ליגזז וליעבד ואי סלקא דעתך מאי זבח שם זבח והא איכא
The Gemara continues: From where do I know that this is so? From the fact that it is taught: There is a stricture that applies to the substitution beyond the strictures that apply to the initial offering, in that the sanctity of the substitution takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal, and the substitute cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status for its wool to be sheared and to be worked. And should it enter your mind to say: What is the sacrifice mentioned here, it means the general category of sacrifices; this cannot be the case, as there is an example of an offering to which these halakhot also apply,