Study Yoma folio 65B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
קרבנות צבור קא אמרת? שאני קרבנות צבור, כדרבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה. דאמר רבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה: אמר קרא: ״זאת עולת חדש בחדשו״, אמרה תורה: חדש והבא לי קרבן מתרומה חדשה.
You speak of communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, in accordance with what R' Tavi said in the name of R' Yoshiya. As R' Tavi said that R' Yoshiya said that the verse states: “This is the burnt-offering for every New Moon upon its renewal throughout the months of the year” (Numbers 28:14). The Torah said: Renew and bring Me an offering from the new contribution. This indicates that communal offerings must be brought from the donations of the current year and not from the donations of the previous year.
תינח שעיר, פר מאי איכא למימר? גזירה פר אטו שעיר.
The Talmud challenges this solution: This works out well with regard to the Yom Kippur goat, which is a communal offering and is purchased with money from the Temple treasury. However, with regard to the High Priest’s bull which he pays for himself and which is considered an individual offering, what is there to say? The Talmud answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat.
ומשום גזירה ימותו? ועוד: הא דרבי טבי אמר רבי יאשיה גופה מצוה היא. דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: קרבנות צבור הבאין באחד בניסן — מצוה להביא מן החדש, ואם הביא מן הישן — יצא, אלא שחסר מצוה!
The Talmud expresses surprise: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? And furthermore, this statement that R' Tavi said in the name of R' Yoshiya is itself a mitzva ab initio, but is not indispensable. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to communal offerings that are brought on the 1st of Nisan, it is a mitzva to bring them from the new year’s shekel contributions. However, if he brought them from the old shekels that were donated during the previous year he has fulfilled his obligation, but he lacked the mitzva, i.e., he did not perform the procedure in the proper manner. It is difficult to argue that due to this inessential detail the rabbis would issue a decree that the High Priest’s bull should be left to die.