Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. היום is דף ו, but we will start nine lines from the bottom of דף ה עמוד ב. And the גמרא here is in the middle of the סוגיא discussing the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. And this is concerning the דין of a פר העלם דבר של צבור. The דין as we're discussing here is that if the בית דין הגדול פסקנ'ד that you're allowed to eat חלב, for instance, or do any other עבירה which has a חיוב כרת, and then the people went along and did as the בית דין פסקנ'ד, and then the בית דין found out they made a mistake, so then you have to bring a פר העלם דבר של צבור. Each individual person would not bring any קרבן, would not bring his חטאת, but the קרבן פר העלם דבר של צבור would be brought. And in the משנה we had three opinions. The opinion of רבי מאיר was that the בית דין brings, and not the צבור. And therefore, רבי מאיר holds that when do you bring this קרבן? Only if the majority of כלל ישראל did it, because רבי מאיר holds that not each שבט separately is called a קהל, a community for itself. Only כלל ישראל as a whole is called קהל. And therefore, since the דין is that when is there a קרבן פר העלם דבר של צבור, only if the majority of the קהל did it, so it means the majority of כלל ישראל. And when the majority of כלל ישראל does it, there is only one קרבן brought, because the בית דין brings it, not the צבור.

According to רבי יהודה, he says that each שבט separately is called a קהל. So, therefore, if the majority of כלל ישראל did it, so then you have to bring 12 קרבנות, because each שבט brings a separate קרבן. And not only if all the שבטים did the עבירה, but even if one of the שבטים did the עבירה, since he is considered a קהל, and that שבט has to bring the פר העלם דבר של צבור, or in the case of עבודה זרה has to bring the פר ושעיר, so that pulls along all other שבטים that every שבט has to bring. And therefore, there are 12 קרבנות brought. According to רבי שמעון, he says that there has to be 13 קרבנות brought. And if the majority of כלל ישראל did it, so then you have to bring for the קהל, and since each שבט is called קהל, so each שבט brings his קרבן, plus the בית דין also brings, because according to רבי שמעון, the בית דין brings it separately and the קהל brings it separately. And since רבי שמעון holds that each שבט is called קהל, so therefore each שבט brings one, and in addition to that, the בית דין brings another one. So the גמרא here

asks a שאלה, ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון, according to רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון, שבט אחד דאיקרי קהל מנא להו? How do they know that each שבט separately is called a קהל? דכתיב, because it says, ויעמד יהושפט בקהל יהודה וירושלם בבית ה' לפני החצר החדשה, that יהושפט stood in the קהל of יהודה and ירושלים in the house of ה' in front of the new yard. מאי חדשה? Why was it called new? אמר רבי יוחנן, so רבי יוחנן said, שחידשו דברים, because then they renewed certain things. They were מחדש, they made new דינים then which were not there before. ואמרו, they said, טבול יום אל יכנס למחנה לויה, a טבול יום should not enter the מחנה לויה. A טבול יום is a person who was טמא, but he went to the מקוה already, and he still has to wait to be completely טהור till after הערב שמש, after the sunset of that day. So there's a certain level of טומאה that still applies to this טבול יום. Even though he's not 100% טמא, because he already went to the מקוה, but still a certain level of טומאה still applies to him. So that day they were מחדש that a טבול יום should not enter the מחנה לויה, because מן הדין before that a טבול יום is allowed to enter the מחנה לויה, but then they were מחדש that it's not allowed. But in the meantime, we see in this פסוק that he says בקהל יהודה, he stood in the קהל of יהודה. So even though it's only one שבט, only יהודה, nevertheless, he calls it קהל. So we see that each שבט is called קהל. מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב, רב אחא בר יעקב asked a קשיא, ממאי, how do we know from here that every שבט is called קהל? דילמא, maybe, שאני ירושלם, maybe ירושלים is different, דהוה נמי בנימן, בנימין was there too. We know that part of ירושלים belongs to שבט בנימין. So when he stood in ירושלים, he was there by two שבטים, יהודה and בנימין. So maybe two שבטים together are called קהל, but we have no ראיה that one שבט separately is also called קהל. אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב, so רב אחא בר יעקב said, דכתיב, we know it from another פסוק. כתיב, it says, יעקב was saying over what ה' said to him, and he said, ויאמר אלי, he said to me, הנני מפרך, I'm going to make you fruitful, והרביתיך, I will multiply you, ונתתיך לקהל עמים וגומר, and I will give you into a קהל, a community of nations, which means ה' promised him that He will give him another קהל. מאן איתיליד ליה בההיא שעתא? Who else was born to him at that time? Because when this פסוק was said to him, most of the שבטים were born already. So when השם said to him, I will give you another קהל, who was born to him afterwards? בנימין, just בנימין. משמע מזה דתרי, הכא קאמר רחמנא, that השם was saying to him, מתיליד לך השתא קהל אחרינא, that now you will get another קהל. And since it was only בנימין, so that proves that one שבט is also called a קהל.

אמר ליה רב שמעיה לרב כהנא, but רב שמעיה said to רב כהנא, דילמא הכא קאמר ליה רחמנא, maybe this is what השם was saying to him: וכי מתיליד לך בנימין, when בנימין will be born to you, הוא דהוה י״ב שבטים, so then you're going to have already twelve שבטים, דמיקריא קהל, which is called a קהל. So when השם said to him, ונתתיך לקהל עמים, he didn't mean, I will give you another קהל עמים. What he meant was, I will make you then into a קהל. I will multiply you, which means I will give you another child, and with that other child you will have your complete קהל. So then you will have a קהל, because maybe only the whole כלל ישראל, all twelve שבטים together are called קהל, and he was saying to him, after בנימין is born, now you will be a קהל. אמר ליה, so he said to him, so what are you telling me? אלא שנים עשר שבטים איקרו קהל, that you're trying to say that only twelve שבטים are called a קהל, אחד עשר שבטים לא איקרו קהל? And eleven שבטים are not called a קהל? One thing we know for sure, that two שבטים are definitely called a קהל, because of the פסוק that we quoted before from יהושפט, where it says he stood בקהל יהודה. So at least that, we wanted to prove that one שבט is called a קהל, and we said no, maybe over there there were two שבטים, because בנימין was there too. So at least two שבטים are called a קהל, that we know for sure. So if you're going to say the פשט in this פסוק is that השם said to him that now you're going to get בנימין, now you're going to have a קהל, that's not true, because you don't have to wait for twelve שבטים to be a קהל, eleven שבטים are not a קהל? Even two שבטים are a קהל! So this couldn't be פשט in the פסוק. So therefore, what must be the פשט in the פסוק? That השם said to him: I'm going to give you another קהל. And all he had then was בנימין, so that proves that one שבט is called a קהל. Then the גמרא says:

תניא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says: מה תלמוד לומר ופר שני בן בקר תקח לחטאת? Which refers to the פסוק in פרשת בהעלותך, קפיטל ח', פסוק ח'. It says there concerning the beginning when the לויים became לויים. So השם said to משה, take the לויים from the אידן, and make them טהור. What should you do? Sprinkle the מי חטאת on them, and take a razor and cut all their hair, let them wash their clothes. And then the פסוק says: ולקחו פר בן בקר, take a פר, ומנחתו סולת בלולה בשמן, and the מנחה, and the פסוק says: ופר שני בן בקר תקח לחטאת, and the second פר you should take for a חטאת. So the question the ברייתא asks, why does the פסוק have to say that the second פר will be for a חטאת? אם ללמד, if to teach us, שהם שנים, that you have to have two, פשיטא, we wouldn't need a פסוק! Because הלא כבר נאמר, doesn't it say there, later on, and this is in the same פרשה, in פסוק י״ב, it says, ועשה את האחד חטאת ואת האחד עולה לה׳, that you should make one into a חטאת and one into an עולה. So the פסוק says בפירוש that there will be two קרבנות. So why does the פסוק לכתחילה have to say, take a second פר for a חטאת? אלא, therefore the פסוק comes to teach us: יכול, I would think, תהא נאכלת חטאת לויים, that this חטאת would be eaten by the לויים. תלמוד לומר, therefore the פסוק says: ופר שני, that you should take a second פר for a חטאת, to tell us that this is שני לעולה, that this is a second one to the first, which was an עולה. Which means that this is the second to the עולה, that it has the same דין as the previous one, as the עולה. And we say: מה עולה לא נאכלת, just like an עולה we know is not eaten, because an עולה is a קרבן which is כולו כליל, it's completely burned to השם. Other קרבנות, part of it is burned on the מזבח to השם, and part of it is eaten. But an עולה is כולו כליל, completely burned to השם. So here the פסוק tells us that this חטאת is like the עולה, that just like an עולה is not eaten, אף חטאת לא נאכלת, so too this חטאת was not eaten. כיוצא בו אמר רבי יוסי, a similar thing did רבי יוסי say: It says a פסוק in עזרא: הבאים מהשבי הגולה הקריבו עולות לאלהי ישראל, those that came from the captivity of the exile, they brought קרבנות עולה to השם, to the God of the אידן. פרים שנים עשר וגו׳, twelve פרים, etc. הכל עולה, all of them were עולות. So the question is: הכל עולה סלקא דעתך? How could you say they were all עולות? Because it says בפירוש there, צפירי עזים לחטאת, that certain קרבנות were חטאות. So how could the פסוק say they were all עולות? אפשר שחטאת עולה? Is it possible that a חטאת should be an עולה? אלא הכל כעולה, what it means is that all of them were like an עולה. מה עולה לא נאכלת, just like an עולה is not eaten, אף חטאת לא נאכלת, so too the חטאות that they brought at that time when they came back from the captivity, when they built the second בית המקדש, so they were also not eaten. And why weren't they eaten? דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה said: על עבודת כוכבים הביאום, they brought that as a קרבן for עבודה זרה. And we know that when כלל ישראל brings the for עבודה זרה, that חטאת is not eaten. Normally a חטאת is eaten, but there is the חטאת that is brought for עבודה זרה, in the case when כלל ישראל made the mistake and the בית דין פסק'נד that you're allowed to worship עבודה זרה and they did, so then you bring a חטאת, as we learned before, that you bring a פר and a שעיר, so that חטאת is not eaten, it is burned completely. When we say פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים, so it refers to the פר כהן גדול, and it also refers to the קרבנות of יום כיפור, and it also refers to the פר and the שעיר that are brought for עבודה זרה. So that קרבן that they brought at the time when they came back from the שבי הגולה, that was a חטאת for עבודה זרה, and therefore it wasn't eaten, but it was burned.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, and רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, על עבודת כוכבים שעשו בימי צדקיהו, that they brought this as a קרבן for the עבודה זרה that they did at the time of צדקיהו. This is the ברייתא. So we see in the ברייתא that they brought 12 קרבנות, and as we said, these were 12 קרבנות for the עבירה that they did. בשלמא according to רבי יהודה, the גמרא asks, ממילא according to רבי יהודה who holds that every שבט brings a separate קרבן, משכחת לה להני תריסר חטאות, so we understand why there were 12 חטאות, כגון for instance, דחטו תריסר שבטים דמייתו תריסר שעירים, that 12 שבטים did the עבירה, and since every שבט brings the קרבן, so they brought 12 שעירים. אי נמי, or דחטו שבעה שבטים, or seven שבטים did the עבירה, ושאר אינך איגררו, and the rest of them were pulled. In other words, there was a חיוב on one שבט or on seven שבטים, and רבי יהודה is of the opinion that if one שבט has to bring because of the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול, so then they are all pulled along. So ממילא here too, maybe seven שבטים did the עבירה, and that's why they had to bring 12 קרבנות, because the other שבטים also had to bring. ולרבי שמעון נמי משכחת לה, also according to רבי שמעון, who also holds that each one has to bring, but רבי שמעון argues and says that בית דין also brings, so we also understand משכחת לה how there is a possibility of 12 קרבנות. כגון דחטו חד סר שבטי, for instance, only 11 שבטים sinned, דמייתו חד סר שעירים, so then you have to bring 11 שעירים, ואידך and the 12th is the בית דין, the בית דין brings, since he holds that the בית דין also has to bring, so if 11 שבטים sinned, so they bring 11 plus the בית דין, which is the 12th. אלא לרבי מאיר דאמר בית דין מביאין ולא ציבור, but according to רבי מאיר who holds that only the בית דין brings and not ציבור, תריסר היכי משכחת לה, how is it possible they should bring 12 קרבנות? And we said before that these were קרבנות that they brought for עבודה זרה that the ציבור did, so this is the regular דין that we've been learning the whole time of the קרבנות that they bring in the case of a ציבור. And

according to רבי מאיר, you only bring one, which is the בית דין, so what was the חשבון of 12? The גמרא answers, could be, כגון דחטו והדר חטו והדר חטו, they sinned once, they sinned again, and they sinned again, עד תריסר זימני, until 12 times, and that's why they brought 12 קרבנות. It wasn't because the 12 שבטים brought, but it was because of 12 times they did the עבירה. Then the גמרא asks a general question according to all opinions: How were they בכלל able to bring at the time of the beginning of the second בית המקדש קרבנות for the עבירה of עבודה זרה that they did in the time of צדקיהו, which was much earlier? והא מיתו להו הנהו דחטו, but didn't those people that did the עבירה die already? By a חטאת, the דין is that you only could bring the קרבן if the owner of the קרבן is alive. But a חטאת שמתו בעליה, but a חטאת that the owner died cannot be brought. And here, since it took such a long time, so definitely some of the people that did the עבירה then, which were some of the owners of the קרבן חטאת, had died, so how could they have brought the קרבן חטאת then? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא says, כי גמירי חטאת שמתו בעליה למיתה, when is the דין that if a חטאת that its owners died, so the חטאת, the קרבן has to die, and you can't use that קרבן at all, הני מילי ביחיד, that's if it's a קרבן יחיד. If an individual person did an עבירה that he's חייב a חטאת for, and then the person died, so then that קרבן has to go למיתה and you can't do anything with the קרבן. אבל לא בציבור, but not by the דין of a ציבור, לפי שאין מיתה בציבור, because there's no such thing as the community dying. So when there's a חטאת for a ציבור, we don't say that since some of the people from the ציבור died, so it's as if some of the owners of the חטאת died, because ציבור is a community, and there's no such thing as the community dying. And the סברא in this, as explained in different ספרים, is that the ענין of a ציבור is not the פשט that it's a group made up of many individuals. The many individuals turn into one unit of a ציבור. And therefore, the fact that some of the people changed in this ציבור doesn't change the ציבור, because it is not made up of these individuals. These individuals lose their individuality. And therefore, even if one of them or some of them die, it is still considered the same ציבור. But the גמרא asks, מנא ליה לרב פפא הא, how does רב פפא know this? From where do you take it from? אילימא, if you'll say מדכתיב, from the פסוק where it says, תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך, that instead of your fathers will be your children, which means that a child is ממש like his father. So therefore, those that took the place of their parents in the ציבור are considered as if they are ממש their parents. So the parents never died. And that's why he knows that ציבור לא מת. אי הכי, if so, אפילו ביחיד נמי, by an individual should be the same. It doesn't say anything about a ציבור. It just says that a child is in the place of his father. So therefore, if an individual person did an עבירה that he has to bring a חטאת, and he has a קרבן set aside for a חטאת, and he died, his son should be able to bring that קרבן חטאת, because his son is in the place of his father, if this is the source for that דין. אלא, therefore, דיוקא דרב פפא משעיר דראש חודש. He has a different ראיה, he is מדייק this from the דין of שעיר דראש חודש. On ראש חודש, where there is a קרבן שעיר which is a חטאת, and it is a חטאת הציבור. All other times when you bring קרבנות ציבור, there is no חטאת, in most cases. But on ראש חודש, one of the קרבנות ציבור is a חטאת. דאמר רחמנא, and the תורה said, מייתי מתרומת הלשכה, you should bring that קרבן from the תרומת הלשכה, which means from the money that was collected from the מחצית השקל, just like all the other קרבנות ציבור. They are brought from the money of the מחצית השקל, which is collected by everybody, so too the שעיר of ראש חודש. Which means that every individual Jew is considered one of the owners of this קרבן חטאת. Now the question is, והא מיתו להו מישראל, some of the אידן died. It is very possible that from when they collected the מחצית השקל till they bring later the קרבן of ראש חודש, some of the אידן that participated in the מחצית השקל, which are the owners of this קרבן, are not alive anymore. והנך דפיישי, היכי מייתי? And those that are leftover, how could they bring? If we're going to say that even by a קרבן ציבור the דין is that if some of the owners of that קרבן ציבור חטאת have died, the דין is that you cannot bring the קרבן anymore, so you could never bring a שעיר on ראש חודש, because all the אידן who gave the מחצית השקל are considered the owners of this חטאת, and very possible that some of them died. So how could the other ones bring the קרבן? אלא שמע מינה, so from here he understands that חטאת שמתו בעליה בציבור, that a חטאת that the owner died, but this was a חטאת of the ציבור, קריבה, you could bring the קרבן. And that's why in the times of the second בית המקדש, they were able to bring the קרבן for the עבודה זרה that they did in the time of צדקיהו, even though some of the people died, because it was a קרבן חטאת of a ציבור, and by ציבור we don't say this דין that if some of the owners died, you can't bring the קרבן. And as we said, he learned this out from the דין of שעיר ראש חודש. And the גמרא asks, מי דמי? How could he compare it? שעיר ראש חודש, in the case of the שעיר of ראש חודש, דילמא לא מיתו מציבור, maybe no one did die. We're not sure that someone died, we're just saying maybe someone died. So in the case of a ספק that one of the owners died, maybe we still bring the קרבן. אבל הכא, but here, ודאי מיתו, in this case, for sure some people died. From the time of צדקיהו till the rebuilding of the second בית המקדש, definitely some of the people died. So maybe in a case where it's ודאי, there you cannot bring the קרבן חטאת even of a ציבור, because it is considered חטאת שמתו בעליה. אלא טעמא דרב פפא מהכא. Therefore we must say that the reason of רב פפא who says that by a חטאת of a ציבור we do not consider it חטאת שמתו בעליה, even if some of them died, he learns it out from someplace else, from here. דכתיב, because it says by the דין of עגלה ערופה, if you find a dead body and you don't know who killed it, the דין is you have to measure from the body to the closest city. And then the בית דין of that city have to come out and bring a calf and chop off the head of the calf, and one of the things they say there is, כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ה', that you should forgive to your nation ישראל that you redeemed. What is the פשט that you redeemed? ראויה כפרה זו שתכפר על יוצאי מצרים. That it's worthy, it's proper, it's possible that this כפרה of the עגלה ערופה will forgive even for the אידן who went out of מצרים who were redeemed by השם. מדכתיב, because the פסוק says, אשר פדית, that you redeemed, which means that this קרבן of עגלה ערופה redeems for all the אידן from the time they went out of מצרים. So we see that even though those אידן already died, nevertheless this could be מכפר for them. But the question is how? And the answer must be, because it is a ציבור, and by ציבור we say לא מת, and therefore a קרבן now could forgive for all the people even if after they died. But the גמרא asks, מי דמי? Is it the same? התם כולהו איתנהו. In the case of the עגלה ערופה,

they're all here. In other words, the main כפרה that the עגלה ערופה is supposed to come for, are for the people who are alive at that time. So therefore, they are here. And מיגו דמכפר אחיים, since it forgives for those that are alive, מכפר נמי אמיתים, it also forgives for those that died. אלא הכא, but here, in the case of the קרבן that they brought in the second בית המקדש for the עבודה זרה of the time of צדקיהו, מי הוו חיים? Were they alive? In other words, the גמרא feels that all of them died. If some of the people would be alive, then you could say since it's מכפר for those who are alive, it's also מכפר for those who are not alive. But in that case, the גמרא says, none of them were alive. And the גמרא says, אין הכי נמי, yes, they were alive. דכתיב, because the פסוק says in עזרא, in קפיטל ג' פסוק י"ב, that רבים מהכהנים והלוים וראשי האבות וגומר, that many of the כהנים and the לוים and the heads of the אבות, הזקנים, the old ones, אשר ראו את הבית הראשון ביסדו זה הבית בעיניהם בוכים בקול גדול, that those that were the כהנים and לוים and the ראשי אבות, the old ones that saw the first בית המקדש yet, so when they saw this בית המקדש built, they cried. So we see that there were people alive in the beginning of the second בית המקדש, who were still there at the time of the first בית המקדש. So there were people alive that this קרבן went for, so we say, since it was מכפר for those that were alive, so it's מכפר for all those that weren't alive. But the

גמרא asks, ודילמא מועטים הוו ולא רבים הוו, maybe there was just a minority, not a majority, not too many. And if they were just a few, so we can't say that because of the few that were still alive, the כפרה was a כפרה, and therefore it could help for everybody. And the גמרא says, no, there were many, because הכתיב, doesn't it say in that פסוק there, שאין העם מכירים קול תרועת השמחה לקול בכי העם, that the people could not recognize the shout for the שמחה of the building of the second בית המקדש because of the crying of the other people who remembered the first בית המקדש. And the פסוק says, כי העם מריעים תרועה גדולה, because the people were blowing a great תרועה, והקול נשמע עד למרחוק, and the voice was heard so far. So we see that the שמחה was very great, and nevertheless, the שמחה was not heard because of the voice of those that were crying who remembered the first בית המקדש. That's a ראיה that there were many people still left from the time of the first בית המקדש. So therefore we say that the קרבן that they brought then for the עבודה זרה that they did in the time of צדקיהו, many of the owners of that קרבן were still alive, and therefore the קרבן was able to be brought as a קרבן ציבור a חטאת, and it also helped because of those that were alive, also for those that were not alive. But then the

גמרא asks, והא מזידין הוו, weren't they a מזיד? How can we say that this was a קרבן that the תורה says you have to bring for עבודה זרה in the case of a ציבור, but that קרבן is only if the בית דין פסקנ'ט that you're allowed to worship עבודה זרה, and based on that פסק דין of בית דין the אידן did it, which is a שוגג, so then you bring that קרבן. But in this case it was מזיד, they worshipped עבודה זרה במזיד. And the גמרא answers, הוראת שעה היתה, it was a special דין said then. Normally you cannot bring a קרבן חטאת ציבור for עבודה זרה במזיד, but that time it was a special דין that was given over to them בנבואה that they should bring this קרבן חטאת. הכא נמי מסתברא, the גמרא says this סברא also follows along. דאי לא תימא הכי, if you're not going to say that, it says there that they brought אילים תשעים וששה, there were 96 rams, כבשים שבעים ושבעה, and there were 77 lambs. הא כנגד מי, against what is it? What kind of חשבון is this? אלא ודאי הוראת שעה היתה, it was a דין said specially for then, הכא נמי הוראת שעה היתה, also concerning this that they brought this קרבן חטאת for the ציבור was also a הוראת שעה, a special דין for then. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מת אחד מן הציבור, if one of the ציבור died, חייבין, so they are חייב, which means the case when בית דין פסקנ'ט that a certain thing is allowed, and רוב of the ציבור followed the פסק דין of בית דין, and before they managed to bring the קרבן פר העלם דבר של ציבור, so one of the people of the ציבור died, nevertheless they are still חייב in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור to the קרבן of the בית. But then the גמרא asks, והלא, is it not? You said that for other things they are not considered like two שבטים, והא חלוקין בדגלים, weren't they also divided in the flags? You know,

when the אידן were travelling in the מדבר, there were four flags. Each three שבטים had one flag, so they were divided into four groups. So אפרים and מנשה concerning the flags were considered like two שבטים. So he says, כנחלתם כך חנייתם, that just like they took the inheritance, that's how they rested in the מדבר, כדי לחלוק כבוד לדגלים, in order to give כבוד to the דגלים. So since they were different, they were considered two שבטים concerning נחלה, they were also considered two שבטים concerning the דגלים. And as רש"י says that when יעקב אבינו divided the land to all the שבטים, so he also told them how they should go with the דגלים. So we see that the דגלים are connected to the נחלה in ארץ ישראל. And רש"י also brings that we find a מדרש תנחומא says, that יעקב אבינו, he divided the דגלים for them, and he also divided the land for them. And we also find in the פסוק it says, איש על דגלו באותות, that when השם said they should go according to flags, so it said that they should divide the flags באותות, in the signs. What does it mean in their signs? So it means in the sign that יעקב אבינו had given to them, because when יעקב אבינו commanded them that they should carry his bed out of מצרים to ארץ ישראל, so he told them exactly which שבט should carry on which side. So the same side that he told them they should carry, the same sides they rested in the מדבר. So we see that there is a connection between the דגלים and the נחלה, and that's why, concerning the דגלים, they were also considered like two שבטים, just like the נחלה, but not concerning everything else. But then the גמרא asks, והחלוקין בנשיאים, but they were also divided concerning the נשיאים! We know that each שבט had a separate נשיא, and אפרים and מנשה had two נשיאים. Each one of them had a separate נשיא, but there wasn't one נשיא on both of them. The גמרא says, ההוא, that was לאחולי כבוד לנשיאים, it's in order to give כבוד to the נשיאים. דתניא, because we learned, שלמה עשה ז' ימי חנוכה, שלמה המלך made seven days of dedication for the בית המקדש, ומה ראה משה לעשות שנים עשר ימי חנוכה, why, how comes did משה רבינו make 12 days of dedication for the משכן? כדי לאחולי כבוד לנשיאים, in order to give כבוד to the נשיאים, so each נשיא should have a day that he should be able to bring the קרבנות of חנוכת המזבח. So we see that there is a special concept of giving כבוד to the נשיאים. So therefore, they gave him another כבוד by dividing אפרים ומנשה and giving them two נשיאים. But otherwise, אפרים ומנשה are considered like one שבט. Then the גמרא asks, מאי הוה עלה? What is the end with the discussion we had before? Because before, we had a whole discussion whether according to ר' שמעון, do we say by the case of חטאת השותפין that if one of them died, that this חטאת dies, or do we say that by חטאת השותפין, even if one of them died, the חטאת still remains a good חטאת? And that would be important concerning the ברייתא where we said before that if one of the בית דין died, then you cannot bring the קרבן anymore, can it fit according to ר' שמעון or not? But the גמרא says, תא שמע, come and hear, I'll answer your question what the opinion of ר' שמעון in a case of חטאת שמתו בעליה or in the case of חטאת השותפין. דתניא,

because we learned, ר' שמעון אומר: חמש חטאות מתות. There are five kinds of חטאות where the דין is that the חטאת has to die: ולד חטאת, if the חטאת gave birth to a child, so then that child has to die; ותמורת חטאת, if you made תמורה of a חטאת, the דין is in the case of another קרבן that if you make תמורה, so the other קרבן also becomes a קרבן. For instance, if you have a קרבן and you put another animal next to this קרבן and you say, "Let this second animal be instead of the first one," so then the דין is that the second one also becomes the same as the first קרבן. You are not allowed to do this תמורה, but if you did it, the פסוק says, והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קדש, that it remains holy and the תמורה, the other one that you tried to exchange it for, also becomes holy. But in the case of a חטאת, if you exchanged it for a חטאת, then it doesn't become a חטאת, what it happens is it has to die; or חטאת שמתו בעליה, or a חטאת that the owner died before he managed to bring it as a קרבן, so then that חטאת has to die; וחטאת שנתכפרו בעליה, or a חטאת that the owner already was מתכפר, which means he brought another חטאת instead of this one for whatever reason, so then this one has to die; וחטאת שעברה שנתה, or a חטאת that its year passed. And ר' שמעון continues and says, ואי אתה יכול לומר ולד חטאת בציבור. Now the דין which said that one of the five that have to die is a ולד חטאת, a child of a חטאת, this could not apply concerning a חטאת of a ציבור. Why? שאין ציבור מפרישין נקבה, there is no חטאת of a ציבור which is a female. So there is no possibility to have this דין of ולד חטאת, to say that it will die in the case of a ציבור, because a ציבור, it could never happen, because there is no דין of a female by a חטאת of a ציבור. ואי אתה יכול לומר תמורת חטאת בציבור. You also can't say this דין, that a תמורת חטאת has to die, that this should happen by a חטאת of a ציבור. You can't say that, שאין תמורה בציבור, because there is בכלל no דין of תמורה בציבור. ואי אתה יכול לומר חטאת שמתו בעליה בציבור. You also cannot say that the דין of a חטאת that its owner died, that חטאת has to die, this דין can also not apply in the case of a חטאת ציבור, שאין ציבור מתים, because there is no such דין by a ציבור that it should die. But concerning שנתכפרו בעליה ושעברה שנתה, לא שמענו, whether this דין, that a חטאת that the owner already brought a different one already, or a חטאת that a year passed, so we don't know whether this applies to a ציבור or not. Which means the שאלה here is that if you have a חטאת of ציבור and they brought for some reason another חטאת, or that חטאת of ציבור, the year passed, whether the דין that the חטאת has to die would apply here too in the case of ציבור. In the case of a יחיד, we say that this is the דין, that this חטאת has to die. The question is, would this apply also in the case of the ציבור? יכול ימותו? I would think that the דין should be they should die, just like the case of a יחיד, because the reason by the other three it doesn't apply because is because that the מציאות can't happen, it just can't happen. But these two, where the מציאות could happen, So maybe here the דין is the same as by a חטאת of a יחיד. אמרת, but we say ילמד סתומין מן המפורש, we learn out the one that hidden, the one that covered up, the one that we don't know from the one that we do know. In other words, by the other three, we do know that it doesn't apply to a ציבור. By these two, we don't know whether it doesn't apply or does. So we learn out those that we don't know from those that we do know. מה מצינו, just like we find the דין is דולד חטאת ותמורת חטאת ושמתו בעליה, the other three, the דין of a ולד חטאת, and the דין by the exchange of a חטאת, and the דין of the חטאת that the owner died, that so we find that ביחיד דברים אמורים ולא בציבור, these are only said by a יחיד, not by a ציבור. So from here we know that ושנתכפרו בעליה ושעברה שנתה, also concerning the other two, which is the חטאת that the owner already brought a different one, or the חטאת that the year passed, that also ביחיד דברים אמורים ולא בציבור, that it was said only ביחיד, and not בציבור. So we know that by a ציבור, the דין is that these would not die. But the גמרא asks: וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר? Do you learn out something which is possible from something which is impossible? If in the other three it would also be possible, but there would be a דין that it doesn't apply, then we could say that we learn out these two that we don't know from those that we do know. But the reason it doesn't apply to those three is because it's impossible. So how can we learn out in the case where it is possible from the case where it's not possible? And the גמרא answers: רבי שמעון בחד מקום גמיר. רבי שמעון, in one place, does learn out. In other words, when all five were said together in one place, so then we could learn out. In the case where we have two separate דינים that were said separately, and then we want to compare one to the other, then it's obvious that if in one case it's impossible, we can't learn out that the same דין would apply in the case where it's possible. But in the case where all five דינים were said together, it's one group of חטאות that we said are מתות, so here רבי שמעון holds that even though in the first three it is impossible, still we could learn out those that are possible from those that are impossible. And therefore we say that just like in the case of the three, where it's impossible בציבור, but לפועל the דין is that it doesn't apply בציבור, so therefore, in those cases where it is יא possible, still we say it doesn't apply in the case of ציבור. So now that we see that this is the logic of רבי שמעון, we could apply it in our case also. Since we see that רבי שמעון holds that all five have to have the same דין, so we say the same סברא. Two of these things do not apply to שותפין, which means in our case to בית דין. The case of ולד חטאת, that cannot apply to בית דין, because the קרבן that we're talking about here is a פר, or in the case of עבודה זרה it's a פר ושעיר, which are all males, זכרים, so the דין of ולד חטאת should die does not apply to the case of בית דין. Also concerning תמורת חטאת does not apply to the case of בית דין, because even by a regular שותפין we find that there is no דין of תמורה by שותפין, certainly there would not be a דין of תמורה by בית דין. So we see that two of these דינים do not apply to the case of בית דין. So since רבי שמעון holds that we learn out סתומין מן המפורש in these five, so we learn out that the other three would also not apply in the case of בית דין. So therefore we know that in the case of בית דין, we would not say that חטאת שמתו בעליה במיתה, that if in the case of בית דין one of the owners of the חטאת, which means one of the members of the בית דין died, so then the חטאת should die, we don't say that. And what would be the דין? The חטאת remains a good חטאת. So here we see clearly that according to רבי שמעון, if one of the members of the בית דין died, still you could bring that חטאת. Now

based on that, going back to the ברייתא we said before, where it says that if one of the members of the בית דין died, you can't bring the קרבן anymore, and we said before maybe that goes according to רבי שמעון, but now we know for sure it can't go according to רבי שמעון, because according to רבי שמעון, if one of the members of the בית דין died, you still could bring it, because in the case of חטאת השותפין, we don't say this דין that חטאת שמתו בעליה is במיתה, because this חטאת is still a good חטאת and you could bring it. הדרן עלך הורו בית דין, הדרן עלך הורו בית דין, הדרן עלך הורו בית דין. הורה כהן משיח לעצמו וכולי. Concerning what we learned before, the גמרא brought the פסוק where it says that when they came back from the גלות, the time of the second בית המקדש, so they brought קרבנות there. So it says that they brought 12 פרים, and the גמרא asked a קשיא, that ממילא according to רבי יהודה, we know how we got 12. For instance, it says if 12 שבטים sinned, so then the דין is that you have to bring 12 קרבנות, because רבי יהודה holds that every שבט is a separate קהל, he has to bring his own קרבן. Or the גמרא says אי נמי דחטאו שבעה שבטים, that seven שבטים sinned, and the rest of them also had to bring בגררא because they are pulled along. And then the גמרא says according to רבי שמעון we also understand how it's possible 12, and the whole קשיא was only according to רבי מאיר. So the באר שבע asked a question, that why does the גמרא have to give the example that seven שבטים sinned, and the rest of them were pulled along and that's how you have 12 שעירים? Could have said that one שבט sinned, and the rest of them were pulled along, and that's why you have 12. Because as we learned before, that according to רבי יהודה, even if one שבט sinned based on the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, that pulls along all other שבטים. So why does the גמרא have to give the example that seven שבטים sinned? Now באמת, the way we learned it before, was that the גמרא תאקע meant even if one שבט sinned, but the גמרא just happened to pick the example of seven שבטים because that's the לשון the way it was mentioned before. But the חק נתן answers that there is a סברא to say that even רבי יהודה who holds that when one שבט sinned, it pulls along all the שבטים, this is only if this one שבט was the רוב of the ציבור. But if this one שבט was not the רוב of the ציבור, then even רבי יהודה will admit that he will not pull along all the other שבטים. According to this opinion, we understand why the גמרא picked the example of seven שבטים, because the גמרא doesn't know, or is not sure, whether in the time of כי הוא there was one שבט that was the majority of the ציבור, the majority of כלל ישראל. And therefore, it would be more fitting to say that it was seven שבטים that sinned, and that's how they became the majority of כלל ישראל, and that's when they pulled along the rest. And that's why the גמרא gives the example of seven שבטים that sinned and pulled along the rest, and didn't say the example of one שבט, according to that opinion.

Another thing that he asked is it says later in the גמרא that we find a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון concerning פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים שנאבדו, that if the פר or the שעיר of יום כיפור got lost, והפריש אחרים תחתיהם and they put a different one instead, and they used a different one, and then they found this one. So there was a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי אלעזר and רבי שמעון. רבי יהודה said ימותו כולם, they all have to die. And the reason is because this is a חטאת שנתכפרו בעליה, it's a חטאת that the owner already brought a different one, and the דין is that one of the five חטאות המתות is a חטאת שנתכפרו בעליה, and therefore it has to die. While רבי אלעזר and רבי שמעון say it doesn't have to die לפי שאין חטאת ציבור מתה. So רש״י says there that what is the reason for the opinion of רבי יהודה that they have to die? Because רבי יהודה holds that even a חטאת of a ציבור has to die. And therefore, even though this is a חטאת of a ציבור, still the דין is according to רבי יהודה it has to die. So the מהרש״א asked a קשיא, that he doesn't understand what forced רש״י to say that רבי יהודה holds that a חטאת of a ציבור also has to die? Maybe he only holds a חטאת of שותפין has to die? Because as we were learning the whole time, that this חטאת is the חטאת of the כהנים, which is not a ציבור, and is a חטאת of שותפין. And we wanted to prove that רבי שמעון holds that a חטאת of שותפין doesn't die. But רבי יהודה who says that it does die, he holds a חטאת of שותפין does die. But how does רש״י know that רבי יהודה holds that a חטאת of ציבור also dies? So why did רש״י have to say חטאת הציבור מתה according to רבי יהודה? He should have said חטאת השותפין מתה according to רבי יהודה. But the חק נתן answers that לכאורה there is a very clear ראיה that according to רבי יהודה even a חטאת הציבור is מתה. Because in the ברייתא it says that פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים. It mentioned also the שעיר of יום כיפור. Now the שעיר of יום כיפור was a חטאת הציבור. The ראיה that we want to bring that according to רבי אלעזר and רבי שמעון חטאת השותפין we also say doesn't die is from the פר of יום כיפור, and that פר was a פר for the כהנים. But the שעיר of יום כיפור was a שעיר for ציבור. That was a שעיר for כלל ישראל. And still רבי יהודה says that even in the

case of the שעיר, the דין is also that if you brought another one, so the one that you found has to die. So that's the ראיה that according to רבי יהודה even a חטאת הציבור we say has to die. And that's why רש״י says that רבי יהודה holds that חטאת שכיפרו בעליה, even if it's a חטאת הציבור, also the דין is it has to die. And another thing he says in the חק נתן, that it says מפורש in the פרק יש בקרבנות דף ט״ו, says there מפורש that רבי יהודה holds that חטאת הציבור שכיפרו בעליה dies, and that's why רש״י says מפורש that it does die. Also it says in the גמרא, where does רב פפא know this ענין that ציבור ציבור לא מתו? That by ציבור we don't say this idea of מת? And first the גמרא wants to quote the פסוק תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך, which means that instead of your fathers will be your children, that shows that if a person dies and his child takes over, it's as if he didn't die, because the child is an extension of the father. So the באר שבע asked a קשיא, but doesn't the גמרא say in סוף פרק מי שמת that this פסוק is only a ברכה, but it doesn't have anything to do with the דין, that we cannot learn out from this פסוק a דין? So the חק נתן answers that באמת the גמרא תאקע could have answered this תירוץ also, but the גמרא has even a better תירוץ, that לכתחילה there's no ראיה, not only we can't use this פסוק as a ראיה because it only goes for ברכה, בכלל this פסוק doesn't have a ראיה as the גמרא explains it. So this is a better תירוץ than if the גמרא would have answered that this פסוק is only for a ברכה.

Later on, the גמרא brings a ברייתא where it asks, why was it that שלמה המלך made only seven days dedication for the בית המקדש, and משה רבינו made 12 days? But the reason is because he wanted to give כבוד to the נשיאים. לכאורה, the question is, the גמרא should have asked just the opposite. משה came first. So the question should have been, since משה רבינו made 12 days of חינוך, why did שלמה only make seven? So the חתם סופר says that is no קשיא. Because why שלמה made seven we understand, because שלמה saw that in the תורה we find all ימים טובים are divided by seven. You have seven days of פסח, you have seven days of סוכות, and even by the ימי המילואים of the משכן itself there were seven ימי המילואים. So therefore it makes sense to have seven. So we understand why שלמה made seven. The question is, why did משה make 12 and not seven like שלמה made? And even though we know that משה didn't do it on his own, but he was commanded by השם, he did it על פי הדיבור. So really the question the גמרא is on השם: Why did השם command משה to make 12 days of חינוך and not seven? ובאמת, you could ask a קשיא, what kind of comparison is there between משה and שלמה? Maybe באמת you have to make 12, the reason שלמה made seven was because the seven ended before סוכות, so he couldn't extend it into סוכות, because אין מערבין שמחה בשמחה, you're not allowed to mix two שמחות. So since it was סוכות and they had a שמחה of יום טוב, that's why they couldn't extend the שמחה of חנוכת הבית המקדש into the יום טוב of סוכות, and that's why he only made seven. But we know that this is not true, because if the reason would be because he couldn't extend it into סוכות, he should have been משלים it after סוכות. He should have made seven till סוכות, and then after סוכות he should have finished off five more if you have to have 12 days. Since he didn't do it, obviously you only needed seven. And that's why the גמרא asks, since he only needed seven, and the reason is understood, because we find ימים טובים divided into seven, so if so, why did השם tell משה to make 12 days for the חינוך? And the answer is, in order to give כבוד to the נשיאים.