Rules and Exceptions: An analysis of a Sugya in Horayot 6a and Temurah 15a-b

Zvi Hershel Fishman

Columbia University (Contact: hershy.fishman2@gmail.com)
April 27, 2015

The dialectics of a sugya in the Babylonian Talmud (BT) present themselves on the surface as a
naturally flowing narrative. A closer look, however, uncovers various layers, at times imperfectly
attached. This was noted by the earliest traditional commentators,1 but only in rare instances where the
narrative cannot possibly be given an acceptable coherent explanation. In more recent times, the critical
study of the Talmud has begun to unravel these layers sugya by sugya. The goals of the critical and
traditional approaches do not completely overlap, but to a significant degree they do. A well-grounded
understanding of the Talmudic reasoning is often crucial in the attempt to correctly identify a crack in the
narrative. Conversely, that potential crack may be the solution to many a difficulty in a sugya. In this vein,
I will attempt to analyze a sugya using a combination of these two approaches. The sugya has two
parallels in the BT, in Horyaot 6a (I will denote that version as H) and Temurah 15a-b (I will denote it T).
First a short introduction to the sugya: The Mishnah (Horayot 4b-5a) teaches, based on Numbers
(15:22-26), that if all of Israel has inadvertently committed idolatry 2 (following an erroneous permissive
order of the Court) they must bring a bull as a burnt-offering (‘olah) and a male goat as a sin-offering
(ḥaṭat). Unlike regular sin-offerings, this one is offered in the inner sanctuary and is therefore entirely
burnt3 (including its hide). There are differing opinions in the Mishnah regarding this offering.4 Rabbi
Yehuda says that each tribe that sinned must bring its own bull and goat. Rabbi Shimon agrees but says
that in addition the Court must bring another pair of offerings, whereas Rabbi Meir says that the Court is
the only party that brings the offerings (and thus only one set is brought). It is remarkable that a report in
Ezra 8:35 of the offerings that the Israelites brought when they rebuilt the Temple upon their return from
the Babylonian exile mentions twelve goats as sin-offerings that were burnt and twelve bulls as
burnt-offerings (among other burnt-offerings of lambs and rams). These two types of offerings in these
numbers are exactly what they would be required to bring for inadvertent idolatry according to Rabbi
Yehuda! This verse has not escaped the notice of the Tannaim, and although not portrayed as such in the
Talmud5 may have served as an important source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. Indeed, a Beraita in the
Sifra (Wayikra, Ḥova 3:5) and Tosefta (Parah 1:2), cited in both the Babylonian (BT) and Palestinian
Talmud (PT) in Horayot (6a,1:8 respectively) in the name of none other than R. Yehuda,6 it is confirmed
that those offerings were indeed brought for idolatry. Following is the text of the Sifra (Wayikra Ḥova
3:5):
Similarly7 Rabbi Yose said, “THOSE WHO CAME FROM THE CAPTIVITY, THE PEOPLE OF THE EXILE,
OFFERED BURNT-OFFERINGS FOR THE GOD OF ISRAEL, TWELVE BULLS FOR ALL OF ISRAEL, NINETY-SIX
RAMS, SEVENTY-SEVEN LAMBS, TWELVE SIN-OFFERING GOATS, ALL OF THEM BURNT-OFFERINGS FOR
GOD (Ezra 8:35).” Can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering? Rather just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so were the
sin-offerings not eaten. Rabbi Yehuda says, they brought them [to atone] for idolatry.8

1
For example, Rashi to Pesaḥim 81b (“w’ṭumat hatehom”).
2
For sins other than idolatry the offerings required are a bull as a sin-offering and a goat as a burnt-offering. That is based on a similar
scripture, Leviticus (4:13-21).
3
See Mishnah Zebaḥim 5:2.
4
As well as the offerings required for the inadvertent communal transgression of sins other than idolatry (see note 2).
5
Perhaps following Rabbi Yoḥanan’s innovation that it was a temporary ruling, contrary to the simple understanding of the Beraita. This
may be why the Talmud didn’t use this verse as a source for R. Yehuda that a single tribe is considered a “community” in that discussion
(15b) or for a source for Rav Papa when looking for one in our sugya (Segment 2.3, see Horah Gaver).
6
In T it is in the name of Rabbi Yose. See Appendix, Point 1.
7
The Sifra is relating the following to another similar but unrelated exegesis.
8
See Appendix, Point 1 and note 72 regarding whether Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yehuda are in agreement.

1
 For what idolatry? The only idolatry we find them committing in scripture9 goes back at least seventy
years to the time of Zedekiah (before they were exiled to Babylon). Thus, the sugya reports in the name of
Shmuel that indeed the idolatry from back then is what they were atoning for.
There are three parts to the sugya in H. Part One deals with how R. Shim’on and R. Meir explain the
verse, since according to them the required number of bulls and goats should be thirteen or one,
respectively, and not twelve10. This part has no counterpart in T. Parts Two and Three are closely
paralleled in T.
Part Two, the longest part, concerns the following question. The vast majority of those Israelites who
committed the idolatry (as adults) seventy years back have presumably died. If so, how can their
descendants now bring an offering to atone for that sin? This question is based on the premise that
sin-offerings cannot be brought to atone for the dead. Rav Papa answers this question by asserting that a
sin-offering of a community is different and can be offered after the death of its members because a
community as a whole11 does not die. The sugya then tries to find a source for Rav Papa’s claim and limits
its implication in the process, concluding (supported by a verse in Ezra) that, amazingly, most people
alive at the time were from the First Temple era.12
In T the question takes a different form, addressing the Mishnah there (15a) regarding an animal
designated for a sin-offering whose owner (the person required to bring the offering) was atoned for with
another animal. What is to be done with this animal? The Mishnah says that it must [be left to] die. What
if the animal was designated for a communal sin-offering (and the community was atoned for with
another animal)? In this case there is a dispute (coincidently of familiar names). According to R. Shim’on,
it must not die13, and according to R. Yehuda a communal sin-offering is no different from a private one
and must also die. Since the cases of an animal designated for a sin-offering whose owner died vs. was
atoned for are similar, and in both cases the animal must die, the Gemara first assumes that the dispute
between R. Shim’on and R. Yehuda regarding communal sin-offerings also pertains to a case where the
community died, and according to R. Yehudah such an animal must die and certainly cannot be offered.
This brings the Gemara to essentially the same question: According to R.Yehuda, how could they have
brought an offering at the time of the Second Temple to atone for a previous generation?
In Part Three the Gemara raises the most fundamental difficulty concerning the above understanding
of the verse: There is no indication in scripture that the idolatry worshiped at the time of Zedekiah was
done based on any erroneous ruling of the Court, nor by any error at all. It was an intentional
transgression, and should not be subject to any offerings! The Gemara’s answer is that contrary to the
plain understanding of the Beraita, those offerings weren’t biblically required. Rather, they were
mandated by a temporary ruling (horaat sha’ah). This statement seems to obviate the entire sugya, as
there should no longer be any need to reconcile the verse with any normative laws of offerings. This
problem is the focus of this essay. Following is the sugya in its two parallel versions.14

9
As is often alluded to in Jeremiah.
10
The Gemara assumes that they agree with Rabbi Yehuda that the offerings were brought for idolatry.
11
This is the straightforward understanding of Rav Papa’s statement (at least before its possible reinterpretation at the end of the sugya).
There are, however, other understandings of this statement, including apparently that of the commentary attributed to Rashi (see Imre
Binyamin to H).
12
Rashi (to T and H), Tosfot Harosh to H, and the simple reading of the Gemara. See Ḥazon Ish for a different explanation (according to
Rashi to H’s method, but incompatible with his words) that the Gemara meant to say that the majority from those of the First Temple era
were still alive. See also Appendix, Point 7 for the difference between H and T.
13
It can also not be offered, since it has nothing to atone for. Instead it is left to pasture until it gets a blemish and is then sold for the
Temple’s sake.
14
Bold lettering denotes a Tannaic source. Uppercase letters denote scripture.

2
 Horayot 6a (H)
15
0.1. It was taught…
[6a] Similarly Rabbi Yose said, “AND THOSE WHO CAME
FROM THE CAPTIVITY… OFFERED TO THE GOD OF
ISRAEL TWELVE BULLS etc. ALL OF THEM
BURNT-OFFERINGS FOR GOD (Ezra 8:35).” Did you really
think burnt-offerings? Can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering?
Rather, all of them were like burnt-offerings, just as a
burnt-offering is not eaten, so were the sin-offerings not eaten.
For16 it was taught, Rabbi Yehuda says, they brought them [to
atone] for idolatry. And Rav Yehuda said, said Shmuel, for
idolatry that they had done in the days of Zedekiah.
Part One
1.1. Very well according to Rabbi Yehuda [a requirement of]
twelve sin-offerings can occur in the case that [all] twelve tribes
sinned, for then they bring twelve goats…17 Similarly according to
Rabbi Shim’on, in the case that eleven tribes sinned, for then they
bring elven goats, and the [twelfth] is of the Court. But according
to Rabbi Meir how can it occur?
1.2. In the case that they sinned again and again, twelve times.
Part Two
2.1. But those who sinned died!18
2.2. Said Rav Papa, when do we have a tradition that a sin-offering
whose owners died must die? In [the case of] a private person, but
not in [the case of] a community, because there is no death in [the
case of] a community.
2.3. Where does Rav Papa take this from?
2.4. If we’ll say because it says (Psalms 45:17), “INSTEAD OF
YOUR PARENTS WILL BE YOUR CHILDREN,” if so, even a
private person too.
Temurah 15a-b (T)
0.1. But is there a position that a communal sin-offering whose
owners have been atoned for must die?
[15b] But it has been taught, Similarly Rabbi Yose said, “AND
THOSE WHO CAME FROM THE CAPTIVITY…
OFFERED TWELVE BULLS, NINETY-NINE RAMS,
SEVENTY-SEVEN LAMBS, TWELVE SIN-OFFERING
GOATS, ALL OF THEM BURNT-OFFERINGS FOR GOD
(Ezra 8:35).” Now can a sin-offering be offered as a
burnt-offering? Rather Rava said, [they were treated] like a
burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so [were]
the sin-offerings not eaten. For Rabbi Yose used to say, they
brought them [to atone] for idolatry. And Rav Yehuda said, said
Shmuel, for idolatry that they had done in the days of Zedekiah.
2.1. Our assumption now is that according to the one [Rabbi
Yehuda] who holds that a communal sin-offering whose owners
were atoned for must die, also holds that a communal sin-offering
whose owners died must die. [Now the question arises]: But here
that some20 of the owners died, yet it was offered.
2.2. Said Rav Papa, even according to the one [Rabbi Yehuda] who
holds that a communal sin-offering whose owners were atoned for
must die, [still] a communal sin-offering whose owners died does
not have to die, because the community cannot die.

2.5. Rather Rav Papa’s exegesis is from the First of the Month goat
offerings that God said, bring it from the [Temple] treasury
(terumat halishka). Now some Israelites [must have] died, and
those who remained how can they bring it? This indicates that a
sin-offering whose owners died, in the case of the community, is
offered.
2.6. Are they alike? In the case of the First of the Month goat
offering, perhaps no one from the community died. But here they
definitely died!
2.7. Rather Rav Papa’s reason is from here. For it says (Deut
21:8)19 ATONE FOR YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL THAT YOU
2.3. Where does Rav Papa take this from?
2.4. If we’ll say because it says (Psalms 45:17), “INSTEAD OF
YOUR PARENTS WILL BE YOUR CHILDREN,” if so, even a
private person too.
2.5. Rather this is the reason that the community cannot die; [it is
derived] from the Holiday and First of the Month goat offerings,
that God said, bring them from the [Temple] treasury (terumat
halishka).. Now perhaps the owners of those Zuzim died. This
indicates that the community cannot die.

15
The word tanya (it has been taught) starts at 5b. I skipped over
the first part of the Beraita for brevity and following the Paris and
Munich manuscripts and the version of all the early commentators
where it is omitted. Rashi and Rosh here don’t comment on it.
Moreover, Rashi and Tosafot to T and Rashi to Num 8:8 were
unaware of such a Beraita in the Talmud. It apparently was
transferred from Sifra into a Talmudic text at a later time.
16
Munich and Paris manuscripts: “And it was…” See Appendix,
Point 1.
17
Here I skipped over a segment which is irrelevant to this essay.
18
Parris Manuscript: “But there is no atonement for the dead.”
20
Munich manuscript combines both. Shiṭa Mekubeṣet corrects: “that their owners died.” This seems to
19
regarding the axed calf (‘egla ‘arufa) performed for an unsolved be Rashi’s version of the text. However, all five known
murder. manuscripts support the printed text.

3
HAVE REDEEMED, O GOD, [indicating that] this atonement is
fit to atone for those who left Egypt,21 because it says, THAT YOU
HAVE REDEEMED.22
2.8. Are they alike? There they all exist. Since they atone for the
living they also atone for the dead. But here [in Ezra] were there
any living?
2.9. Yes indeed, for it says (Ezra 3:12) AND MANY OF THE
LEVITE PRIESTS AND THE HEADS OF FATHERS etc.
2.10. But perhaps they were a minority and not a majority.
2.11. But it says (ibid 3:13), AND THEY DID NOT NOTICE23
THE SOUND OF THE CHEER OF HAPPINESS [COMPARED]24
TO THE SOUND OF THE PEOPLE’S WEEPING, AND THE
SOUND WAS HEARD UNTIL AFAR.
Part Three
3.1. But they were intentional transgressors!
3.2. It was a temporary ruling.
2.9. Alternatively, those sin-offerings were actually brought for the
living. For it says (Ezra 3:12) AND MANY OF THE LEVITE
PRIESTS AND THE ELDERLY HEADS OF FATHERS WHO
HAVE SEEN THE FIRST TEMPLE, AS THIS TEMPLE WAS
BEING FOUNDED WERE CRYING WITH A LOUD VOICE
AND MANY IN CHEERING.
2.10. But perhaps these [who were alive at the time of the First
Temple] were a minority.
2.11. You cannot say so, for it says (Ibid 13), AND THE PEOPLE
DID NOT NOTICE THE CHEER AND THE HAPPINESS
[COMPARED] TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE’S WEEPING.
3.1. But how could they offer them? They were intentional
transgressors!

3.3. Indeed it is logical [to say] so. 25 For if you don’t say so,
NINETY-SIX RAMS, SEVENTY-SEVEN LAMBS (Ibid 8:35) to
whom do they correspond? Rather it was a temporary ruling. Here
too, it was a temporary ruling.26
3.2. Said Rabbi Yoḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.
3.3. Indeed it is logical [to say] so. For if you don’t say so, very
well the bulls and goats correspond to the twelve tribes27, but the
lambs, to whom do they correspond? Rather it was a temporary
ruling.

21
Tosfot HaRosh explains that an ‘egla ‘arufa atones not only for
the current unsolved murder but also for any one from previous
generations that has not yet been atoned for by an ‘egla ‘arufa
even as far back as the exodus. Rashi to Keretut 26a also gives this
interpretation to the Gemara there. A more straightforward
explanation is given by Rabbi Ḥaim Herschenson (Ḥidushei
ḤaReḥa to H) based on the Sifre (Deut 210) which adds the
following: “We find ourselves learning [from this] that a murderer
sins all the way back to the generation of the exodus.” This implies
that the meaning was that all previous generations back to the time
of the exodus are implicated in the murder at hand and need
atonement because one of their descendants committed murder (in
the same vain as the atonement needed for the current generation
for the murder committed in their midst). Note that there is no
halachic distinction between the two interpretations, and regarding
our sugya either way the proof is similar: We see from here that the
dead can be atoned for in the case of a community. However, in
Keretut 26a, this exegesis is used to show that an ‘egla ‘arufa is
required even if Yom Kippur passed since the murder, which seems
comprehensible only with Rashi’s interpretation (and thus that
passage appears inconsistent with the Sifre)
22
The words, “because it says, THAT YOU HAVE… (Continued
in Box to the right).
23
Jaffee (page 109) translates, “AND THE PEOPLE COULD NOT
DISTINGUISH THE CRY OF THE JOY FROM THE CRY OF
THE PEOPLE’S WEEPING.” This translation fits the verse better,
but does not fit the Talmud’s understanding of it, because it offers
no suggestion that the weepers were louder (and thus more) than
the rejoicers. See also Rashi (‫)ד“ה הא‬
‫ומדאין מכירין קול השמחה ש"מ דרובא הוו‬.
24
Or [DUE] TO…
25
Munich manuscript matches the printed version which is similar
to T (all T manuscripts and printed text in agreement). Parris and
Cambridge manuscripts (of H) and “Rabbenu Ḥananel'' (printed at
7a), however, combine 3.2 and 3.3 as follows: “But according to
your reasoning NINETY-SIX RAMS… do we find anywhere in the
27
entire Torah? Rather it was a temporary ruling…” This is according to Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishnah Horayot
26
This last sentence is present in Munich and Cambridge (4B-5A) and ignoring the sugya in Horayot (Segment 1.1-1.2)
manuscripts, but omitted in the Parris manuscript and in T (all T which offers a forced reconciliation according to all opinions. See
manuscripts and printed text in agreement). Tosafot to T (“‘Al”) and Appendix, Point 8.

4
 The Gemara’s conclusion that it was a temporary ruling and didn’t follow the normative rules should
presumably resolve the difficulties raised previously in the sugya (namely, why they brought twelve of
each according to Rabbi Meir (Part One) and how they atoned for the dead (Part Two)). Indeed Tosafot28
and Be’er Sheva29 say that the Gemara could have used the answer that it was a temporary ruling to
resolve all30 the previous difficulties. Yet the Gemara’s language makes it quite clear that it did not intend
to use the final answer to resolve the previous difficulties. If that is what it meant it should have at the
very least said (at 3.2) “rather (“ella”) it was a temporary ruling.” This is also somewhat implied from
“Rashi”’s31 commentary: “It was a temporary ruling that even though they were intentional transgressors
they were atoned for.” This becomes clearer yet in the commentaries of both HaMeiri’s Bet HaBeḥira on
H and Rabbenu Hillel on the Sifra, at least regarding Part Two. They review the sugya’s conclusions and
still cite the Gemara’s previous conclusion that most people of the First Temple era were alive32. Bet
HaBeḥira summarizes the sugya as follows:
…If so, what about the verse regarding the Second temple, “THOSE WHO CAME FROM THE CAPTIVITY
OFFERED BURNT-OFFERINGS, TWELVE BULLS, NINETY-SIX RAMS, SEVENTY-SEVEN LAMBS,
TWELVE SIN-OFFERING GOATS,” and [the rabbis] expounded it that they brought them for idolatry that they
worshiped in the days of Zedekiah? They too, most of them were alive, for it says “AND MANY OF THOSE WHO
HAVE SEEN THE FIRST TEMPLE…” Although still those in the days of Zedekiah were intentional transgressors
and are not fit for an offering, it was a temporary ruling.
A similar summary of the sugya is found in the commentary of Rabbenu Hillel on the Sifra:
…And if you shall say, it is a sin-offering whose owners died, thus this difficulty is raised there [in T] and they
answer, “said Rav Papa, a sin-offering whose owners died in the case of a community does not go to death because a
community does not die” for it is derived from the First of the Month goat offerings which come from the Temple
treasury and some of the community must have died, thus we see that a sin-offering whose owners died in the case of
a community is offered. And if you are still skeptical, thinking that in the case of the First of the Month goat
offerings it is different for it comes for the majority of the community because the majority are alive, answer so: In
the days of Ezra too there still existed the majority of the community who were in the First Temple era, for it says,
AND MANY OF THE PRIESTS AND THE LEVITES AND THE ELDERS etc. And if you shall say, those were a

28
Throughout this essay, all commentaries are to H unless specified otherwise.
29
By Rabbi Issachar Baer Eilenburg (circa 1570-1623), a commentary on tractates that have no Tosafot (Venice, 1614). Tosafot on
Horayot were first printed circa 1750 and are possibly not real Tosafot http://forum.otzar.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2607.
30
Tosafot say, “all.” Be’er Sheva’ only mentions the question at 2.1.
31
Regarding the attribution of the commentary on Horayot to Rashi See J.N. Epstein, Tarbitz year 13, 502, raising strong arguments
against the traditional attribution, cited by Beṣalel Deblitzki, prologue to Rashi’s Commentary: Farma manuscript.
forum.otzar.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20296 (who favors the traditional attribution based on Rishonim). Of note, Musaf Rashi to
the Talmud (Nehard’a Edition) refers to Rashi on Horayot as “Hamefaresh” (see for example Temurah 15b, Yevamot 87b).
32
Interestingly, I haven’t seen any of the commentators take note of the implication from these two Rishonim. See further in Bet
HaBeḥirah where HaMeiri says that the implication from the sugya’s exegesis from egla arufa that the dead are also atoned for by the
sin-offering, “was only said as mere non-conclusive dialectic argumentation (‫ )דרך משא ומתן ודחיה בעלמא‬because the main atonement of
the offerings is with repentance and confession, as we have elucidated in our youth in Ḥibur HaT’shuva. Thus, if he died with repentance
there is no need for the offering [because death itself atones], and if without repentance the atonement of an offering can no longer work
for him.” I contend that his grounds for dismissing the segment in the sugya as non-conclusive were not based on backtracking from the
implication in his previous summary of the sugya that the answer that it was a temporary ruling does not obviate the previous discussion.
More likely, he understood the final answer that most were alive to obviate the idea of atoning for the dead, like the conclusion in T (see
also Imre Binyamin page 153 who cites such an interpretation to H).
(I should also note a minor comment that HaMeiri’s summary of the sugya doesn’t seem entirely coherent. He starts by explaining a
Beraita (6b) stating that the death of the owner is not applicable to communal offerings, “because the majority of the community cannot
die in the lifetime of the animal, and as long as a majority did not die it is not considered that the owners died. Further, if the animal was
designated for an offering to atone for the dead (of a previous generation), it would not be valid because there is no atonement for the
dead.” At this point it follows that if there were “atonement for the dead” it wouldn’t really be an atonement, rather it would only cause
the animal to be left to die as a sin-offering whose owner died, but since there is no atonement for the dead the designation is not valid.
But then he summarizes our sugya, “if so, what about the verse regarding the Second Temple…” implying that if there were atonement
for the dead the verse would raise no difficulties, even though they actually offered those sin-offerings.)

5
 minority, you cannot say so, for it says, AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT NOTICE THE SOUND… And if you shall
say, but in the days of Ezra they were intentional transgressors and are not fit for an offering, thus this difficulty is
raised there, and they answer, it was a temporary ruling.
These summaries of the sugya of HaMeiri and Rabbenu Hillel indicate their understanding that the
Talmud’s introducing the idea that it was a temporary ruling is limited only to their being intentional
transgressors. In fact, Tosafot and Be’er Sheva’ too only said that the Gemera could have resolved the
previous difficulties with the answer that it was a temporary ruling, not that the Gemara actually meant to
retract the previous answers.
Why didn’t the Gemara retract the previous answers? Rabbi Ḥaim ibn ‘Aṭar in his Ḥefeṣ HaShem
explains33 that even though they could have answered that it was a temporary ruling, they still preferred to
make whatever they could consistent with the law. This is also the conclusion of Halivni in Mekorot
Umasorot.34
However, this is all well to explain how the final redactors of the sugya understood Parts One and Two
and why they didn’t formulate the sugya such that it would specify that the final conclusion obviates the
previous ones. However, the plain wording of Parts One and Two still suggests that those authors did
assume the plain understanding of the Beraita that the offerings followed the biblical commandment of
communal atonement for idolatry. But didn’t they know that it was a temporary ruling?
A simple solution would be to suggest that this last part of the sugya was added later and the authors of
the previous layers of the sugya did understand the Beraita as its straightforward meaning. However, as
Halivni points out, the problem with this approach is that in T and, importantly,35 in the PT as well this
statement that it was a temporary ruling is said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the first generation of
the Amoraim. Furthermore, even in H where the answer is given Stamaicly it is in pure Hebrew,36
indicating an Amoraic source.37 One perhaps unlikely possibility is that R. Yoḥanan’s statement was
unknown in Babylonia until later generations of the BT.
Another possibility can be speculated based on the PT.38 The PT brings the statement in the name of R.
Yoḥanan as in T but not regarding the difficulty about intentional transgression. The PT cites two similar

33
He says it regarding both Parts One and Two (whereas Halivni doesn’t discuss Parts One).
34
His first explanation was that Rav Papa is refuted in the conclusion of the sugya. This, as I wrote, doesn’t fit the Gemara’s language.
Note that contrary to the implication in Halivni’s words, Tosafot fits better with his second explanation than with the first.
Halivni adds further, “However, according to R. Yehuda below at the end of this page and in parallel places who holds “they must [be
left to] die” even for communal offerings we must say like R. Yoḥanan that it was a temporary ruling. Now according to a number of
girsaot R. Yehuda is the one who says that they brought it for idolatry and they offered it even though they died. It must be then because
of a temporary ruling.” The Beraita that Halivni refers to actually discusses a case where the owners were atoned for. Nowhere does R.
Yehuda discuss a case where the owners died. Halivni’s assumption that they are similar is the original assumption of the sugya in T to
which Rav Papa responds that R. Yehuda agrees in the case of death because a community cannot die. Halivni was not unaware of T.
Rather he goes on to use this same premise (that according to R. Yehuda communal offerings whose owners died must die) to declare the
T version of Rav Papa’s statement an error. I am at a loss at understanding his premise.
Furthermore, to say that Rav Papa was not going according to R. Yehuda Halivni must then adopt the girsa in the Beraita that Rabbi
Yose, and not R. Yehuda, was the one who said it was brought for idolatry (see also note 1, page 391). This girsa is found only in T and
goes against the other four [-five] sources (H, PT, Sifra, Tosefta Parah 1:2, [Yalkut Shim’oni Ezra 8:35]) and, moreover, he adopts this
girsa according to Rav Papa’s statement as in H!
35
See Friedman, ‫ שוב למימרות האמוראים וסתם התלמוד בסוגיות הבבלי״‬:‘‫אל תתמה על הוספה שנזכר בה שם אמורא‬‎‫ ״‬page 66, that the BT sometimes
attributes anonymous sayings originating from Palestine to R. Yoḥanan. This would especially seem relevant here where in H it is indeed
anonymous. However, this presumably is not the case for the PT.
36
Hayta rather than hawa—This is the version in all three known manuscripts of H (Munich, Paris, Cambridge).
37
See Friedman, "‫מבוא כללי על דרך חקר הסוגיא‬," page 22.
38
As a side note, Horayot is the only tractate which the PT was printed at the end of the volume in the BT (ever since the first edition),
perhaps because of its small size.

6
statements from Rabbi Yoḥanan consecutively, the first addressing a dispute between R. Yehuda and R.
Shim’on if the goats brought for idolatry require leaning (s’micha):
They countered according to Rabbi Yehudah [that goats brought for idolatry do not require leaning, from the following verse
regarding seven goat communal sin-offerings brought in the time of King Hezekiah:] “AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH THE
GOATS OF THE SIN-OFFERINGS [BEFORE THE KING AND THEY LEANED THEIR HANDS ON THEM (II
Chronicles 29:23).” Rabbi Ḥiyah in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was a temporary ruling. Rabbi Yoḥanan inquired: A community
in which one member died, what is [the law] regarding if they can bring [the offering] in his stead39. They countered: But it says,
“THOSE WHO CAME FROM THE CAPTIVITY etc. (Ezra 8:35).” Can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering? Rather, just as
the burnt-offering was not eaten, so the sin-offering was not eaten. Rabbi Yuda says, they brought them [to atone] for
idolatry40. Rabbi Ḥezekiah: Rabbi Yirmiah: Rabbi Ḥiyah in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was a temporary ruling.
Two identical statements (regarding different issues) in the name of the same Amora are likely derived
from a single statement that was later transposed to the other.41 If the first statement in the PT was the
original, and was later transposed to the offerings of Ezra, perhaps it could be that this happened after the
time of Rav Papa or perhaps even after the Stam of Part One of the sugya. Furthermore, if the
transposition happened in Palestine it may not have been transmitted to Babylonia until after the times of
Rav Papa and the Stam of Part One.42 However, it is unclear if the fact that additional Amoraim, Rabbi
Ḥezekiah and Rabbi Yirmiah, are mentioned transmitting the latter statement makes it more likely that
this one is the original.
A plausible approach to our sugya is given by Ḥazon Ish:43 Although the Gemara knew all along that it
wasn’t so, it initially pretended to think that the offerings of Ezra followed the law of idolatry offerings,
“because the way of the Gemara is to elaborate in order to explain the laws that develop through the
argumentation.”44 This approach seems reasonable regarding Part One of the sugya which is Stamaic.
However, regarding Rav Papa’s statement in Part Two this answer is less satisfactory. Indeed Ḥazon Ish

39
The commentators (Pene Moshe and the (anonymous?) commentary to the PT printed in the BT) understand R. Yoḥanan’s inquiry to
be whether a communal sin-offering can still be brought at all after one person died. (Neusner commentated: “Do we scruple concerning
the animal set aside in his behalf?” I’m not sure what he meant, but it would seem that he meant the same as the Pene Moshe). If this is
the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s inquiry, it follows that the response to this inquiry (from the anonymous rabbis) was that since so many
years have passed since the idolatry, at least one person must have died and still it was brought. To this the response is given in Rabbi
Yoḥanan’s name that it was a temporary ruling, and the inquiry still stands whether this would be permissible under normative law.
According to this, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s inquiry is about the case discussed in the following Beraita cited afterward in both PT and BT “It
was taught over there: If the Court ruled [erroneously] and the community committed the sin [based on the ruling] and one member of
the Court died, they are exempt [from bringing an offering], if one member of the community died, they are required [to bring the
offering].” Although according to the explanation given in BT in the name of Rav this Beraita follows Rabbi Meir’s opinion that the
Court brings the offering, and one could still speculate what the rule would be according to Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shim’on that the
community brings it. Nevertheless, it might seem that Rabbi Yoḥanan should have based his inquiry on the Beraita if he was aware of it.
Moreover, according to their explanation, the term “in his stead” is difficult. Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan’s inquiry was whether the offering
is also brought on behalf of one who subsequently died. In practical terms, are the funds to be collected from his estate? This issue was
raised by HaMeiri in Bet Habeḥira on H (not citing the PT). To this the rabbis cited the Sifra with the assumption that all or most of the
previous generation have already died and the offering was brought for the dead, indicating that the dead are atoned for with the offering
(similar to HaMeiri’s proof). (See also below, note 70)
40
Apparently the PT takes for granted that it was brought for idolatry committed long before, as is cited in our sugya in the name of Rav
Yehuda in the name of Shmuel.
41
See Mekorot Umasorot Sanhedrin to Horayot, page 391 note 2.
42
According to Halivni’s theory (A. Bergmann, personal communication) that the Stam of the PT was redacted very late there would
clearly be enough time for the new context of R. Yoḥanan’s statement to have been applied and then transmitted either way between
Babylonia and Palestine before the times of Rav Papa and the earlier Stam. However, according to the more normative opinion that even
the Stam of the PT was closed close to Rav Papa’s time—(The PT was closed circa 360-70 CE, L. Moskowitz, “The formation and
Character of the Jerusalem Talmud,”page 666-7)—the more plausible hypothesis would perhaps be that it was transmitted to Babylonia
later.
43
To H (in the Kodashim volume, page 100).
44
‫אלא כל הסוגיא כאילו היתה הוראה ממש אע״ג דידע דאינו‬...‫״ונראה דעד דמסיק דהוראת שעה היתה הוי ס“ד דהיתה הוראת ב“ד ועבדו בשוגג‬
‫כן מ״מ דרך הגמ׳ להאריך כדי לפרש את ההלכות המתפרשות דרך משא ומתן‬.”
His reasoning that the Gemara knew that it was a temporary ruling was probably more of an assumption that this was obvious than based
on the statement being from Rabbi Yoḥanan in T (which he didn’t mention).

7
was addressing Part One, and he possibly did not intend to include Part Two in this approach. However,
there is a possibility that Rav Papa wasn’t addressing the question in our sugya, rather the Stam put his
statement45 in this context. In that case, Parts One and Two are both Stamaic and fitting to Ḥazon Ish’s
approach.
Another approach to our sugya is suggested by Ḥefeṣ HaShem (his second approach) that, contrary to
Toasfot (and the PT46), (according to the BT) the answer that it was a temporary ruling only applies to the
difference between unintentional and intentional transgressions because both require atonement, but
usually intentional transgressors are not granted the courtesy of atonement by sin-offerings47—this was
the exception of the temporary ruling. In contrast, the concept of atoning for the dead was initially
understood by our sugya to be fundamentally meaningless as “there is no atonement for the dead,”48
whether or not it was a temporary ruling. The only route the Gemara could take was to find a precedent to
show that the dead could be atoned for. He further uses this reasoning to explain why the answer that it
was a temporary ruling couldn’t answer the question of Part One: To bring twelve offerings when they
only are required to bring one (according to Rabbi Meir) would not be a sensible temporary ruling since it
has no basis in normative law. Ḥida in Sha’ar Yosef and Rabbi Eliezer de Avila in Magen Giborim reject
this approach based on the ninety-six rams and seventy-seven lambs mentioned at the end of the sugya.
Those offerings have no more basis in normative law than the twelve bulls, and not only does the Gemara
say that they too were a temporary ruling, but uses them as a proof that there was a temporary ruling
based on precisely this reason that they have no basis in normative law!49 Ḥefeṣ HaShem may contend that
since this temporary ruling was only to require something (burnt offerings) which is entirely within
normative law50 (albeit merely voluntary) it is a reasonable one (in contrast to sin-offerings which cannot
be brought voluntarily). However, this reasoning is not in line with the simple reading of the Gemara’s
reasoning51 which suggests that it viewed the rams and lambs as entirely novel offerings with no basis
under normative law and used this as a proof for a temporary ruling.
One possible way to answer Sha’ar Yosef and Magen Giborim criticism using a critical approach is to
say that the Stam of this last part of the Gemara (“Indeed it is logical…” 3.3) was added later. Thus the
redactors of the original sugya may have held like Ḥefeṣ HaShem’s theory that not having a precedent in
normative law is grounds against something being a temporary ruling and may have not accepted the idea
of a temporary ruling for anything but their intentional transgressing. As for the rams and lambs, although
this later Stam understood from the context of the verse that they were in the same category as the bulls
and goats52 and not just an arbitrary number of voluntary burnt-offerings, the earlier redactors may not

45
It is also possible that the first part of the discussion about Rav Papa’s statement (for example, 2.2-2.5) was also lifted from another
context. This would explain why the Gemara asked, “Where does Rav Papa take this from?” when he could have taken it from the verse
in Ezra (see note 5 for another explanation). Additionally, it would answer Horah Gaver’s question on Segment 2.5: Why did the
Gemara look to the First of the Month offering when the same proof might be evident from the offering central to our sugya and chapter,
the communal offering for following an erroneous court ruling?
46
An argument can perhaps be made that both questions the PT was addressing (in each of the passages citing R. Yoḥanan) fall into the
category as that of the BT that they are not so unprecedented, but at this point this would be splitting hairs. See, however, below, page 11.
47
Yet they are granted atonement by other means, for example, capital punishment.
48
See the manuscript texts cited in note 18. Likewise, according to the printed text this concept was taken for granted. However, in T
there was no such initial stage in the sugya. Rather the original question was the opposite, how can R. Yehuda say that a community
cannot be atoned for after death? Thus Ḥefeṣ HaShem’s second approach is better if the version of H is the original. However, it is not
dependent on this initial stage of the sugya in H. Even according to T the question of atoning for the dead can be understood as a
fundamental issue which would not be waived in a temporary ruling.
49
This is especially difficult according to the version, “NINETY-SIX RAMS… do we find anywhere in the entire Torah?” mentioned in
note 25.
50
This is assuming that the rams and lambs were offered just as burnt offerings. Tosafot understood that they were entirely burnt
(including their hide) like the idolatry offerings and weren’t simply burnt-offerings. Horah Gaver explains that this is included in the
Gemara’s conclusion that it was a temporary ruling; see also Rashash, Sha’ar Yosef, and Ḥidushe Rabbi El’azar Moshe Horowitz.
51
Especially according to the reading “NINETY-SIX RAMS… do we find anywhere in the entire Torah?” as note 49.
52
They are not only mentioned together in the verse, but actually in between the bulls and the goats, making it odd to say that the bulls
and goats are in a separate category.

8
have felt this conviction. Indeed, a number of commentators raise the question how the Gemara knew that
they must have been a temporary ruling (see Merome Sadeh, Meshech Ḥochma to Num 15:24).
In fact it would seem that this hypothesis that the addition “Indeed it is logical” (3.3) was added later
must actually be correct according to Halivni’s view that Stamaic material is of later origin than Amoraic
material. 3.3 is clearly Stamaic, and should thus be of later origin then the question (at 3.1), “but they
were intentional transgressors” which is not Stamaic since it is followed by an Amoraic response, as
Halivni writes53: “And it goes without saying that the questions and difficulties raised that come
immediately before Amoraic responses, even though they were formulated in Stamaic form, aren’t truly
Stamaic. They could be the words of Amoraim, but for mere reasons of style the Gemara redacted them in
Stamaic form.”54 (In fact, even according to the school of Y. I. Halevi that many Stams are of early
origin55, simple questions like these could clearly not have been transmitted without a response and must
have been of the same origin as the response (either historically or recreated).)
However, as Friedman strongly argues56, these rules of thumb are not set in stone. Furthermore,
assuming that the PT cited above is the source of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement it would appear that it was a
Stam (albeit perhaps an earlier one) that put Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement into the context of the question
about intentional transgressing since this question is not mentioned in the PT.57 One may argue that 3.3
must be a later Stam because if indeed it was the same redactors who both put Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement
into the context of 3.1 and added 3.3, why would they attribute the first proof to Rabbi Yoḥanan and then
add the second one as an additional proof? Why not attribute both to Rabbi Yoḥanan?58 This, however, is
not entirely convincing. It would be reasonable to attribute to Rabbi Yoḥanan the proof regarding the very
offerings discussed in the Beraita to which R. Yoḥanan was directly referring59 and then add the proof
from other offerings mentioned in the verse as additional evidence.60
In summary, two difficulties were raised:
Question #1: Why didn’t the Gemara at 3.2 say, “rather” it was a temporary ruling, to imply that the
previous discussions are no longer necessary? Two possible solutions were discussed: a) Ḥefeṣ HaShem’s
first/Halivni’s approach that even though it was a temporary ruling we only use that as a last resort in
order to minimize the extent of which it defied the normative law, b) Ḥefeṣ HaShem’s second approach
that R. Yoḥanan’s statement has no bearing at all on the issues discussed in Parts One and Two.

53
In the prologue to Mekorot Umasorot, Yoma to Hagiga, page 9.
54
Similarly in our sugya he attributes the question at 2.1 to Rav Papa. See further discussion in Friedman, "‫"מבוא כללי על דרך חקר הסוגיא‬
pages 18-19.
55
See Bergmann, “The Formulation of the Talmud, Prevailing Theories,” for a review.
56
In "‫שוב למימרות האמוראים וסתם התלמוד בסוגיות הבבלי‬:‘‫אל תתמה על הוספה שנזכר בה שם אמורא‬‎” page 72 and onward.
57
At first glance it seems that the BT and PT disagree regarding the basis for R. Yoḥanan’s statement, and according to the PT Rabbi
Yoḥanan was not addressing the issue that the idolatry was intentional. However, since R. Yoḥanan did not resolve his inquiry in the PT,
he couldn’t have based his statement that it was a temporary ruling on that issue (unless he only meant to say that perhaps it could have
been a temporary ruling, which is not the straightforward meaning of his statement). Thus the PT is consistent with T that Rabbi Yoḥanan
had other reasons for saying it (consistent with Pene Moshe’s commentary based on the BT that R. Yoḥanan’s basis was their intentional
transgressing), but the PT doesn’t specify what the reason was. Unless the BT had a tradition, not mentioned in the PT, that Rabbi
Yoḥanan’s basis was their intentional transgressing, it is reasonable that the BT created the context for R. Yoḥanan’s statement.
58
Interestingly, as mentioned in note 25, in H where the entire Part Three is Stamaic there is a version that combines 3.2 and 3.3 into one
step, but in T where R. Yoḥanan’s name is preserved there is no such version.
59
To some extent this depends on the difference in versions of the text at 3.3, whether the words, “here too it was a temporary ruling” are
added or not (see note 26). According to the latter version, all four offerings are seen as part of the same ruling and would all be included
in R. Yoḥanan’s statement.
60
Additionally, following Friedman’s theory that literary effect influences substance, it is possible that the proof regarding the offerings
discussed were attributed to R. Yoḥanan so that the sugya would flow better by first addressing the offerings discussed until now and
then bringing another proof to this answer from a new part of the verse.

9
Question #2: Why is it implied in both Part One (Stam) and Part Two (Rav Papa and following Stam) that
the offerings must have concurred with the law if R. Yoḥanan said that they did not? There are three
solutions: a) The possibility that Rav Papa and the Stam of Part One didn’t know of such a statement61, b)
Ḥazon Ish’s explanation that the Gemara made believe it didn’t know for argument’s sake, c) Ḥefeṣ
HaShem’s second approach answers this question as well.
Finally, an important distinction has to be made between the sugya’s Parts One and Two as they relate
to Question #1. This question is more difficult regarding Part Two of the sugya. Indeed Be’er Sheva’,
Keren Orah, Halivni and others don’t mention Part One at all in their discussion of this question. Firstly,
Part One is detached from 3.2 by the lengthy Part Two, and therefore the question why the Gemara at 3.2
didn’t say “rather” is mostly regarding its connection to Part Two. Secondly, in T there is no Part One, and
the language in H could likely have been carried over from T. Indeed there are two instances in H where
the text seems to be transferred from T.62 The first is at Rav Papa’s answer at 2.2, “when do we have a
tradition…” as if the question was based on this tradition regarding a sin-offering whose owner died. This
is indeed how the question (at 2.1) is formulated in T, centered on the Mishnah there, but in H, the
question is simply based on an obvious assumption that that a sin offering cannot be offered after death63.
The second instance is at 3.364, “NINETY-SIX RAMS… to whom do they correspond?” Especially in the
original Hebrew, “elim tish’im… keneged mi,” this phrase seems to be referring to the beginning of the
sentence in the T version, “the bulls and goats correspond to the twelve tribes.”65 Jaffee66 also writes along
these lines that Parts Two and Three “seems to be a condensation67 [of T]. That discussion [T], then, is the
basis into which [Part One] has been integrated.” Furthermore, it is questionable how well Part One has
been integrated with Part Two. Part One aims to make the Beraita concur with Rabbi Meir that the Court
is the one that brings the offering (and with R. Shim’on that both do), yet Rav Papa’s answer and the
entire discussion of Part Two regarding the death of the community follow Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that
the community brings it. According to Rabbi Meir, the problem would be that the members of the Court
died, and Rav Papa’s answer that a community does not die wouldn’t suffice! Ḥazon Ish points out this
difficulty and answers that perhaps all the members of the Court were still alive. The Gemara’s silence on
this matter leaves the impression that Part One was not well integrated with Part Two.

61
Including 1) the less likely possibility that R. Yoḥanan’s statement was unknown in Babylonia before Part Three or 2) the possibility
that R. Yoḥanan’s statement was transposed from the context of the verse in II Chronicles to the verse in Ezra after Parts One and Two.
62
I only mention the textual clues of transfer. A plethora of suggestions can also be made for segments in both T or H being the original
based on theoretical difficulties in one or the other version (as Halivni’s attempt, see above note 34). A discussion of this sort is beyond
the scope of this essay.
63
This point is stronger yet when considering an important difference between the verse in Ezra and the tradition of a sin-offering whose
owner died. The tradition concerns the fate of an animal that was already designated by the owner before he died, yet in Ezra there could
be no designated animals from the time of Zedekiah that were still alive (and under a year old). Tosafot at T (“w’ha”) point out this
discrepancy and explain in the name of Rabbenu Netanel that the question at 2.1 was if, as evident from Ezra, a community can bring an
offering to atone for the dead de novo, even when there was no animal already designated, then all the more so if it was already
designated it should be able to be offered on the altar. The sugya in T indeed flows very well with this explanation. However, in H the
question was on the case of Ezra where there was no designated animal, and Rav Papa’s answer refers to the lesser case as if it includes
the more severe case!
64
According to the printed version and Munich manuscript, see note 25.
65
This first phrase was then edited in H to reconcile it with Part One, see Appendix, Point 8. Thus we see that in some instances the
language carried over from T and in others it was reworked.
66
Page 110.
67
By this his seems to be referring to the Gemara’s question at 2.1. Magen Giborim similarly says that the question in H is abbreviated,
relying on T. Ḥefeṣ HaShem and Rabbi Ḥaim Herschenson also understand the question at 2.1 in H as that of T. Ḥefeṣ HaShem adds that
it is obvious. This is in contrast to Halivni who believes the opposite, that the question in T was erroneously transferred from H. While a
more benign version of this view might be quite reasonable, as I mentioned above (note 34) his reasoning for declaring the T version
erroneous is puzzling to me. Halivni, however, may agree that other aspects of the H text were transferred from T.

10
 This distinction between Parts One and Two also fits well with another such distinction that ought to
be made regarding Ḥefeṣ HaShem’s second approach (somewhat suggestive in his own wording). His
argument that atoning for the dead, assuming that it has no precedent anywhere, wouldn’t be satisfactorily
resolved by saying that it was a temporary ruling is a very strong one. In contrast, his carrying over this
argument to why they brought twelve offerings instead of one according to R. Meir is more of a
hair-splitting one. Since the main difficulty is from Part Two, it would be reasonable to accept his second
approach only regarding atoning for the dead (Part Two) but Tosafot’s approach regarding why they
brought twelve offerings according to Rabbi Meir (Part One). The implication from HaMeiri and Rabbenu
Hillel that the previous answers are not retracted in the conclusion is also only regarding Part Two.
Moreover, Sha’ar Yosef and Magen Giborim’s refutation would now disappear because anything short of
a concept as fundamentally meaningless and absurd as atoning for the dead (if it had no precedent) can
very well be explained by being a temporary ruling. Rabbi Y. Minkovski in Keren Orah may have taken
this approach. He makes Ḥefeṣ HaShem’s point but ignores Part One altogether.
Keren Orah points out, however, that this understanding is inconsistent with the (Stam of68 the) PT that
does use the answer that it was a temporary ruling regarding atoning for the dead (as I alluded to earlier).
However, according to the interpretation of the commentaries69 the PT was not addressing whether the
dead can be atoned for, as in the BT, but whether the death of a single individual creates the problem of “a
sin-offering whose owner died.” This legal issue could easily be waived in a temporary ruling.70
Furthermore, even if the PT was addressing the issue of atoning for the dead it still never had an
assumption that such atonement would be meaningless (as in H). On the contrary! The discussion began
as an inquiry. However, the T version of the sugya also never had such an assumption.71
Question #2, however, would still not be resolved by this method regarding Part One. That is, since it
was a temporary ruling, why does the Stam in Part One talk as if it did follow the law? However, as
previously discussed, Ḥazon Ish‘s approach that the Gemara pretended to not know for the sake of
argument works very well for Part One.

68
Since the response of R. Yoḥanan’s statement is given in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyah it appears that it wasn’t R. Yoḥanan himself who
justified his inquiry (and consequently the counter to his inquiry was not raised to him directly). Rather it was the Stam who applied the
statement in his name to this discussion. Alternatively, R. Ḥiyah (and not the Stam) could have been responding to this discussion (or
another seemingly more remote possibility is that, although his name is mentioned only before R. Yoḥanan’s response, R. Ḥiyah was
quoting the entire discussion that has occurred in R. Yoḥanan’s presence); however, I think the wording is more suggestive that R.
Ḥiyah’s statement in R. Yoḥanan’s name was being applied to the discussion.
69
See note 39.
70
Apparently then Keren Orah understands the PT as I did (or similar) in note 39.
71
See note 48.

11
Appendix: Main differences between the two versions of the sugya

1) The Beraita (at Segment 0.1) has been altered in both H and T but differently. In the Sifra and the PT Rabbi
Yehuda’s statement is introduced as in conflict with Rabbi Yose’s72. However, while the Beraita appears
unaltered in the PT, the editors73 of the BT understood Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yehuda to be saying the same
thing that the goats and bulls were for idolatry and therefore the goat sin-offerings were not eaten but entirely
burnt. They therefore altered the Beraita to avoid misunderstanding. The editors in H accomplished this
without having to alter any words, by simply separating R. Yose’s and R. Yehuda’s statements into two
separate Beraitot, whereas in T a more aggressive approach was taken to alter the Beraita74. (Additionally, in
both H and T some Aramaic words were added for clarification.75)
2) In H the part about atoning for a community after death (Part Two) is introduced as a side question while in
T it is the starting point of the sugya.
3) In H the questioner takes it for granted that a community cannot be atoned for after death (and is therefore
puzzled how to understand the verse/Beraita), and in T it’s introduced as evidence that a community can be
atoned for after death.
4) In H the difficulty at 2.1 is universal. In T it is only according to R. Yehuda (Mishnah Temurah 15a).
5) In T the final answer regarding Rav Papa’s source is from the First of the Month offering; in H this source is
refuted.
6) H has 2.7 as the final answer. 2.7 is not mentioned at all in T (but added to the Florence manuscript to T and
has parallels in BT Keretut 26a (interestingly in the name of Rav Papa), PT Sotah 9:6, Sifre Deut 210).
7) In T 2.9 is introduced as an alternative explanation to answer the verse-Beraita without being dependent on
Rav Papa’s innovation, whereas in H there is no alternative to Rav Papa and 2.9 is introduced as a
development of 2.7 (to answer the question in 2.8).76
8) In T at 3.3 it states that the twelve bulls and goats correspond to the twelve tribes (consistent with the
opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in Mishnah Horayot 5a) and in turn asks, but who do the lambs correspond to? In H
the sugya had already elaborated earlier (at Segments 1.1-1.2) regarding what the twelve bulls and goats
correspond to according to the various opinions in the Mishnah (5a), hence it omits this statement.

72
As Merome Sadeh to H and Rabbi Ṣ’vi Hirsh Rappaport in Tosafot HaA’zara on the Sifra explain, according to Rabbi Yose (according
to the text in the Sifra) the goats were offered on the outer altar (and their hide was not burnt), just like burnt-offerings. The only way
they differed from regular (private) sin-offerings was that their flesh was “not eaten” but sacrificed on the altar. This is just like the
sin-offering of the Levites discussed in the previous segment in the Sifra (regarding which the Sifra says, “similarly Rabbi Yose says”).
Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that the goats were for idolatry which differ from burnt-offerings which (contrary to the insinuation of
their somewhat misleading English term) are merely “not eaten” and are offered on the outer altar. Goats for idolatry are offered in the
inner sanctuary and are entirely burnt. See further in Menaḥot 45a that Rabbi Yose says that the offerings of the time of Ezra were
“miluim.” However, it is unclear if that (which is based on Ezekiel 45) refers to the ones mentioned in Ezra 8:35, but see Rambam
Ma’ase Korbanot 2:15 (cited in Tosafot HaA’zara). (As for Rabbi Yehudah (Menaḥot ibid) leaving the verse in Ezekiel unexplained, that
is straightforward and irrelevant here).
73
Or earlier transmitters of the Beraita
74
Interestingly enough, whereas Yefe ‘Enaim to T “corrects” the version there as in H, Hagahot HaBaḥ to H (printed at 14a) does the
opposite. Similarly, Hagahot HaGra on the margin of Tosefta Parah corrects that text as per T. The Rishonaic commentators on the Sifra,
Rabad and Rabbenu Hillel, leave the text intact, but following the Talmud, explain that they are not in conflict. Interestingly, another
approach has emerged to alter the Sifra by adding the words “and so did” (R. Yehuda say) (‫ )וכן היה ר׳ יהודה אומר‬before R. Yehuda’s
statement (which I think doesn’t have an authentic feel in this context and was certainly not the version of the text in front of the BT).
Tosafot to H suggest this version to the Sifra, and these words appear in Tosefta Parah, Yalkut Shim’oni to Ezra 8:35 and in the
commentary attributed to Rabbenu Hananel in H (quoting the Sifra). This is an instance where our text of the Sifra and the PT are both
more original than our text of the Tosefta (see P. Mandel, “The Tosefta,” note 15, page 321).
75
However, the attribution to Rava in T is puzzling. I’m not sure what Jaffee means by calling the Aramaic additions to H, “revisions” by
the Gemara “in light of its own interests.”
76
But see note 32.

12
Works cited by author
Bergmann, Ari. “The Formulation of the Talmud, Prevailing Theories,” In: The Two Voices of the Bavli: The Oral Formulation of the
Talmud, New York 2015.
de Avila, R. Eliezer, Magen Giborim (on the tractates Baba Meṣi’a, Horayot) Livorno 178177 www.hebrewbooks.org/44893.
Friedman, Shamma".‫מבוא כללי על דרך חקר הסוגיא‬," In: ‫סוגיות בחקר התלמוד הבבלי אסופת מחקרים בענייני מבנה הרכב ונוסח‬, New York and Jerusalem
2010
Friedman, Shamma "‫ שוב למימרות האמוראים וסתם התלמוד‬:‘‫ ”אל תתמה על הוספה שנזכר בה שם אמורא‬In: ‫סוגיות בחקר התלמוד הבבלי אסופת מחקרים‬
‫בענייני מבנה הרכב ונוסח‬, New York and Jerusalem 2010.
Ḥida (R. Ḥaim Yosef David Azulai), Sha’ar Yosef (on tractate Horayot). Livorno 1756. www.hebrewbooks.org/19259.
R. Hillel, Pirush R. Hillel ben Elyakum to the Sifra, Jerusalem 1961. . www.hebrewbooks.org/40720.
Halevi, R. Yiṣḥak Isaac. Dorot Harishonim , Pressburg, 1897 (Vol III) www.hebrewbooks.org/20282, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1901 (Vol II)
www.hebrewbooks.org/20281.
Halivni, David. Mekorot Umasorot, from Yoma to Hagiga. Jerusalem 1975.
Halivni, David. Mekorot Umasorot, from Sanhedrin to Horayot. Jerusalem 2012.
HaMeiri, R. Menaḥem ben Shlomo. Bet Habeḥira (on the Talmud ), Jerusalem 1968. 77, 78
HaMeiri, R. Menaḥem ben Shlomo Ḥibur HaT’shuva, New York 1950. www.hebrewbooks.org/41637.
R. Hananel (printed on the margin to the Talmud, Vilna edition)
Herschenson, R. Ḥaim, Ḥidushei ḤaReḥa (on tractate Horayot), volume I. Jerusalem, 1920. www.hebrewbooks.org/21242.
ibn ‘Aṭar, R. Ḥaim, Ḥefeṣ HaShem (on tractates Berachot, Shabat, Horayot, Ḥulin) Amsterdam 1732.77 www.hebrewbooks.org/14763.
Jaffee, Martin S. The Talmud of Babylonia, an American Translation, Volume XXVI. Tractate Horayot. Brown Judaic Studies. 1987
Mandel, Paul. “The Tosefta,” Chapter 13, The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume IV (Katz, S.T. Editor) Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
Minkovski, R. Yiṣḥak. Keren Orah (on various tractates), Vilna 185177, 78 www.hebrewbooks.org/37763.
Neusner, Jacob. The Talmud of the land of Israel Translated by Jacob Neusner, Volume 34 Horayot and Niddah, University of Chicago
Press, 1982.
Rabad (R. Avraham ben David), Pirush HaRabad (on the Sifra), Vienna 1862/ Jerusalem 1959, www.hebrewbooks.org/14026.
Rashash (R. Shmuel Shtrashon), Hidushei HaRashash on most tractates, printed in back of the Talmud, Vilna Edition.
Rappaport, R. Ṣ’vi Hirsh, Tosafot HaA’zara (to the Sifra) Volume I. Vilna 1845 www.hebrewbooks.org/38153.

Works cited by work

Be’er Sheva’, R. Yissachar Baer Eilenburg. Venice, 1614 77 www.hebrewbooks.org/44291.
Hagahot HaBaḥ, R. Yoel Sirkis, printed on the margin of the Talmud, Vilna edition.
Hagahot HaGra, R. Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna, on the margin of Tosefta Parah (Talmud, Vilna edition).
Ḥazon Ish, R. Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, (on various tractates relating to kodashim) www.hebrewbooks.org/14337.
Ḥefeṣ HaShem, (See by author: ibn ‘Aṭar, R. Ḥaim)
Ḥibur HaT’shuva, (See by author: Hameiri)
Ḥidushe Rabbi Eli’ezer Moshe Horowitz, R. El’azar Moshe Horowitz, on most tractates, printed in back of the Talmud, Vilna edition. 77
Horah Gaver, R. Beṣalel Ransburg. On tractate Horayot, Prague 180277
Imre Binyamin-Yosher Horai, on tractate Horayot, 2nd edition, R. Meir Binyamin Yuzhuk, Bnei Berak 1994.
Keren Orah (See by author: Minkovski, R. Yiṣḥak)
Magen Giborim (See by author: de Avila, R. Eliezer)
Merome Sadeh, R. Naftali Ṣevi Yehuda Berlin (lectures on the Talmud), Jerusalem 1956-57. 77 www.hebrewbooks.org/40994-40998.
Meshech Ḥochma, R. Meir Simḥa HaKohen, (On the Pentateuch), Riga 1927. www.hebrewbooks.org/14061.
Musaf Rashi, R. Meir David Ben Shem. On the margin to the Talmud, Nehard’a Edition, Jerusalem 2008
www.hebrewbooks.org/37952-37970.
Oṣar HaPirushim ‘al masechet Horayot , Dov Genechovski editor, Tel Aviv 1969 www.hebrewbooks.org/14592.
Pene Moshe, R. Moshe Margolis (on the margin of the Standard Editions of the Jerusalem Talmud).
Shiṭa Mekubeṣet , R. Beṣalel Ashkenazi (printed on the margin to Temurah and other tractates).
Tosfot Harosh, R. Asher ben Yeḥiel (printed on the margin to tractate Horayot).
Yefe ‘Enaim, R. Arye Leib Yellin (printed in back of the Talmud, Vilna edition).

77
The commentary on tractate Horayot also reprinted in Oṣar HaPirushim ‘al masechet Horayot
78
Publishing date is only for tractate Horayot.

13