QUESTION: The Gemara questions whether the past year's Korbanos that were not offered may be used the following year. It proves that they may not be used from a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah says that if one designates a Par and a Sa'ir for Yom Kippur and then a different Par and Sa'ir are offered instead, the original Par and Sa'ir must be put to death. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Shimon rule that they must graze until they become blemished. The Gemara asks that if Korbanos from the past year may be used for the following year, then the original Par and Sa'ir should not be put to death (or left to graze), but rather they should be used for the Korbanos of Yom Kippur of the following year.

The Gemara's proof is not clear. The reason why each animal is put to death is because it is a "Chatas she'Niskapru Ba'aleha," a Chatas whose owner attained atonement through another Korban. A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that such a Chatas is put to death. It makes no difference whether the animal is fit to be used as a Korban next year; it must be put to death as the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai requires.

ANSWER: The TOSFOS YESHANIM and the RITVA answer that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai requires that a "Chatas she'Niskapru Ba'aleha" be put to death only because nothing else can be done with that animal. Once a Chatas is designated for a particular purpose, it becomes reserved exclusively for that purpose. If the owner attains atonement by bringing another animal as his Chatas, the first Chatas no longer may be offered as a Chatas, either because it was designated to atone for a specific transgression but atonement was already achieved for that transgression (Tosfos Yeshanim), or because there is no reason to expect that the owner will sin again inadvertently (Ritva). (The Ritva maintains that when one designates an animal as a Korban Chatas, it does not become reserved to atone for the specific transgression he committed, but rather it becomes reserved to atone for the general prohibition he violated. Therefore, if he inadvertently violates that prohibition again, he may offer the Chatas to attain atonement.)

Therefore, the rule of "Chatas she'Niskapru Ba'aleha" does not apply to a public Chatas (Chatas Tzibur) offered on the festivals and on Yom Kippur. Those Korbenos Chatas attain atonement not for a specific sin committed, but for a general category of transgression that was violated during the past year ("Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav," entry into the Beis ha'Mikdash while Tamei, or eating Kodshim while Tamei). Such a Korban is fit to be offered the following year since it is not designated to atone for a specific act. Therefore, if not for the Gemara's proof from the Beraisa, this type of Chatas should be offered the following year.

QUESTION: The Gemara questions Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that this year's Korbanos may be used for the following year (65a) from a case in which the Sa'ir la'Shem was lost and another Chatas was offered in its place, and then the original Sa'ir was found. In that case, the Halachah requires that the original Sa'ir be put to death. According to Rebbi Yehudah, though, why is the Sa'ir not kept until the following Yom Kippur and offered then? The Gemara answers that the Goral of the previous year is not valid for the following year, and therefore the Sa'ir cannot be offered as the Chatas la'Shem next year because a new Goral must be made. The Gemara asks that even if a new Goral must be made, they should keep the Sa'ir until next year and use it for the new Goral.

The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. If the Sa'ir was already chosen by the previous year's Goral as the Sa'ir la'Shem, a new Goral cannot be made on this Sa'ir because its status cannot be changed. If the new Goral chooses this Sa'ir as the Sa'ir la'Azazel and not as the Sa'ir la'Shem, the Goral does not take effect because the Sa'ir was already sanctified as the Sa'ir la'Shem.

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH and TOSFOS YESHANIM apparently understand that when the Gemara says that the previous year's Goral does not work for the following year, it means that the effects of last year's Goral are annulled. Consequently, the original Sa'ir loses its status as the Sa'ir la'Shem. However, its designation as one of the two Se'irim of Yom Kippur remains, and therefore it should be used as one of the two Se'irim for the Goral of the following Yom Kippur.

(b) The MENACHEM MESHIV NEFESH explains that the Gemara means that the Sa'ir should be kept and used for the Goral of the following year. If the Goral chooses this Sa'ir again as the Sa'ir la'Shem, then the Sa'ir may be used for that purpose. If the Goral does not choose this Sa'ir as the Sa'ir la'Shem, then it indeed will not be used but instead will be put to death.

(c) The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM points out that early manuscripts (such as the Munich manuscript) omit this question from the text of the Gemara.

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Shekalim (2:1) in which Rebbi Yehudah says that the Korbanos of one year may be offered the following year. The Gemara asks that in the Beraisa (65a), Rebbi Yehudah states that one may not use the previous year's Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur for the following year's Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests several answers for why the Par and Sa'ir are different from other Korbanos.

The Gemara suggests that the Sa'ir may not be used the following year because the Goral of one year is not valid for the following year. Since the Sa'ir was already sanctified as the Sa'ir la'Shem, it cannot be included in the Goral of the following year.

The Gemara rejects this answer because it does not apply to the Par (which is not selected by a Goral). The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Par should be put to death because of a Gezeirah of the Sa'ir (in order to prevent people from mistakenly keeping the Sa'ir for the following year). The Gemara asserts that it is not logical to put an animal to death because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan.

The Gemara then suggests that the reason for why the Par may be used the following year is because of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha" (in order to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that a Chatas whose owner died does not have to be put to death), or because of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah" (in order to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that a Chatas whose first year has passed may be offered as a Korban). The Gemara rejects these answers because they do not apply to the Sa'ir. The Gemara mentions again that it is also not logical to put an animal to death because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan.

Why does the Gemara not simply combine the valid explanation for why the Sa'ir is not kept for the following year with the valid explanation for why the Par is not kept for the following year? The reason why the Sa'ir is not kept for the following year is because the Goral from the previous year is not valid for the next year, and the reason why the Par is not kept is because of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha" or "Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah." These two reasons together explain why the Par and Sa'ir differ from other Korbanos. (GEVURAS ARI)

ANSWER: The GEVURAS ARI suggests that when the Gemara says that it is not logical that an animal should die because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan (since the Par must die for a valid reason, the Rabanan decreed that the Sa'ir must also die), it also means that it is not logical that the Par should die because of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha" or "Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah." Consequently, the Gemara has no explanation for why the Par must die and is not kept for the following year.