Horayot 6

The biblical book of Ezra recounts the return of some of the Jewish people in exile in Babylonia to the land of Israel. When they reached the holy land, they “sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel, 12 bulls for all Israel, 96 rams, 77 lambs, 12 goats as a sin offering; all this was a burnt offering unto the Lord” (Ezra 8:35). What better way to celebrate the prophesied return than through sacrificing to God?

On today’s daf, the rabbis read this biblical verse very carefully and notice something strange. The verse states both that the sacrifice was a burnt offering and that it was sin offering. But according to rabbinic tradition, these are two different types of sacrifices. So which one is it? 

Is it possible that a sin offering is a burnt offering? Rather, say: All this was like a burnt offering. Just as a burnt offering is not eaten, so too, this sin offering is not eaten, as it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: For idol worship they brought them.

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: For the idol worship that they practiced during the days of Zedekiah.

The Talmud concludes that these sacrifices were actually sin offerings for idol worship, but like a burnt offering, they were burnt completely on the altar rather than having some of the meat go to the priests. Problem solved. But Shmuel’s statement offers its own challenges. Zedekiah was the last king of the Davidic dynasty, under whose reign the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and deported many of the Israelites. By the time of Ezra’s return, almost 50 years had passed (and it would be another 20 until the Temple was rebuilt). If the sin offerings were meant to repent for idolatry performed during Zedekiah’s reign, then presumably those who had worshipped idols were dead by the time the offerings were brought. How could the Jews offer a sin offering on behalf of sinners who had already died? 

Rav Pappa said: When it is learned that a sin offering whose owners have died (is to allow the animal) to die, this matter is with regard to an individual but not with regard to a congregation, because there is no death with regard to a congregation.

Rav Pappa insists that, while an individual might die and, with their death, negate the need to bring a sin offering, a community never dies. Some members of the group will have inevitably passed on, but the community as a whole remains alive. And so, any sins incurred by the community as a whole, even in the somewhat distant past, require atonement. 

Rav Pappa’s explanation is a powerful statement about our relationship to our ancestors, our shared values and our responsibility for their mistakes. The Talmud next offers a second possible explanation for why the returning exiles had to offer sin offerings for the sins of their ancestors: Perhaps some of those who had originally been deported were still alive!

Yes, it is indeed so, as it is written: “Many of the priests and Levites and heads of patrilineal houses, the elders that had seen the first house standing on its foundation, wept with a loud voice when this house was before their eyes. And many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12).

These elderly leaders would have been children and teenagers when Zedekiah reigned and idolatry ran rampant. And yet they too were implicated in communal practices. Perhaps as long as some of those who had been complicit in the sin were still alive, the community as a whole is seen as responsible. To be a part of a community can be a wonderful thing, with shared values and practices and social support when you need it.

But as both explanations for the sin offerings in Ezra make clear, being a part of a community also comes with serious responsibility — to atone not only for your own sins, but those of the past. Because if left unatoned for, the past continues to shape — and pollute — the present.

Read all of Horayot 6 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 7, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.