Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 12, 2021 | 讘壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Yoma 62

If the blood spills before all the sprinklings are finished, a new animal is slaughtered. What happens to the animals whose blood was sprinkled? If it was a goat, a new lottery must be done 鈥 are all the goats that were chosen to go to Azazel actually sent to Azazel? Rav Nachman concludes that only one is sent. Which one? The two goats are supposed to be identical in a number of ways, but if they are not, they can still be used. What happens if one of them dies? From where is the law derived that they should be identical but if not, they can still be used? The same laws apply also to the two lambs brought for a leper and the two birds used in the leper鈥檚 purification process and for the two lambs used for the Shabbat additional sacrifices. Why does it not apply to the two lambs used for the Tamid daily sacrifice?

讜讻讬 注讚专讜 砖讜专祝 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讜 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讜

And does he burn his flock? The Torah obligated him to burn only one goat, and yet there are times when he must burn several, as stated in the mishna. Rabbi Na岣an retorts: Is it comparable? There, with respect to burning the goats, it is not written: 鈥淚t,鈥 which would restrict the burning to only one animal, whereas here, with regard to the scapegoat, it is written: 鈥淚t,鈥 which indicates that one animal alone is sent away. The objection has been refuted and indeed only one scapegoat is used.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 诪砖诇讞 讜专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞专讜谉 诪砖诇讞 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 (讘专 讗砖讬) 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讜谉 诪砖诇讞 拽住讘专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙诪专 讘讜 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following issue. Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: He sends the first goat; and Rav Shimi said in the name of Rava: He sends the last of them. The Gemara analyzes the matter: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Shimi bar Ashi in the name of Rava, who said that he sends the last of them, it works out well, as he probably holds as stated above, that the last goat is used, since the atonement is completed with it. However, with regard to Rav Pappi in the name of Rava, what does he hold? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that when several identical items are available for a mitzva, the mitzva is performed with the first of them.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽讜驻讜转 讚转谞谉 (专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专) 砖诇砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 砖讘讛诐 转讜专诪讬谉 讗转 讛诇砖讻讛 讜讛讬讛 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗讘讙

The Gemara asks: To which of the halakhot of Rabbi Yosei is this referring? From which of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statements is this conclusion derived? If we say it is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to containers, this is problematic. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: There were three containers of three se鈥檃 each, with which they collect the donation from the chamber. Every year the money donated to the Temple by the people in the month of Adar was placed in a special chamber. The treasurers subsequently filled three containers with these coins and used the funds to purchase the communal offerings, e.g., the daily offerings and the additional offerings for Festivals. And the letters alef, beit, gimmel were written on the containers.

讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘讙 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 谞转专诪讛 专讗砖讜谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讛讬诪谞讛 专讗砖讜谉 砖诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉

And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Why were the letters alef, beit, gimmel written on them? It was to ascertain from which of them the donation was collected first, so that they could bring the money from it first, as the mitzva is to use the coins of the first container. This apparently proves that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is a mitzva to use the first item.

讚讬诇诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬转讞讝讗讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝讗讬 讘转专讬讬转讗

The Gemara responds: This is no proof, as perhaps at the time when the first container was fit to be used, the last was not yet fit to be used. When the first container was brought it was fit and designated for the offerings, whereas the coins in the second container had not yet been collected, and therefore the coins in the first container must be used first as they were sanctified first. Here, however, the scapegoat is consecrated only when its pair is sacrificed, and therefore the two cases are dissimilar.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚驻住讞 (讚转谞谉) 讛诪驻专讬砖 驻住讞讜 讜讗讘讚 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讛专讬 砖谞讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 砖谞讬 诪讜讘讞专 诪诪谞讜 讬讘讬讗谞讜

Rather, the principle that one uses the first item is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the Paschal offering, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separated a sheep for his Paschal offering and the sheep was lost, and he separated another sheep in its stead, and afterward the first sheep was found, and they both stand before him, he sacrifices whichever of them he wants; this is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva is performed with the first sheep. And if the second was of superior quality to it, he brings the second sheep. This proves that according to Rabbi Yosei, if there are two animals equally fit for an offering, one brings the animal that was chosen first.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪爪讜转谉 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讘诪专讗讛 讜讘拽讜诪讛 讜讘讚诪讬诐 讜讘诇拽讬讞转谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讞 讗讞讚 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讞专 讻砖专讬谉

MISHNA: The mitzva of the two Yom Kippur goats, the goat sacrificed to God and the goat sent to Azazel that are brought as a pair, is as follows, ab initio: That they will both be identical in appearance, i.e., color, and in height, and in monetary value, and their acquisition must be as one, i.e., they must be purchased together. And even if they are not identical, nevertheless, they are valid. And similarly, if he acquired one today and one tomorrow, they are valid.

诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙专讬诇 诪转 讬拽讞 讝讜讙 诇砖谞讬 讜讗诐 诪砖讛讙专讬诇 诪转 讬讘讬讗 讝讜讙 讗讞专 讜讬讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛诐 讘转讞讬诇讛

If one of the goats died, if it died before the High Priest drew the lots, he immediately takes a counterpart for the second, since neither has yet been designated. And if it died after the High Priest drew the lots, he brings another pair of goats and draws lots over them from the start.

讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 砖诇 砖诐 诪转 讝讛 砖注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讙讜专诇 诇砖诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讗诐 砖诇 注讝讗讝诇 诪转 讝讛 砖注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讙讜专诇 诇注讝讗讝诇 讬转拽讬讬诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讛砖谞讬 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诪讜转

After that lottery he utters a stipulation: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn in the second lottery shall stand in its stead; and if the one to be sent to Azazel died, that goat upon which the lot for Azazel was drawn shall stand in its stead. And the second, superfluous goat, i.e., in the case where a new pair of goats was brought, should graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it will be sold, and the money received from its sale will go toward the purchase of a public gift-offering. Although for individual sin-offerings in similar circumstances there is no remedy and it is left to die, that is not the case here, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. On the other hand, Rabbi Yehuda says: In this it should be left to die.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐

And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are brought and lots are drawn.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬拽讞 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 注讝讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 砖注讬专讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖讬专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖注讬专 砖注讬专 专讬讘讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It states: 鈥淗e shall take two goats鈥 (Leviticus 16:5). The minimum number indicated by a plural term, as the word goats is here, is two. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: Two? It teaches that the two should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if the two goats are not identical they are nevertheless valid? The verses state and repeat the word goat, goat (Leviticus 16:9鈥10) to amplify and indicate that the goats are valid even if they are not identical.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 注讬讻讜讘讗 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara asks: The reason is specifically because the Merciful One in the Torah amplified and thereby indicated that the goats are valid even if they are not identical. Doesn鈥檛 this indicate that if the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said the goats are disqualified? From where do we derive that the goats are prevented from being sacrificed if they are not identical? The principle with regard to sacrificial offerings is that if the Torah indicates a requirement only once, it is a mitzva ab initio, and if the Torah repeats the requirement, it is considered indispensable in order for the offering to be valid.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: It could enter your mind to say that since the word two, two, two, is written three times in the relevant passage, the repetition indicates that the goats are disqualified if they are not identical. Therefore, the Torah had to indicate that the goats are valid even if they are not identical.

讜讛砖转讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 砖注讬专 砖注讬专 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇诪专讗讛 讜讞讚 诇拽讜诪讛 讜讞讚 诇讚诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And now that the Merciful One has amplified by repeating the word goat, goat, why do I need the threefold repetition of two, two, two? The Gemara answers that it teaches how the mitzva should be performed ab initio: One of the terms indicates that the goats should be identical in appearance, one indicates they should be identical in height, and one indicates they should be identical in monetary value.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讻讘砖讬 诪爪讜专注 讬拽讞 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 讻讘砖讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖讬专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 专讬讘讛

The Gemara comments that this was also taught in a baraita with regard to the lambs brought by a leper, based upon the verse: 鈥淗e shall take two lambs鈥 (Leviticus 14:10). The minimum number of lambs, which is a plural term, is two. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢wo鈥? It teaches that the two should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if the two lambs are not identical they are nevertheless valid? The verses state: Lamb, lamb, repetitively, to amplify and indicate that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 注讬讻讜讘讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讛讬讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: The reason is specifically because the Merciful One in the Torah amplified and thereby indicated that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical. Doesn鈥檛 this indicate that if the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said the lambs are disqualified? From where do we derive that the lambs are prevented from being sacrificed if they are not identical? The Gemara answers: It could enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:2), the verse indicates that every detail stated in this context is indispensable. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to indicate that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical.

讜讛砖转讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 转讛讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖讗专 讛讜讬转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara asks: And now that the Merciful One has amplified by repeating the word lamb, lamb, why do I need the phrase 鈥渢his shall be鈥? The Gemara answers: This phrase applies to the rest of the halakhot that are included in the atonement ritual of the leper, which are indispensable.

(讜转谞谉) 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 诪爪讜专注 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 爪驻专讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 爪驻专讬诐 (砖谞讬诐) 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 砖讜讜转 讻砖专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 爪驻讜专 爪驻讜专 专讬讘讛

The Gemara comments: And we also learned similarly with regard to the birds used for the purification of a leper. The verse states that the priest should take 鈥渢wo birds鈥 (Leviticus 14:4), and the minimum number indicated by the plural term birds is two. What is the meaning when the verse states: Two? It indicates that the two birds should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if they are not identical they are valid? The verses state: Bird, bird (Leviticus 14:5鈥6), repetitively, to amplify.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 驻住讜诇讜转 注讻讜讘讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讛讬讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: The reason is specifically because the Merciful One in the Torah amplified and thereby indicated that the birds are valid even if they are not identical. Doesn鈥檛 this indicate that if the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said the birds are disqualified? From where do we derive that the birds are prevented from being used if they are not identical? The Gemara answers: It could enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper,鈥 the verse indicates that every detail stated in this context is indispensable. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to indicate that the birds are valid even if they are not identical.

讜讛砖转讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 爪驻讜专 转讛讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖讗专 讛讜讬转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara asks: And now that the Merciful One has amplified by repeating the word bird, why do I need the phrase 鈥渢his shall be鈥? The Gemara answers: This phrase applies to the rest of the halakhot that are included in the atonement ritual of the leper, which are indispensable.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 转诪讬讚讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 讻讘砖讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖讬专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 专讬讘讛 讜诇诪爪讜讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara suggests: If so, this line of reasoning should be applied to the daily offerings as well. Let us say that when the verse states: 鈥淭wo lambs of the first year, day by day, continually鈥 (Exodus 29:38), the minimum number indicated by the word lambs is two. What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢wo鈥? It indicates that the two lambs should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if the two are not identical they are valid? The verse states the word lamb, lamb (Exodus 29:39), repetitively, to amplify. Let us learn from here that in order to fulfill the mitzva in the preferred manner, we also require that the two lambs used for the daily offering be identical.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 诇讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara responds: That verse is needed for that which was taught in a baraita: 鈥淭wo lambs of the first year, day by day鈥 (Exodus 29:38), indicates that the lambs must be slaughtered opposite the location of the sun at that time of day.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗转 讛讻讘砖 讗讞讚 转注砖讛 讘讘拽专 讜讗转 讛讻讘砖 讛砖谞讬 转注砖讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讗诪讜专 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诇讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Do you say it means opposite the location of the sun at that time of day, or does it only mean to say that two lambs must be sacrificed for the obligation of each day? The Gemara answers: When it states: 鈥淥ne lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the afternoon鈥 (Numbers 28:4), the obligation of each day is stated explicitly. And how do I uphold the verse: 鈥淭wo lambs of the first year, day by day鈥? It teaches that the lambs must be slaughtered opposite the location of the sun at that time of day.

讻讬爪讚 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讛讬讛 谞砖讞讟 注诇 拽专谉 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 注诇 讟讘注转 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛讬讛 谞砖讞讟 注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 注诇 讟讘注转 砖谞讬讛

How is this done in actuality? The daily offering of the morning was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard opposite the northwest corner of the altar, on the second ring, across from the sun, which rises in the east. And the daily offering of the afternoon was slaughtered opposite the northeast corner of the altar, on the second ring, across the sun, which is located in the west in the afternoon.

诪讜住驻讬谉 砖诇 砖讘转 讜讚讗讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara comments: When the Torah states: 鈥淭wo lambs鈥 (Numbers 28:9) with regard to the additional offerings brought on Shabbat, the word two, which is unnecessary, certainly indicates that the two should be identical ab initio.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讞讜抓 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪砖讛讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 砖诇 砖诐 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 砖诇 注讝讗讝诇

The Sages taught: If the High Priest slaughtered the two Yom Kippur goats outside the Temple courtyard when he had not yet drawn lots to determine which of them is to be sacrificed to God and which is to be sent to Azazel, he is liable to receive the punishment of karet for both of them, as they are both fit for use as an offering. If he slaughtered them after he drew lots for them, he is liable for slaughtering the goat designated for God, which is a sacrificial offering, and he is exempt for slaughtering the goat designated for Azazel, as it is not a sacrificial offering.

注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this baraita. With regard to the statement that if he slaughtered the goats when he had not yet drawn lots, he is liable for both of them, the Gemara asks: For what are they fit? Before the lots are drawn, neither goat is fit for use as an offering. The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda said: He is liable since they are fit to be used as the goat whose sacrificial rites are performed outside. These two goats are fit for use as the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, whose sacrificial rites are performed outside of the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the goats have the status of sacrificial offerings.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讚诇讗 讚诪讞讜住专 讛讙专诇讛 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 讚诪讞住专讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about the goat whose sacrificial rites are performed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat selected to be sacrificed as a sin-offering, for which the goats are not valid because they lack the lottery? They are also unfit to be used as the goat whose rites are performed outside the Sanctuary, as they lack the service of the day. The entire Yom Kippur service must be performed in the proper sequence, and several steps have to be executed before the additional offerings are sacrificed, including the sprinkling of the bull鈥檚 and goat鈥檚 blood, and the burning of the handful of incense. Since the additional offerings cannot yet be sacrificed, the goats cannot be considered fit for these offerings, and one should not be liable to receive karet for slaughtering the goats outside the Temple courtyard.

拽住讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda holds that an offering is not considered to be lacking time if it is to be brought on that day. An offering is considered lacking time, and therefore unfit, if it is supposed to be brought on a different day. However, if it is the proper day but the right moment has not yet arrived, the offering is considered valid. On the other hand, before the High Priest draws lots to determine which of the goats will be sacrificed to God and which sent to Azazel, even though it is the proper day, the goats are not yet considered valid offerings because there is a necessary action that the High Priest must take with regard to the goat itself before it can be brought as an offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞讜住专 讛讙专诇讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖谞驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 驻转讜讞 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞注讜诇

Ravina said: Now that Rav 岣sda said that although the drawing of lots is external to the animals themselves, an animal lacking the lottery is comparable to an animal lacking an action and is not yet considered a valid offering, a statement can be made with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Peace-offerings that one slaughtered in the Temple before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated with regard to peace-offerings: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), which teaches that it must be slaughtered when the entrance is open and serves as an actual entrance, but not when it is locked. As long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple the doors to the Sanctuary, remain closed, one may not sacrifice the peace-offerings, and if they are sacrificed, they are disqualified.

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 58 – 63 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the blood application on the Golden Alter and the order and direction that it...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 62: When Identical Goats Are Not Identical

A focus on the goats of the Yom Kippur avodah. They have to be alike exactly - but how identical...

Yoma 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 62

讜讻讬 注讚专讜 砖讜专祝 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讜 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讜

And does he burn his flock? The Torah obligated him to burn only one goat, and yet there are times when he must burn several, as stated in the mishna. Rabbi Na岣an retorts: Is it comparable? There, with respect to burning the goats, it is not written: 鈥淚t,鈥 which would restrict the burning to only one animal, whereas here, with regard to the scapegoat, it is written: 鈥淚t,鈥 which indicates that one animal alone is sent away. The objection has been refuted and indeed only one scapegoat is used.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 诪砖诇讞 讜专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞专讜谉 诪砖诇讞 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 (讘专 讗砖讬) 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞专讜谉 诪砖诇讞 拽住讘专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙诪专 讘讜 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following issue. Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: He sends the first goat; and Rav Shimi said in the name of Rava: He sends the last of them. The Gemara analyzes the matter: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Shimi bar Ashi in the name of Rava, who said that he sends the last of them, it works out well, as he probably holds as stated above, that the last goat is used, since the atonement is completed with it. However, with regard to Rav Pappi in the name of Rava, what does he hold? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that when several identical items are available for a mitzva, the mitzva is performed with the first of them.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽讜驻讜转 讚转谞谉 (专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专) 砖诇砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 砖讘讛诐 转讜专诪讬谉 讗转 讛诇砖讻讛 讜讛讬讛 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛诐 讗讘讙

The Gemara asks: To which of the halakhot of Rabbi Yosei is this referring? From which of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statements is this conclusion derived? If we say it is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to containers, this is problematic. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: There were three containers of three se鈥檃 each, with which they collect the donation from the chamber. Every year the money donated to the Temple by the people in the month of Adar was placed in a special chamber. The treasurers subsequently filled three containers with these coins and used the funds to purchase the communal offerings, e.g., the daily offerings and the additional offerings for Festivals. And the letters alef, beit, gimmel were written on the containers.

讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘讙 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 谞转专诪讛 专讗砖讜谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讛讬诪谞讛 专讗砖讜谉 砖诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉

And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Why were the letters alef, beit, gimmel written on them? It was to ascertain from which of them the donation was collected first, so that they could bring the money from it first, as the mitzva is to use the coins of the first container. This apparently proves that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is a mitzva to use the first item.

讚讬诇诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讬转讞讝讗讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝讗讬 讘转专讬讬转讗

The Gemara responds: This is no proof, as perhaps at the time when the first container was fit to be used, the last was not yet fit to be used. When the first container was brought it was fit and designated for the offerings, whereas the coins in the second container had not yet been collected, and therefore the coins in the first container must be used first as they were sanctified first. Here, however, the scapegoat is consecrated only when its pair is sacrificed, and therefore the two cases are dissimilar.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚驻住讞 (讚转谞谉) 讛诪驻专讬砖 驻住讞讜 讜讗讘讚 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讛专讬 砖谞讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 砖谞讬 诪讜讘讞专 诪诪谞讜 讬讘讬讗谞讜

Rather, the principle that one uses the first item is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the Paschal offering, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separated a sheep for his Paschal offering and the sheep was lost, and he separated another sheep in its stead, and afterward the first sheep was found, and they both stand before him, he sacrifices whichever of them he wants; this is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva is performed with the first sheep. And if the second was of superior quality to it, he brings the second sheep. This proves that according to Rabbi Yosei, if there are two animals equally fit for an offering, one brings the animal that was chosen first.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪爪讜转谉 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讘诪专讗讛 讜讘拽讜诪讛 讜讘讚诪讬诐 讜讘诇拽讬讞转谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讞 讗讞讚 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讞专 讻砖专讬谉

MISHNA: The mitzva of the two Yom Kippur goats, the goat sacrificed to God and the goat sent to Azazel that are brought as a pair, is as follows, ab initio: That they will both be identical in appearance, i.e., color, and in height, and in monetary value, and their acquisition must be as one, i.e., they must be purchased together. And even if they are not identical, nevertheless, they are valid. And similarly, if he acquired one today and one tomorrow, they are valid.

诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙专讬诇 诪转 讬拽讞 讝讜讙 诇砖谞讬 讜讗诐 诪砖讛讙专讬诇 诪转 讬讘讬讗 讝讜讙 讗讞专 讜讬讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛诐 讘转讞讬诇讛

If one of the goats died, if it died before the High Priest drew the lots, he immediately takes a counterpart for the second, since neither has yet been designated. And if it died after the High Priest drew the lots, he brings another pair of goats and draws lots over them from the start.

讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 砖诇 砖诐 诪转 讝讛 砖注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讙讜专诇 诇砖诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讗诐 砖诇 注讝讗讝诇 诪转 讝讛 砖注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讙讜专诇 诇注讝讗讝诇 讬转拽讬讬诐 转讞转讬讜 讜讛砖谞讬 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诪讜转

After that lottery he utters a stipulation: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn in the second lottery shall stand in its stead; and if the one to be sent to Azazel died, that goat upon which the lot for Azazel was drawn shall stand in its stead. And the second, superfluous goat, i.e., in the case where a new pair of goats was brought, should graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it will be sold, and the money received from its sale will go toward the purchase of a public gift-offering. Although for individual sin-offerings in similar circumstances there is no remedy and it is left to die, that is not the case here, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. On the other hand, Rabbi Yehuda says: In this it should be left to die.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐

And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are brought and lots are drawn.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬拽讞 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 注讝讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 砖注讬专讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖讬专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖注讬专 砖注讬专 专讬讘讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It states: 鈥淗e shall take two goats鈥 (Leviticus 16:5). The minimum number indicated by a plural term, as the word goats is here, is two. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: Two? It teaches that the two should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if the two goats are not identical they are nevertheless valid? The verses state and repeat the word goat, goat (Leviticus 16:9鈥10) to amplify and indicate that the goats are valid even if they are not identical.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 注讬讻讜讘讗 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara asks: The reason is specifically because the Merciful One in the Torah amplified and thereby indicated that the goats are valid even if they are not identical. Doesn鈥檛 this indicate that if the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said the goats are disqualified? From where do we derive that the goats are prevented from being sacrificed if they are not identical? The principle with regard to sacrificial offerings is that if the Torah indicates a requirement only once, it is a mitzva ab initio, and if the Torah repeats the requirement, it is considered indispensable in order for the offering to be valid.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: It could enter your mind to say that since the word two, two, two, is written three times in the relevant passage, the repetition indicates that the goats are disqualified if they are not identical. Therefore, the Torah had to indicate that the goats are valid even if they are not identical.

讜讛砖转讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 砖注讬专 砖注讬专 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 砖谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇诪专讗讛 讜讞讚 诇拽讜诪讛 讜讞讚 诇讚诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And now that the Merciful One has amplified by repeating the word goat, goat, why do I need the threefold repetition of two, two, two? The Gemara answers that it teaches how the mitzva should be performed ab initio: One of the terms indicates that the goats should be identical in appearance, one indicates they should be identical in height, and one indicates they should be identical in monetary value.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讻讘砖讬 诪爪讜专注 讬拽讞 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 讻讘砖讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖讬专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 专讬讘讛

The Gemara comments that this was also taught in a baraita with regard to the lambs brought by a leper, based upon the verse: 鈥淗e shall take two lambs鈥 (Leviticus 14:10). The minimum number of lambs, which is a plural term, is two. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢wo鈥? It teaches that the two should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if the two lambs are not identical they are nevertheless valid? The verses state: Lamb, lamb, repetitively, to amplify and indicate that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 注讬讻讜讘讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讛讬讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: The reason is specifically because the Merciful One in the Torah amplified and thereby indicated that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical. Doesn鈥檛 this indicate that if the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said the lambs are disqualified? From where do we derive that the lambs are prevented from being sacrificed if they are not identical? The Gemara answers: It could enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:2), the verse indicates that every detail stated in this context is indispensable. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to indicate that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical.

讜讛砖转讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 转讛讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖讗专 讛讜讬转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara asks: And now that the Merciful One has amplified by repeating the word lamb, lamb, why do I need the phrase 鈥渢his shall be鈥? The Gemara answers: This phrase applies to the rest of the halakhot that are included in the atonement ritual of the leper, which are indispensable.

(讜转谞谉) 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 诪爪讜专注 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 爪驻专讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 爪驻专讬诐 (砖谞讬诐) 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 砖讜讜转 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 砖讜讜转 讻砖专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 爪驻讜专 爪驻讜专 专讬讘讛

The Gemara comments: And we also learned similarly with regard to the birds used for the purification of a leper. The verse states that the priest should take 鈥渢wo birds鈥 (Leviticus 14:4), and the minimum number indicated by the plural term birds is two. What is the meaning when the verse states: Two? It indicates that the two birds should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if they are not identical they are valid? The verses state: Bird, bird (Leviticus 14:5鈥6), repetitively, to amplify.

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 驻住讜诇讜转 注讻讜讘讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讛讬讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: The reason is specifically because the Merciful One in the Torah amplified and thereby indicated that the birds are valid even if they are not identical. Doesn鈥檛 this indicate that if the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said the birds are disqualified? From where do we derive that the birds are prevented from being used if they are not identical? The Gemara answers: It could enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper,鈥 the verse indicates that every detail stated in this context is indispensable. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to indicate that the birds are valid even if they are not identical.

讜讛砖转讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 爪驻讜专 转讛讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇砖讗专 讛讜讬转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara asks: And now that the Merciful One has amplified by repeating the word bird, why do I need the phrase 鈥渢his shall be鈥? The Gemara answers: This phrase applies to the rest of the halakhot that are included in the atonement ritual of the leper, which are indispensable.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 转诪讬讚讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讬注讜讟 讻讘砖讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讻砖讬专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 专讬讘讛 讜诇诪爪讜讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara suggests: If so, this line of reasoning should be applied to the daily offerings as well. Let us say that when the verse states: 鈥淭wo lambs of the first year, day by day, continually鈥 (Exodus 29:38), the minimum number indicated by the word lambs is two. What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢wo鈥? It indicates that the two lambs should be identical. And from where do we derive that even if the two are not identical they are valid? The verse states the word lamb, lamb (Exodus 29:39), repetitively, to amplify. Let us learn from here that in order to fulfill the mitzva in the preferred manner, we also require that the two lambs used for the daily offering be identical.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 诇讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara responds: That verse is needed for that which was taught in a baraita: 鈥淭wo lambs of the first year, day by day鈥 (Exodus 29:38), indicates that the lambs must be slaughtered opposite the location of the sun at that time of day.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗转 讛讻讘砖 讗讞讚 转注砖讛 讘讘拽专 讜讗转 讛讻讘砖 讛砖谞讬 转注砖讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讗诪讜专 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诇讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Do you say it means opposite the location of the sun at that time of day, or does it only mean to say that two lambs must be sacrificed for the obligation of each day? The Gemara answers: When it states: 鈥淥ne lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the afternoon鈥 (Numbers 28:4), the obligation of each day is stated explicitly. And how do I uphold the verse: 鈥淭wo lambs of the first year, day by day鈥? It teaches that the lambs must be slaughtered opposite the location of the sun at that time of day.

讻讬爪讚 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讛讬讛 谞砖讞讟 注诇 拽专谉 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 注诇 讟讘注转 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛讬讛 谞砖讞讟 注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 注诇 讟讘注转 砖谞讬讛

How is this done in actuality? The daily offering of the morning was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard opposite the northwest corner of the altar, on the second ring, across from the sun, which rises in the east. And the daily offering of the afternoon was slaughtered opposite the northeast corner of the altar, on the second ring, across the sun, which is located in the west in the afternoon.

诪讜住驻讬谉 砖诇 砖讘转 讜讚讗讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉

The Gemara comments: When the Torah states: 鈥淭wo lambs鈥 (Numbers 28:9) with regard to the additional offerings brought on Shabbat, the word two, which is unnecessary, certainly indicates that the two should be identical ab initio.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讞讜抓 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诪砖讛讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 砖诇 砖诐 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 砖诇 注讝讗讝诇

The Sages taught: If the High Priest slaughtered the two Yom Kippur goats outside the Temple courtyard when he had not yet drawn lots to determine which of them is to be sacrificed to God and which is to be sent to Azazel, he is liable to receive the punishment of karet for both of them, as they are both fit for use as an offering. If he slaughtered them after he drew lots for them, he is liable for slaughtering the goat designated for God, which is a sacrificial offering, and he is exempt for slaughtering the goat designated for Azazel, as it is not a sacrificial offering.

注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙专讬诇 注诇讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this baraita. With regard to the statement that if he slaughtered the goats when he had not yet drawn lots, he is liable for both of them, the Gemara asks: For what are they fit? Before the lots are drawn, neither goat is fit for use as an offering. The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda said: He is liable since they are fit to be used as the goat whose sacrificial rites are performed outside. These two goats are fit for use as the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, whose sacrificial rites are performed outside of the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the goats have the status of sacrificial offerings.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讚诇讗 讚诪讞讜住专 讛讙专诇讛 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 讚诪讞住专讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about the goat whose sacrificial rites are performed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat selected to be sacrificed as a sin-offering, for which the goats are not valid because they lack the lottery? They are also unfit to be used as the goat whose rites are performed outside the Sanctuary, as they lack the service of the day. The entire Yom Kippur service must be performed in the proper sequence, and several steps have to be executed before the additional offerings are sacrificed, including the sprinkling of the bull鈥檚 and goat鈥檚 blood, and the burning of the handful of incense. Since the additional offerings cannot yet be sacrificed, the goats cannot be considered fit for these offerings, and one should not be liable to receive karet for slaughtering the goats outside the Temple courtyard.

拽住讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda holds that an offering is not considered to be lacking time if it is to be brought on that day. An offering is considered lacking time, and therefore unfit, if it is supposed to be brought on a different day. However, if it is the proper day but the right moment has not yet arrived, the offering is considered valid. On the other hand, before the High Priest draws lots to determine which of the goats will be sacrificed to God and which sent to Azazel, even though it is the proper day, the goats are not yet considered valid offerings because there is a necessary action that the High Priest must take with regard to the goat itself before it can be brought as an offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞讜住专 讛讙专诇讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖谞驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 驻转讜讞 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞注讜诇

Ravina said: Now that Rav 岣sda said that although the drawing of lots is external to the animals themselves, an animal lacking the lottery is comparable to an animal lacking an action and is not yet considered a valid offering, a statement can be made with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Peace-offerings that one slaughtered in the Temple before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated with regard to peace-offerings: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), which teaches that it must be slaughtered when the entrance is open and serves as an actual entrance, but not when it is locked. As long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple the doors to the Sanctuary, remain closed, one may not sacrifice the peace-offerings, and if they are sacrificed, they are disqualified.

Scroll To Top