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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 14, 2021 | 讚壮 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 Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yoma 64

This week of learning is sponsored by Yael & Mark Shayne in honor of their daughter, Dr. Elizabeth Shayne, who is receiving semicha from Yeshivat Maharat tomorrow. “We are proud of her accomplishments and thrilled to watch her evolve; but we are also excited to see how she continues to develop and contribute to Klal Yisrael. Yashar koach and Mazal tov.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Fund in honor of her mother Rena Barta on her birthday tomorrow. “Mazal Tov and Happy Birthday Eema! So proud and inspired to be joining you on your daf yomi journey from halfway around the world. I am looking forward to being able to learn with in you person this summer, be’ezrat Hashem. I love you.” And in memory of Yaakov ben Meir, Rabbeinu Tam.聽

What happens if one of the goats dies? A new lottery is performed. If the goat for Azazel dies, what happens to the two goats that were designated for Hashem? Which one is sacrificed and what happens to the other. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree and their debate depends on their opinion regarding whether or not animals that get rejected remain rejected or not. From where is each opinion derived? Tannaitic sources are brought to support each opinion.

yoma 64

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗诪讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara presents another explanation as to why a verse is needed to indicate that the scapegoat may not be lacking time. Rava said: It is referring to a case where the one who sold the two goats had a critically ill person in his household, and he slaughtered the mother of the scapegoat in order to save the ill person鈥檚 life on Yom Kippur. Although the scapegoat is more than eight days old, it is considered lacking time because it is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day.

讜讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讗住讬专 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讚讞讬讬转讜 诇爪讜拽 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讜

The Gemara asks: Is it prohibited in a case like this? The Merciful One stated in the Torah: 鈥淎nd whether it be a cow or ewe, you shall not slaughter it and its young on one day鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), and this act of pushing the scapegoat off the cliff is not a ritual slaughter. Consequently, the prohibition against slaughtering a mother animal and its offspring should not apply. The Gemara answers: They say in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that pushing it off the cliff, which is the manner in which the scapegoat is supposed to be killed, is considered its slaughter.

讗诐 砖诇 砖诐 诪转 讝讛 砖注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讻讜壮

搂 It was taught in the mishna that if one of the goats dies after the lottery, a second pair of goats is sought and new lots are drawn. After that lottery, the priest utters a stipulation: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn 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. The second, superfluous goat should graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it will be sold and the money received in its sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering. The Gemara discusses which goat is set to pasture: The one that remains from the first lottery or the one that remains from the second lottery?

讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讬拽专讘 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讬专注讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讬专注讛 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讬拽专讘

Rav said: If the goat to be sent to Azazel died, he should sacrifice the second goat of the first pair to God, and the second goat of the second pair should graze until it becomes unfit. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The second goat of the first pair is the one that should graze, whereas he should sacrifice the second goat of the second pair.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬讚讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rav holds that animals are not rejected. An animal that was consecrated as an offering but later became unfit for sacrifice is not considered disqualified forever. Therefore, although the remaining goat was not eligible to be sacrificed when its counterpart died, once another goat has been paired with it following a new lottery, it is no longer rejected and should be sacrificed. And Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that animals are rejected. Therefore, once the remaining goat from the first pair became disqualified, it remains disqualified forever.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讬诇讬祝 诪诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛砖转讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 讻讬 讛讚专 诪讬讞讝讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝讬 讻诇诇 讛讻讗 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the halakha applicable to an animal that is lacking time. In the case of an animal that is lacking time, is it not true that although it is unfit now, when it again becomes fit, it seems well, i.e., it may be sacrificed as an offering? Here, too, it is no different. The Gemara rejects this answer: Is it comparable? There, when the animal is lacking time, it was never fit to be sacrificed. Here, the animal was fit as an offering and later became unfit and was therefore rejected. Perhaps in this case it is permanently disqualified.

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讬诇讬祝 诪讘注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讛砖转讗 讻讬 讛讚专 诪讬讞讝讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, the Gemara retracts the first explanation and says that this is the reasoning of Rav: He derives it from the case of an animal with a temporary blemish. The animal is disqualified as an offering as long as the blemish remains, but is eligible for sacrifice once the blemish has healed. In the case of an animal with a temporary blemish, is it not true that although it is unfit now, when it again becomes fit, it seems well, i.e., it may be sacrificed as an offering? Here too, it is no different.

讜讛转诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬专爪讜 讛讗 注讘专 诪讜诪谉 讬专爪讜

The Gemara asks: There, in the case of an animal with a temporary blemish, from where do we derive this halakha? As it is written: 鈥淏ecause their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:25), which teaches us: It is when the blemish is in them that they shall not be accepted; but if their blemish passes, they shall be accepted.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛诐 讛诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 注讘专 诪讜诪谉 讬专爪讜 讛讗 讻诇 讚讞讜讬讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讜 谞讚讞讜

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yo岣nan respond to this proof? The Merciful One limited this halakha by using the term: In them, which indicates that it is they, animals with temporary blemishes, that are accepted when their blemishes pass, but with regard to all other animals that become disqualified, once they are rejected they remain rejected.

讜专讘 讛讛讜讗 讘讛诐 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬专爪讜 讛讗 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘讜转 诪讬专爪讜

The Gemara asks: And how does Rav answer Rabbi Yo岣nan? That term: In them, should be understood as follows: It is on their own that they are not accepted; but in mixtures with animals thatare fit to be sacrificed, animals that have a temporary blemish are accepted.

讻讚转谞谉 讗讬讘专讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬讘专讬诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 讛专讗砖 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讻专注讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 讛讻专注讬讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

As we learned in a mishna: If limbs from unblemished burnt-offerings became mixed with limbs from blemished burnt-offerings, which are disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them is sacrificed on the altar before they knew of the blemish, they should sacrifice all the heads, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar. Similarly, if the legs of one of them were sacrificed, they should sacrifice all the legs. And the Rabbis say: Even if all of them were sacrificed except for one, that one should be taken out to the place designated for burning disqualified offerings, as it is not assumed that the limbs of the disqualified animal have already been brought.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讘诐 讘讛诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讘诐 讘讛诐 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, derive the halakha that the limbs are acceptable if they are in a mixture? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the Torah鈥檚 choice of terminology: It could have written: 鈥淚n them,鈥 as bam, but instead it used the term bahem, with the extra letter heh, and therefore an extra halakha can be derived from this word. The Gemara comments: And the other Sage, Rav, does not expound the difference in terminology between the words bam and bahem, as he does not consider the distinction significant enough to teach a halakha.

讜诇专讘 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬谉 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 谞拽专讬讘 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 谞拽专讬讘

The Gemara asks: According to Rav, although living beings are not permanently rejected, that only explains why the remaining goat of the first pair is acceptable for sacrifice, but why must it be the one to be sacrificed? If he wants this one from the first pair he should sacrifice it, and if he wants that one from the second pair, he should sacrifice that.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘 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 讛讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽讜驻讜转 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 砖讘讛谉 转讜专诪讬谉 讗转 讛诇砖讻讛 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇祝 讘讬转 讙讬诪诇 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 讗诇祝 讘讬转 讙讬诪诇 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

Rava said: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The mitzva should be fulfilled with the goat from the first pair. The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yosei indicates that this is his opinion? If we say it is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the containers, as we learned in a mishna: There were three containers, each of which held three se鈥檃, with which they collected coins from the chamber. And the letters alef, beit, and gimmel were written on them. And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Why were alef, beit, and gimmel written on them? In order to know which of them was collected from the chamber first, in order to bring an offering from it first, as the mitzva is performed with the first one.

讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讞讝讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗转讞讝讬 讘转专讬讬转讗

That statement of Rabbi Yosei cannot serve as the source for Rav鈥檚 opinion. Perhaps it is different there, in the case of the containers, because at the time when the first container of coins was fit for use, the containers used later were not yet fit for use. Therefore, it cannot serve as a precedent with regard to a case in which both became fit for use at the same time. In the case of the Yom Kippur goats, none of the goats are actually fit for sacrifice until the point in the Temple service when they are supposed to be sacrificed. By that time, lots have already been drawn for the second pair of goats.

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

Rather, the source of Rav鈥檚 opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the Paschal lamb. As we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who separated an animal as his Paschal lamb and it became lost, and he separated another in its stead, and afterward, but before midday on the eve of Passover, the first one is found, and they are both standing before him, the owner may bring whichever of them he wishes. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva should be performed with the first one.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讛砖谞讬 诪讜讘讞专 诪诪谞讜 讬讘讬讗谞讜

And if the second one was superior to it, he brings that one. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yosei, when the two animals become fit for sacrifice at the same time, preference should be given to the first one unless the second one is superior.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讘专讬讬转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚拽转谞讬 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 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讚拽讗讬 拽讗讬

Rava said: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara explains: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it teaches: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn shall stand in its stead. And the other goat stands as it stood before, i.e., its status does not change, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讘专讬讬转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬注诪讚 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讘讬专讜 诪转 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讬注诪讚 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讻讘专 注诪讚

The language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as it teaches: When the mishna says that the second goat is left to graze, I do not know whether it is referring to the second goat of the first pair, or the second goat of the second pair. When the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness鈥 (Leviticus 16:10), it is not referring to the goat whose counterpart died. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred, i.e., how does the verse indicate this point? The Gemara answers that it states: 鈥淚t shall be stood alive,鈥 in the future tense, indicating that it is not referring to the one that already stood with its counterpart that died.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞

We learned in the mishna: 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. Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that animals that become disqualified are permanently rejected, even after the source of their initial disqualification is no longer present, due to that reason the scapegoat is left to die. However, according to Rav, who said that animals are not permanently rejected, why is the scapegoat left to die?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉

Rav could have said to you: I did not state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. I stated my opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected and communal sin-offerings may be left to die. The Rabbis disagree with both issues and hold that disqualified animals are not permanently disqualified, and communal sin-offerings that are disqualified are not left to die, but rather graze until they develop a blemish, and then are sold. Rav, who holds that the remaining goat from the first pair is sacrificed, states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., that disqualified animals are not permanently rejected.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讬讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether disqualified animals are permanently rejected. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that even according to the Rabbis the remaining goat of the first pair is left to graze, with regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? Rava said: Didn鈥檛 we say that the language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is difficult to explain the mishna鈥檚 language in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan?

转谞谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪转讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘

We learned in the mishna that a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This indicates that the sin-offering of an individual in a case like this is left to die. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that the remaining goat from the first pair is left to graze until it develops a blemish, it can be explained that the sin-offering of an individual in a comparable case is killed, in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abba said that Rav said. As Rabbi Abba said that Rav said:

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 Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Capture

When Things Don鈥檛 Go Exactly as Planned (Yoma 64)

Watch Rabbanit Michelle Farber's lecture from the Limmud OZ 2021 Festival based on Yoma 64. https://youtu.be/LXj1jmIoSHk See presentation here:  
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 64 – 70 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

As we continue learning about the service of Yom Kippur in the Temple, this week we will learn about the...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 64: A Kid and Its Mother

What happens if the se'ir ha-mishtaleach (the scapegoat) is disqualified? Whether because it's too young, or has a physical blemish,...

Yoma 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 64

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗诪讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara presents another explanation as to why a verse is needed to indicate that the scapegoat may not be lacking time. Rava said: It is referring to a case where the one who sold the two goats had a critically ill person in his household, and he slaughtered the mother of the scapegoat in order to save the ill person鈥檚 life on Yom Kippur. Although the scapegoat is more than eight days old, it is considered lacking time because it is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day.

讜讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讗住讬专 诇讗 转砖讞讟讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讚讞讬讬转讜 诇爪讜拽 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讜

The Gemara asks: Is it prohibited in a case like this? The Merciful One stated in the Torah: 鈥淎nd whether it be a cow or ewe, you shall not slaughter it and its young on one day鈥 (Leviticus 22:28), and this act of pushing the scapegoat off the cliff is not a ritual slaughter. Consequently, the prohibition against slaughtering a mother animal and its offspring should not apply. The Gemara answers: They say in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that pushing it off the cliff, which is the manner in which the scapegoat is supposed to be killed, is considered its slaughter.

讗诐 砖诇 砖诐 诪转 讝讛 砖注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讻讜壮

搂 It was taught in the mishna that if one of the goats dies after the lottery, a second pair of goats is sought and new lots are drawn. After that lottery, the priest utters a stipulation: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn 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. The second, superfluous goat should graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it will be sold and the money received in its sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering. The Gemara discusses which goat is set to pasture: The one that remains from the first lottery or the one that remains from the second lottery?

讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讬拽专讘 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讬专注讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讬专注讛 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讬拽专讘

Rav said: If the goat to be sent to Azazel died, he should sacrifice the second goat of the first pair to God, and the second goat of the second pair should graze until it becomes unfit. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The second goat of the first pair is the one that should graze, whereas he should sacrifice the second goat of the second pair.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬讚讞讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rav holds that animals are not rejected. An animal that was consecrated as an offering but later became unfit for sacrifice is not considered disqualified forever. Therefore, although the remaining goat was not eligible to be sacrificed when its counterpart died, once another goat has been paired with it following a new lottery, it is no longer rejected and should be sacrificed. And Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that animals are rejected. Therefore, once the remaining goat from the first pair became disqualified, it remains disqualified forever.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讬诇讬祝 诪诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛砖转讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 讻讬 讛讚专 诪讬讞讝讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝讬 讻诇诇 讛讻讗 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the halakha applicable to an animal that is lacking time. In the case of an animal that is lacking time, is it not true that although it is unfit now, when it again becomes fit, it seems well, i.e., it may be sacrificed as an offering? Here, too, it is no different. The Gemara rejects this answer: Is it comparable? There, when the animal is lacking time, it was never fit to be sacrificed. Here, the animal was fit as an offering and later became unfit and was therefore rejected. Perhaps in this case it is permanently disqualified.

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讬诇讬祝 诪讘注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讛砖转讗 讻讬 讛讚专 诪讬讞讝讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, the Gemara retracts the first explanation and says that this is the reasoning of Rav: He derives it from the case of an animal with a temporary blemish. The animal is disqualified as an offering as long as the blemish remains, but is eligible for sacrifice once the blemish has healed. In the case of an animal with a temporary blemish, is it not true that although it is unfit now, when it again becomes fit, it seems well, i.e., it may be sacrificed as an offering? Here too, it is no different.

讜讛转诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬专爪讜 讛讗 注讘专 诪讜诪谉 讬专爪讜

The Gemara asks: There, in the case of an animal with a temporary blemish, from where do we derive this halakha? As it is written: 鈥淏ecause their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:25), which teaches us: It is when the blemish is in them that they shall not be accepted; but if their blemish passes, they shall be accepted.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛诐 讛诐 讛讜讗 讚讻讬 注讘专 诪讜诪谉 讬专爪讜 讛讗 讻诇 讚讞讜讬讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讜 谞讚讞讜

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yo岣nan respond to this proof? The Merciful One limited this halakha by using the term: In them, which indicates that it is they, animals with temporary blemishes, that are accepted when their blemishes pass, but with regard to all other animals that become disqualified, once they are rejected they remain rejected.

讜专讘 讛讛讜讗 讘讛诐 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬专爪讜 讛讗 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘讜转 诪讬专爪讜

The Gemara asks: And how does Rav answer Rabbi Yo岣nan? That term: In them, should be understood as follows: It is on their own that they are not accepted; but in mixtures with animals thatare fit to be sacrificed, animals that have a temporary blemish are accepted.

讻讚转谞谉 讗讬讘专讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讘讗讬讘专讬诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 讛专讗砖 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讻专注讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 讛讻专注讬讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

As we learned in a mishna: If limbs from unblemished burnt-offerings became mixed with limbs from blemished burnt-offerings, which are disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them is sacrificed on the altar before they knew of the blemish, they should sacrifice all the heads, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar. Similarly, if the legs of one of them were sacrificed, they should sacrifice all the legs. And the Rabbis say: Even if all of them were sacrificed except for one, that one should be taken out to the place designated for burning disqualified offerings, as it is not assumed that the limbs of the disqualified animal have already been brought.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讘诐 讘讛诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讘诐 讘讛诐 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, derive the halakha that the limbs are acceptable if they are in a mixture? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the Torah鈥檚 choice of terminology: It could have written: 鈥淚n them,鈥 as bam, but instead it used the term bahem, with the extra letter heh, and therefore an extra halakha can be derived from this word. The Gemara comments: And the other Sage, Rav, does not expound the difference in terminology between the words bam and bahem, as he does not consider the distinction significant enough to teach a halakha.

讜诇专讘 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬谉 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 谞拽专讬讘 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 谞拽专讬讘

The Gemara asks: According to Rav, although living beings are not permanently rejected, that only explains why the remaining goat of the first pair is acceptable for sacrifice, but why must it be the one to be sacrificed? If he wants this one from the first pair he should sacrifice it, and if he wants that one from the second pair, he should sacrifice that.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘 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 讛讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽讜驻讜转 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖 拽讜驻讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 砖讘讛谉 转讜专诪讬谉 讗转 讛诇砖讻讛 讜讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇祝 讘讬转 讙讬诪诇 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 讗诇祝 讘讬转 讙讬诪诇 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

Rava said: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The mitzva should be fulfilled with the goat from the first pair. The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yosei indicates that this is his opinion? If we say it is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the containers, as we learned in a mishna: There were three containers, each of which held three se鈥檃, with which they collected coins from the chamber. And the letters alef, beit, and gimmel were written on them. And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Why were alef, beit, and gimmel written on them? In order to know which of them was collected from the chamber first, in order to bring an offering from it first, as the mitzva is performed with the first one.

讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讞讝讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗转讞讝讬 讘转专讬讬转讗

That statement of Rabbi Yosei cannot serve as the source for Rav鈥檚 opinion. Perhaps it is different there, in the case of the containers, because at the time when the first container of coins was fit for use, the containers used later were not yet fit for use. Therefore, it cannot serve as a precedent with regard to a case in which both became fit for use at the same time. In the case of the Yom Kippur goats, none of the goats are actually fit for sacrifice until the point in the Temple service when they are supposed to be sacrificed. By that time, lots have already been drawn for the second pair of goats.

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

Rather, the source of Rav鈥檚 opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the Paschal lamb. As we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who separated an animal as his Paschal lamb and it became lost, and he separated another in its stead, and afterward, but before midday on the eve of Passover, the first one is found, and they are both standing before him, the owner may bring whichever of them he wishes. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva should be performed with the first one.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讛砖谞讬 诪讜讘讞专 诪诪谞讜 讬讘讬讗谞讜

And if the second one was superior to it, he brings that one. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yosei, when the two animals become fit for sacrifice at the same time, preference should be given to the first one unless the second one is superior.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讘专讬讬转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚拽转谞讬 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 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讚拽讗讬 拽讗讬

Rava said: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara explains: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it teaches: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn shall stand in its stead. And the other goat stands as it stood before, i.e., its status does not change, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

讘专讬讬转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬注诪讚 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讘讬专讜 诪转 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讬注诪讚 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讻讘专 注诪讚

The language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as it teaches: When the mishna says that the second goat is left to graze, I do not know whether it is referring to the second goat of the first pair, or the second goat of the second pair. When the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness鈥 (Leviticus 16:10), it is not referring to the goat whose counterpart died. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred, i.e., how does the verse indicate this point? The Gemara answers that it states: 鈥淚t shall be stood alive,鈥 in the future tense, indicating that it is not referring to the one that already stood with its counterpart that died.

转谞谉 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 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞

We learned in the mishna: 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. Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that animals that become disqualified are permanently rejected, even after the source of their initial disqualification is no longer present, due to that reason the scapegoat is left to die. However, according to Rav, who said that animals are not permanently rejected, why is the scapegoat left to die?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉

Rav could have said to you: I did not state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. I stated my opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected and communal sin-offerings may be left to die. The Rabbis disagree with both issues and hold that disqualified animals are not permanently disqualified, and communal sin-offerings that are disqualified are not left to die, but rather graze until they develop a blemish, and then are sold. Rav, who holds that the remaining goat from the first pair is sacrificed, states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., that disqualified animals are not permanently rejected.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讬讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether disqualified animals are permanently rejected. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that even according to the Rabbis the remaining goat of the first pair is left to graze, with regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? Rava said: Didn鈥檛 we say that the language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is difficult to explain the mishna鈥檚 language in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan?

转谞谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪转讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘

We learned in the mishna that a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This indicates that the sin-offering of an individual in a case like this is left to die. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that the remaining goat from the first pair is left to graze until it develops a blemish, it can be explained that the sin-offering of an individual in a comparable case is killed, in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abba said that Rav said. As Rabbi Abba said that Rav said:

Scroll To Top