Yoma 64

רבא אמר כגון שהיה לו חולה בתוך ביתו ושחט אמו ביום הכפורים

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’s 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.

וכי האי גוונא מי אסיר לא תשחטו אמר רחמנא והא לאו שחיטה היא הא אמרי במערבא דחייתו לצוק זו היא שחיטתו

The Gemara asks: Is it prohibited in a case like this? The Merciful One stated in the Torah: “And whether it be a cow or ewe, you shall not slaughter it and its young on one day” (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.

אם של שם מת זה שעלה עליו וכו׳

§ 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?

אמר רב שני שבזוג ראשון יקרב שני שבזוג שני ירעה רבי יוחנן אמר שני שבזוג ראשון ירעה שני שבזוג שני יקרב

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 Yoḥanan 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.

במאי קא מיפלגי רב סבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין ורבי יוחנן סבר בעלי חיים נידחין

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 Yoḥanan holds that animals are rejected. Therefore, once the remaining goat from the first pair became disqualified, it remains disqualified forever.

מאי טעמא דרב דיליף ממחוסר זמן מחוסר זמן לאו אף על גב דהשתא לא חזי כי הדר מיחזי שפיר דמי הכא נמי לא שנא מי דמי התם לא איתחזי כלל הכא נראה ונדחה

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.

אלא היינו טעמא דרב דיליף מבעל מום עובר בעל מום עובר לאו אף על גב דלא חזי השתא כי הדר מיחזי שפיר דמי הכא נמי לא שנא

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.

והתם מנא לן דכתיב כי משחתם בהם מום בם מום בם הוא דלא ירצו הא עבר מומן ירצו

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: “Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (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.

ורבי יוחנן מיעט רחמנא בהם הם הוא דכי עבר מומן ירצו הא כל דחויין הואיל ונדחו נדחו

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

ורב ההוא בהם בעינייהו הוא דלא מירצו הא על ידי תערובות מירצו

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

כדתנן איברים תמימים באיברים בעלי מומין רבי אליעזר אומר אם קרב הראש של אחד מהן יקריבו כל הראשין כולן כרעיו של אחד מהן יקריבו כל הכרעיים כולן וחכמים אומרים אפילו קרבו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן יצא לבית השריפה

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.

ואידך נפקא ליה מבם בהם ואידך בם בהם לא דריש

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, derive the halakha that the limbs are acceptable if they are in a mixture? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the Torah’s choice of terminology: It could have written: “In them,” 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.

ולרב נהי נמי דבעלי חיים אינן נדחין אי בעי האי נקריב אי בעי האי נקריב

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.

אמר רבא רב סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר מצוה בראשון הי רבי יוסי אי נימא רבי יוסי דקופות דתנן שלש קופות של שלש שלש סאין שבהן תורמין את הלשכה וכתוב עליהן אלף בית גימל ותניא אמר רבי יוסי למה כתוב עליהן אלף בית גימל לידע איזה מהן נתרמה ראשון להביא הימנה ראשון שמצוה בראשון

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’a, 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.

דילמא שאני התם דבעידנא דאתחזי קמייתא לא אתחזי בתרייתא

That statement of Rabbi Yosei cannot serve as the source for Rav’s 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.

אלא רבי יוסי דפסח (דתנן) המפריש פסחו ואבד והפריש אחר תחתיו ואחר כך נמצא הראשון והרי שניהן עומדין איזה מהן שירצה יקרב דברי חכמים רבי יוסי אומר מצוה בראשון

Rather, the source of Rav’s 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.

ואם היה השני מובחר ממנו יביאנו

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.

אמר רבא דיקא מתניתין כוותיה דרב וברייתא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן מתניתין כוותיה דרב דקתני אם של שם מת זה שעלה עליו הגורל לשם יתקיים תחתיו ואידך כדקאי קאי

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 Yoḥanan. 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.

ברייתא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן דקתני שני איני יודע אם שני שבזוג ראשון אם שני שבזוג שני כשהוא אומר יעמד חי ולא שחבירו מת מאי משמע יעמד חי ולא שכבר עמד

The language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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: “It shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness” (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: “It shall be stood alive,” in the future tense, indicating that it is not referring to the one that already stood with its counterpart that died.

תנן ועוד אמר רבי יהודה נשפך הדם ימות המשתלח מת המשתלח ישפך הדם בשלמא לרבי יוחנן דאמר בעלי חיים נדחין משום הכי ימות המשתלח אלא לרב דאמר בעלי חיים אינן נדחין אמאי ימות המשתלח

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 Yoḥanan, 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?

אמר לך רב אליבא דרבי יהודה לא קא אמינא כי אמינא אליבא דרבנן

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.

בשלמא לרב בהא פליגי רבי יהודה ורבנן אלא לרבי יוחנן במאי פליגי אמר רבא הא אמרינן דייקא מתניתין כוותיה דרב

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 Yoḥanan, 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’t 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’s language in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

תנן שאין חטאת צבור מתה הא דיחיד כי האי גוונא מתה בשלמא לרבי יוחנן כדרבי אבא אמר רב דאמר רבי אבא אמר רב

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 Yoḥanan, 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: