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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 15, 2021 | 讛壮 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 65

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Wilchek family in memory of their son Ozi on his fifth yahrzeit. And by Gitta Neufeld in memory of her father on his yahrzeit, Yosef ben Menachem Mendel v鈥橮esha, Phillip Jaroslawicz. And by Harriet Hartman in memory of her husband Moshe ben Yehuda Aryeh z”l. “I wish we had been able to learn Daf Yomi together, and I hope my learning is helpful to his nishama.” And by Rabbi Michael & Alexis Singer. “Mazel Tov to our daughter Miriam on her graduation from Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy. We wish her continued success at List College & Columbia University. We are so proud of you as you keep up your study of Talmud.” And by Sharon Russ for the refuah shleima of Ruchama Adina bat Mazal Shifra Chaya Tova. “Ruchama is G- d willing, having surgery this morning. May we hear good news and may she have a speedy complete recovery!”

The gemara raises several questions from various lines in our mishna on Rav and Rabbi Yochanan’s approaches regarding a case where two lotteries are needed (if one animal dies) – which one is sacrificed and which one is left to graze. Each question is answered. On what points does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the rabbis? The gemara explains his approach. The gemara raises a contradiction between two other statements of Rabbi Yehuda – one regarding someone who paid double for this year’s half-shekel payment – it can be used for the next year. The other is regarding two goats or bulls for Yom Kippur that were both designated for the same sacrifice (as one got lost and was then found, after the other had been chosen) and Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t allow it to be left for next year. Why the difference? The gemara brings several answers (4 on this page) and they are all rejected.

 

讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 谞转讻驻专 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讗讘讜讚讛 讗讘讜讚讛 诪转讛

Everyone concedes that if the animal one designated as a sin-offering became lost, and he designated another animal in its stead and then found the first animal, if he gained atonement through the one that was not lost, i.e., the second one, the one that was lost is left to die.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛诐 讜讛砖谞讬讛 转专注讛

However, according to the opinion of Rav, who rules that the remaining goat from the first pair is the one that is sacrificed, that goat was never disqualified, and the extra goat from the second pair was designated to serve the same purpose as the remaining goat. This is like one who designates two sin-offerings as a guarantee, so that if he loses one of them he will still be able to bring the other one. And Rabbi Oshaya said that all agree that if one separated two sin-offerings as a guarantee, he gains atonement through one of them, and the second is left to graze until it becomes unfit. Consequently, even the sin-offering of an individual is not left to die in this case.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 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 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诪驻专讬砖 诇讗讬讘讜讚 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: Since Rava said that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the mitzva should be performed with the first animal, when one designates the second animal, it is considered from the beginning to be comparable to an offering separated in order to be lost. In that case, if it is the sin-offering of an individual, the second animal is left to die.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诪讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讬专注讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诪讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be left to die. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that the second goat of the first pair should be left to graze, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said it should be left to die, he nonetheless gains atonement with the second goat of the second pair.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讬专注讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诪讜转 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讗讬 诪讬讻驻专 诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗讬

However, according to Rav, who said that the second goat of the second pair should be left to graze, and according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be left to die, then according to Rabbi Yehuda he cannot sacrifice either of the two goats: The first goat may not be sacrificed because Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected, and the second goat must be left to die. With which goat will he gain atonement? The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the second pair when he said it should be left to die? Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the first pair. The second goat of the second pair is sacrificed.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讛讻讬 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

There are those who raised this objection from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 专讬砖讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 讜住讬驻讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讜注讜讚 拽砖讬讗

Granted, according to Rav, in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to a communal sin-offering. According to the Rabbis the second animal is left to graze, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it is left to die. And in the latter clause they disagree with regard to whether animals that become disqualified as offerings are permanently rejected. According to the Rabbis they are not rejected and therefore the first goat is sacrificed, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that they are rejected and therefore the first goat is left to die and the second goat is sacrificed. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does the term: And furthermore, in the mishna indicate? Even the Rabbis agree that the remaining goat from the first pair is permanently disqualified. The Gemara comments that indeed, this is difficult.

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 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚 诪爪讜转讬讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat should be left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. The Gemara asks: Granted, if the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled, the scapegoat should be left to die, as the mitzva of the blood has not yet been performed, as it was not sprinkled in the prescribed manner.

讗诇讗 诪转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗诪讗讬 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讛讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪爪讜转讬讛

However, if the scapegoat dies, why should the blood of the goat sacrificed to God be spilled? The mitzva of the scapegoat has already been performed. The only essential detail with regard to the scapegoat is the lottery, which has already been performed by the priest. Sending it to Azazel and pushing it off a cliff are carried out by an appointed person and while they are prescribed ab initio, they are not indispensable. After the fact, if the goat dies in some other way, the obligation has been fulfilled.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬注诪讚 讞讬 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诇讻驻专 注讚 诪转讬 讬讛讗 讝拽讜拽 诇讛讬讜转 讞讬 注讚 砖注转 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yannai said that the verse states: 鈥淏ut the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, 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). Until when must the scapegoat be alive? Until the blood of its counterpart is sprinkled, and if it dies before, the blood is disqualified.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖砖诇讞讜 讗转 砖拽诇讬讛谉 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 讗诐 谞转专诪讛 转专讜诪讛 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讙讝讘专讬谉

We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 2:1): If residents of a city sent their shekels to the Temple with a messenger, and the shekels were stolen or were lost along the way; if the funds were already collected, i.e., the coins for the new year鈥檚 offerings were taken from the chamber before the money was stolen, the messengers take an oath to the treasurers of the Temple that they did not unlawfully use the shekels, but that they were taken unbeknownst to them or by force. This is because once the necessary coins have been removed, all other coins that have been dedicated for this purpose are considered Temple property wherever they are, and their subsequent theft does not change that status. If the messengers take this oath, they are exempt from monetary liability.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讜讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖讜拽诇讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉

And if the funds were not yet collected when these coins were stolen, the coins are still considered the property of those who dedicated them to the Temple, and therefore the messengers take an oath to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city donate other shekels to the Temple in their stead.

谞诪爪讗讜 讗讜 砖讛讞讝讬专讜诐 讛讙谞讘讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖拽诇讬诐 讛诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛谉 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛谉 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

If the shekels that were lost are found or the thieves returned them, both these and those are shekels, i.e., they remain sanctified, but they do not count toward the amount due the following year. The next year the members of that city must donate new shekels; they have not fulfilled the second year鈥檚 obligation by having given twice the previous year. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do count toward the following year.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讜讘讜转 砖诇 砖谞讛 讝讜 拽专讬讘讜转 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the obligations of this year are also brought the following year, and therefore it is possible to fulfill one鈥檚 obligation for the next year by using the shekels of this year.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讻谉 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讬诪讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讛诐 诇谞讚讘讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to this explanation. It was taught that if the bull and goat of Yom Kippur were lost and one designated others in their stead, and similarly if the goats which atone for a communal transgression of idol worship by instruction of the court were lost and he designated others in their stead, and the original animals were found, all the original animals should be left to die, and cannot be sacrificed at a later time. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: They should be left to graze until they become unfit. Then they are sold, and the money received in their sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the obligations of this year may be brought the following year, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost should be sacrificed the following year, and not left to die. Rava said to him:

拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讻讚专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 注讜诇转 讞讚砖 讘讞讚砖讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讞讚砖 讜讛讘讗 诇讬 拽专讘谉 诪转专讜诪讛 讞讚砖讛

You speak of communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, in accordance with what Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya. As Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said that the verse states: 鈥淭his is the burnt-offering for every New Moon upon its renewal throughout the months of the year鈥 (Numbers 28:14). The Torah said: Renew and bring Me an offering from the new contribution. This indicates that communal offerings must be brought from the donations of the current year and not from the donations of the previous year.

转讬谞讞 砖注讬专 驻专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 驻专 讗讟讜 砖注讬专

The Gemara challenges this solution: This works out well with regard to the Yom Kippur goat, which is a communal offering and is purchased with money from the Temple treasury. However, with regard to the High Priest鈥檚 bull which he pays for himself and which is considered an individual offering, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat.

讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转讜 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讙讜驻讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讛讘讗讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 诪爪讜讛 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 砖讞住专 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara expresses surprise: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? And furthermore, this statement that Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya is itself a mitzva ab initio, but is not indispensable. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to communal offerings that are brought on the first of Nisan, it is a mitzva to bring them from the new year鈥檚 shekel contributions. However, if he brought them from the old shekels that were donated during the previous year he has fulfilled his obligation, but he lacked the mitzva, i.e., he did not perform the procedure in the proper manner. It is difficult to argue that due to this inessential detail the Sages would issue a decree that the High Priest鈥檚 bull should be left to die.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讜专诇 拽讜讘注 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讜谞讬讬转讬 讜谞讙专讬诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛讙讜专诇 拽讜讘注 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said that the reason the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are left to die is because the lottery does not establish designations from one year to another. Therefore, a goat designated by the lottery one year is not eligible for use the next year. The Gemara challenges this explanation: But let us bring this goat and another one and draw lots again. The Gemara responds: It is a rabbinic decree that was enacted lest people say that the lottery establishes designations from one year to another.

讛讗 转讬谞讞 砖注讬专 驻专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 驻专 讗讟讜 砖注讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转讜

The Gemara challenges: This works out well with regard to the goat, but with respect to the bull of the High Priest, which is not chosen by lottery, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat. The Gemara challenges further: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? Therefore, this answer should be rejected.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讛讗 转讬谞讞 驻专 砖注讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖注讬专 讗讟讜 驻专

The Rabbis stated another solution before Abaye: It is a rabbinic decree, due to a concern that the bull will become a sin-offering whose owners have died, since the High Priest might die during the year. The Gemara responds: This works out well with regard to the bull, but as for the goat, which is a communal offering, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the goat due to the bull.

讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转讜 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 讙讝讬专讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? Rather, it is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that the goat will become a sin-offering whose year has passed. A goat may not be brought as a sin-offering once it is more than a year old, and there is a concern that the goat will be too old by the Yom Kippur of the following year. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is this a rabbinic decree? It is certainly a sin-offering whose year has passed, as the goat will certainly be more than a year old by the following Yom Kippur.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 诪讜谞讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讬讜诐 讻诪谞讬谉 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜谞讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as it is possible that the goat will not be disqualified, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to redeeming houses in a walled city the Torah states: 鈥淎nd if it not be redeemed within the space of a full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), which indicates that he counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: He counts twelve months from day to day. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if the goat was less than eleven days old on the first Yom Kippur, it will not be disqualified on the following Yom Kippur because it will still be less than 365 days old, as long as the first year was not a leap year. Nevertheless, it is disqualified by rabbinic decree due to a concern that other goats would be used in similar circumstances even if they were more than a year old.

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

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...

Yoma 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 65

讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 谞转讻驻专 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讗讘讜讚讛 讗讘讜讚讛 诪转讛

Everyone concedes that if the animal one designated as a sin-offering became lost, and he designated another animal in its stead and then found the first animal, if he gained atonement through the one that was not lost, i.e., the second one, the one that was lost is left to die.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛诐 讜讛砖谞讬讛 转专注讛

However, according to the opinion of Rav, who rules that the remaining goat from the first pair is the one that is sacrificed, that goat was never disqualified, and the extra goat from the second pair was designated to serve the same purpose as the remaining goat. This is like one who designates two sin-offerings as a guarantee, so that if he loses one of them he will still be able to bring the other one. And Rabbi Oshaya said that all agree that if one separated two sin-offerings as a guarantee, he gains atonement through one of them, and the second is left to graze until it becomes unfit. Consequently, even the sin-offering of an individual is not left to die in this case.

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 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 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诪驻专讬砖 诇讗讬讘讜讚 讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: Since Rava said that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the mitzva should be performed with the first animal, when one designates the second animal, it is considered from the beginning to be comparable to an offering separated in order to be lost. In that case, if it is the sin-offering of an individual, the second animal is left to die.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转诪讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 讬专注讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诪讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be left to die. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that the second goat of the first pair should be left to graze, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said it should be left to die, he nonetheless gains atonement with the second goat of the second pair.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 讬专注讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诪讜转 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讗讬 诪讬讻驻专 诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 砖谞讬 拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖谞讬 砖讘讝讜讙 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗讬

However, according to Rav, who said that the second goat of the second pair should be left to graze, and according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be left to die, then according to Rabbi Yehuda he cannot sacrifice either of the two goats: The first goat may not be sacrificed because Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected, and the second goat must be left to die. With which goat will he gain atonement? The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the second pair when he said it should be left to die? Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the first pair. The second goat of the second pair is sacrificed.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讛讻讬 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

There are those who raised this objection from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 专讬砖讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 讜住讬驻讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讜注讜讚 拽砖讬讗

Granted, according to Rav, in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to a communal sin-offering. According to the Rabbis the second animal is left to graze, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it is left to die. And in the latter clause they disagree with regard to whether animals that become disqualified as offerings are permanently rejected. According to the Rabbis they are not rejected and therefore the first goat is sacrificed, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that they are rejected and therefore the first goat is left to die and the second goat is sacrificed. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does the term: And furthermore, in the mishna indicate? Even the Rabbis agree that the remaining goat from the first pair is permanently disqualified. The Gemara comments that indeed, this is difficult.

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 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚 诪爪讜转讬讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat should be left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. The Gemara asks: Granted, if the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled, the scapegoat should be left to die, as the mitzva of the blood has not yet been performed, as it was not sprinkled in the prescribed manner.

讗诇讗 诪转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗诪讗讬 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讛讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪爪讜转讬讛

However, if the scapegoat dies, why should the blood of the goat sacrificed to God be spilled? The mitzva of the scapegoat has already been performed. The only essential detail with regard to the scapegoat is the lottery, which has already been performed by the priest. Sending it to Azazel and pushing it off a cliff are carried out by an appointed person and while they are prescribed ab initio, they are not indispensable. After the fact, if the goat dies in some other way, the obligation has been fulfilled.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬注诪讚 讞讬 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诇讻驻专 注讚 诪转讬 讬讛讗 讝拽讜拽 诇讛讬讜转 讞讬 注讚 砖注转 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yannai said that the verse states: 鈥淏ut the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, 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). Until when must the scapegoat be alive? Until the blood of its counterpart is sprinkled, and if it dies before, the blood is disqualified.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖砖诇讞讜 讗转 砖拽诇讬讛谉 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 讗诐 谞转专诪讛 转专讜诪讛 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讙讝讘专讬谉

We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 2:1): If residents of a city sent their shekels to the Temple with a messenger, and the shekels were stolen or were lost along the way; if the funds were already collected, i.e., the coins for the new year鈥檚 offerings were taken from the chamber before the money was stolen, the messengers take an oath to the treasurers of the Temple that they did not unlawfully use the shekels, but that they were taken unbeknownst to them or by force. This is because once the necessary coins have been removed, all other coins that have been dedicated for this purpose are considered Temple property wherever they are, and their subsequent theft does not change that status. If the messengers take this oath, they are exempt from monetary liability.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 谞砖讘注讬谉 诇讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讜讘谞讬 讛注讬专 砖讜拽诇讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉

And if the funds were not yet collected when these coins were stolen, the coins are still considered the property of those who dedicated them to the Temple, and therefore the messengers take an oath to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city donate other shekels to the Temple in their stead.

谞诪爪讗讜 讗讜 砖讛讞讝讬专讜诐 讛讙谞讘讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖拽诇讬诐 讛诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛谉 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛谉 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

If the shekels that were lost are found or the thieves returned them, both these and those are shekels, i.e., they remain sanctified, but they do not count toward the amount due the following year. The next year the members of that city must donate new shekels; they have not fulfilled the second year鈥檚 obligation by having given twice the previous year. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do count toward the following year.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讜讘讜转 砖诇 砖谞讛 讝讜 拽专讬讘讜转 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the obligations of this year are also brought the following year, and therefore it is possible to fulfill one鈥檚 obligation for the next year by using the shekels of this year.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讻谉 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讬诪讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讛诐 诇谞讚讘讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to this explanation. It was taught that if the bull and goat of Yom Kippur were lost and one designated others in their stead, and similarly if the goats which atone for a communal transgression of idol worship by instruction of the court were lost and he designated others in their stead, and the original animals were found, all the original animals should be left to die, and cannot be sacrificed at a later time. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: They should be left to graze until they become unfit. Then they are sold, and the money received in their sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the obligations of this year may be brought the following year, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost should be sacrificed the following year, and not left to die. Rava said to him:

拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讻讚专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 注讜诇转 讞讚砖 讘讞讚砖讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讞讚砖 讜讛讘讗 诇讬 拽专讘谉 诪转专讜诪讛 讞讚砖讛

You speak of communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, in accordance with what Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya. As Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said that the verse states: 鈥淭his is the burnt-offering for every New Moon upon its renewal throughout the months of the year鈥 (Numbers 28:14). The Torah said: Renew and bring Me an offering from the new contribution. This indicates that communal offerings must be brought from the donations of the current year and not from the donations of the previous year.

转讬谞讞 砖注讬专 驻专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 驻专 讗讟讜 砖注讬专

The Gemara challenges this solution: This works out well with regard to the Yom Kippur goat, which is a communal offering and is purchased with money from the Temple treasury. However, with regard to the High Priest鈥檚 bull which he pays for himself and which is considered an individual offering, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat.

讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转讜 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讟讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讙讜驻讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 讛讘讗讬谉 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 诪爪讜讛 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 砖讞住专 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara expresses surprise: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? And furthermore, this statement that Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya is itself a mitzva ab initio, but is not indispensable. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to communal offerings that are brought on the first of Nisan, it is a mitzva to bring them from the new year鈥檚 shekel contributions. However, if he brought them from the old shekels that were donated during the previous year he has fulfilled his obligation, but he lacked the mitzva, i.e., he did not perform the procedure in the proper manner. It is difficult to argue that due to this inessential detail the Sages would issue a decree that the High Priest鈥檚 bull should be left to die.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讜专诇 拽讜讘注 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讜谞讬讬转讬 讜谞讙专讬诇 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛讙讜专诇 拽讜讘注 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said that the reason the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are left to die is because the lottery does not establish designations from one year to another. Therefore, a goat designated by the lottery one year is not eligible for use the next year. The Gemara challenges this explanation: But let us bring this goat and another one and draw lots again. The Gemara responds: It is a rabbinic decree that was enacted lest people say that the lottery establishes designations from one year to another.

讛讗 转讬谞讞 砖注讬专 驻专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 驻专 讗讟讜 砖注讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转讜

The Gemara challenges: This works out well with regard to the goat, but with respect to the bull of the High Priest, which is not chosen by lottery, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat. The Gemara challenges further: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? Therefore, this answer should be rejected.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讛讗 转讬谞讞 驻专 砖注讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖注讬专 讗讟讜 驻专

The Rabbis stated another solution before Abaye: It is a rabbinic decree, due to a concern that the bull will become a sin-offering whose owners have died, since the High Priest might die during the year. The Gemara responds: This works out well with regard to the bull, but as for the goat, which is a communal offering, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the goat due to the bull.

讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转讜 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 讙讝讬专讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? Rather, it is a rabbinic decree due to a concern that the goat will become a sin-offering whose year has passed. A goat may not be brought as a sin-offering once it is more than a year old, and there is a concern that the goat will be too old by the Yom Kippur of the following year. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is this a rabbinic decree? It is certainly a sin-offering whose year has passed, as the goat will certainly be more than a year old by the following Yom Kippur.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 诪讜谞讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讬讜诐 讻诪谞讬谉 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜谞讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as it is possible that the goat will not be disqualified, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to redeeming houses in a walled city the Torah states: 鈥淎nd if it not be redeemed within the space of a full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), which indicates that he counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: He counts twelve months from day to day. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if the goat was less than eleven days old on the first Yom Kippur, it will not be disqualified on the following Yom Kippur because it will still be less than 365 days old, as long as the first year was not a leap year. Nevertheless, it is disqualified by rabbinic decree due to a concern that other goats would be used in similar circumstances even if they were more than a year old.

Scroll To Top