Yoma 66
וְאִם נִתְעַבְּרָה — נִתְעַבְּרָה לַמּוֹכֵר. הָתִינַח שָׂעִיר, פַּר מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? גְּזֵירָה פַּר אַטּוּ שָׂעִיר.
And if the year was extended and made into a leap year, it is extended for the benefit of the seller, and according to the Sages he has an additional month in which to redeem his house. The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the goat, but with regard to the bull, what is there to say? The bull remains valid even if it is more than a year old. The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat.
וּמִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירָה יָמוּת?! וְעוֹד, חַטָּאת שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ — לִרְעִיָּה אָזְלָא! דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חַטָּאת שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת וְרוֹעָה.
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? And furthermore, a sin-offering whose year has passed is not left to die but rather goes to graze. As Reish Lakish said: We consider a sin-offering whose year has passed as though it stands in a cemetery, and the priest cannot take it out in order to sacrifice it because he is not permitted to become ritually defiled. Therefore, it grazes until it becomes unfit and is then sold.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה. אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵין מַעֲרִיכִין, וְאֵין מַחְרִימִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה.
Rather, Rava said: The bull and goat of Yom Kippur may not be left from one year to the next by rabbinic decree due to a concern that a mishap may occur. As it was taught in a baraita: One may neither consecrate objects, nor valuate, i.e., take a vow to donate one’s value to the Temple treasury, nor dedicate items for sacred use at this time, when the Temple no longer exists.
וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ וְהֶעֱרִיךְ וְהֶחְרִים, בְּהֵמָה — תֵּיעָקֵר. פֵּירוֹת כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים — יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת — יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָאָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא עִיקּוּר — נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת לְפָנֶיהָ, וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ.
And if one did consecrate, valuate, or dedicate items for sacred use: If he dedicated an animal it is uprooted, i.e., he arranges for it to die quickly. If he dedicated agricultural produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose, he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should redeem them and transport the value of their benefit to the Dead Sea. This baraita indicates that animals that cannot be sacrificed at this time must be left to die so that they are not used improperly. The Gemara explains: And what constitutes uprooting? He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own from hunger.
תַּקָּלָה דְּמַאי? אִי תַּקָּלָה דְּהַקְרָבָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל רְעִיּוֹת נָמֵי! אִי תַּקָּלָה דְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל רְעִיּוֹת נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: What mishap might occur if the bull and goat are left until the next year? If you say it is a mishap of offering the animal as a different offering, a similar concern should exist even with regard to all animals that have been disqualified for use as offerings that one leaves to graze. If it is a mishap of shearing the animal’s wool and working the animal, which would constitute unlawful use of consecrated property, a similar concern should exist even with regard to all animals that have been disqualified for use as offerings that are left to graze. Why are these animals in particular left to die?
לְעוֹלָם תַּקָּלָה דְּהַקְרָבָה, וְהָנָךְ דְּלָאו בְּנֵי הַקְרָבָה נִינְהוּ — לָא טְרִיד בְּהוּ, הָךְ דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא — טְרִיד בַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, the concern is for a mishap of sacrifice. And those other disqualified animals that are left to graze, which are not fit for sacrifice, he is not preoccupied with, and will not accidentally sacrifice them. This bull and goat, which are fit for sacrifice next year, he is preoccupied with them. Therefore, there is a greater concern that one may sacrifice them as offerings, and they may not be left to graze.
וְתַקָּלָה עַצְמָהּ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא חֲדָא: פֶּסַח שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב בְּרִאשׁוֹן — יִקְרַב בַּשֵּׁנִי, בַּשֵּׁנִי — יִקְרַב לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יִקְרַב. מַאי לָאו, בְּתַקָּלָה פְּלִיגִי?
The Gemara comments: This issue itself, i.e., whether decrees are instituted due to a concern about a possible mishap, is a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in one baraita: A Paschal lamb that was not sacrificed on the first Pesaḥ is sold to someone who was impure on the first Pesaḥ or who was distant from Jerusalem, so that it may be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ. If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, it is sacrificed the following year. And it was taught in another baraita: If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, it is not sacrificed the following year. What, is it not that they disagree about the question of whether a decree was issued prohibiting keeping the animal for an entire year due to a concern about the possibility of a mishap?
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא [לָא] חָיְישִׁינַן לְתַקָּלָה, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי, הָא רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara responds: No, these sources do not prove that the tanna’im disputed this issue. It is possible that everyone agrees that we are not concerned about a mishap, and here they disagree about the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis with regard to whether it is possible that the lamb will still be fit for sacrifice the following year. And the apparent contradiction between the baraitot is not difficult. This baraita, which says that the lamb is brought the following year, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. That baraita, which says that the lamb may not be sacrificed the following year, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that by the following year, the lamb will certainly be more than a year old and will therefore be unfit as a Paschal offering.
וְהָתַנְיָא: וְכֵן הַמָּעוֹת! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ — בְּתַקָּלָה פְּלִיגִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara challenges this rejection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: And, so too, money that was dedicated for purchasing a Paschal lamb is subject to dispute about whether it may be kept for the following year. In the case of money, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis is irrelevant. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that they disagree with regard to whether a decree is issued due to a concern about a mishap? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר: אָנָא הַשֵּׁם! חָטְאוּ, עָווּ, פָּשְׁעוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָנָא הַשֵּׁם! כַּפֶּר נָא לַחֲטָאִים וְלָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ וְשֶׁעָווּ וְשֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר: ״כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי ה׳ תִּטְהָרוּ״.
MISHNA: The Yom Kippur service continues: The High Priest comes over to the scapegoat, places both his hands upon it, and confesses. And he would say as follows: Please, God, Your people, the house of Israel, have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You. Please, God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions that they have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, Your people, the house of Israel, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant, saying: “For on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified” (Leviticus 16:30).
וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעֲזָרָה כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹמְעִים שֵׁם הַמְּפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִפִּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, הָיוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וְנוֹפְלִים עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים: ״בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד״. מְסָרוֹ לְמִי שֶׁהָיָה מוֹלִיכוֹ. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהוֹלִיכוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁעָשׂוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים קֶבַע, וְלֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִין אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹלִיכוֹ.
And the priests and the people standing in the Temple courtyard, when they would hear the Explicit Name emerging from the mouth of the High Priest, when the High Priest did not use one of the substitute names for God, they would kneel and prostrate themselves and fall on their faces, and say: Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever. After the confession over the scapegoat, the priest passed the goat to the one who was to lead it to the wilderness. According to the halakha, everyone is eligible to lead it, but the High Priests established a fixed custom and did not allow an Israelite to lead it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהוֹלִיכוֹ עַרְסְלָא, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה. וְכֶבֶשׁ עָשׂוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַבָּבְלִיִּים, שֶׁהָיוּ מְתַלְּשִׁים בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: טוֹל וָצֵא טוֹל וָצֵא.
Rabbi Yosei said: That was not always the case. There was an incident where a person named Arsela led the goat to the wilderness, and he was an Israelite. And they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews who were in Jerusalem, who would pluck at the goat’s hair and would say to the goat: Take our sins and go, take our sins and go, and do not leave them with us.
גְּמָ׳ וְאִילּוּ ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ״ לָא קָאָמַר. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא אָמַר: יֵשׁ לָהֶם כַּפָּרָה בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.
GEMARA: In the confession over the scapegoat, the High Priest confessed the sins of the Jewish people, whereas he did not say: The children of Aaron, Your sacred people, in order to confess the sins of the priests. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this mishna? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, for if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say: The priests receive atonement through the scapegoat, which indicates that their sins must be mentioned in the confession over the scapegoat?
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַטּוּ כֹּהֲנִים לָאו בִּכְלַל ״עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל״ נִינְהוּ?
Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, is that to say that priests are not included among: Your people, the house of Israel? Nothing can be proven from the fact that the High Priest did not list every segment of the Jewish people separately.
מְסָרוֹ לְמִי שֶׁמּוֹלִיכוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ — לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזָּר, ״עִתִּי״ —
It was taught in the mishna that the priest passed the goat to the one who was to lead it to the wilderness. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: “And he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:21), that the halakhic midrash interprets the word man as mentioned in order to qualify a non-priest for this task. The word appointed indicates
שֶׁיְּהֵא מְזוּמָּן. ״עִתִּי״ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״עִתִּי״ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
that he should be designated the day before. The word appointed also indicates that the scapegoat is always sent away at the appointed time, and even on Shabbat. Similarly, the word appointed indicates that the scapegoat is always sent away at the appointed time, and even when the appointed man is in a state of ritual impurity.
״אִישׁ״ — לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזָּר. פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״כַּפָּרָה״ כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita stated that the word man is mentioned to qualify a non-priest. The Gemara expresses surprise: It is obvious that a non-priest is qualified for this service; why would one have thought otherwise? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: The term atonement is written with regard to it, and atonement is achieved only through services performed by priests. Therefore, it teaches us that this atonement is not achieved through a sacrificial offering, and consequently the service may be performed even by an Israelite.
״עִתִּי״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר, שֶׁאִם הָיָה חוֹלֶה — מַרְכִּיבוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ.
The baraita stated that the word appointed indicates that the service is performed even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? There is no apparent desecration of Shabbat by escorting the goat, since the halakha of Shabbat boundaries is merely Rabbinic. Rav Sheshet said: It is mentioned in order to state that if the goat were ill and could not walk the whole way, the one who escorts the goat carries it on his shoulder.
כְּמַאן, דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּאִי רַבִּי נָתָן, הָאָמַר: חַי נוֹשֵׂא אֶת עַצְמוֹ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי נָתָן, חָלָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, didn’t he say that a living being carries itself? Because a living being is lighter than dead weight, the living being is considered to be aiding the one carrying it, and therefore carrying a living being is not considered an act of prohibited labor according to Torah law. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, a living being that is ill is different. Since the goat cannot walk on its own strength, despite the fact that it is alive, all agree that the one who carries it is performing a prohibited labor.
אָמַר רַפְרָם, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: עֵירוּב וְהוֹצָאָה לְשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין עֵירוּב וְהוֹצָאָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
Based on the fact that the word appointed indicates that the scapegoat is sent away even on Shabbat, Rafram said: That is to say that the concept of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but eiruv and carrying out do not apply to Yom Kippur. If these halakhot applied equally to Yom Kippur, and nevertheless the Torah commanded that the scapegoat be sent away, it would be unnecessary to derive that the same is true even if Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat.
״עִתִּי״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם נִטְמָא מְשַׁלְּחוֹ — נִכְנָס טָמֵא לָעֲזָרָה, וּמְשַׁלְּחוֹ.
The baraita stated that the word appointed indicates that the service is performed even in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Sheshet said: The verse comes to tell you that if the one sending the goat away became impure, he nevertheless enters the Temple courtyard while he is impure and sends it away.
שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: חָלָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּרְכִּיבֵהוּ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ? אָמַר לָהֶם: יָכוֹל הוּא לְהַרְכִּיב אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם. חָלָה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר? אָמַר לָהֶם: אֱהֵא בְּשָׁלוֹם אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם.
§ Apropos this discussion, the Gemara mentions that the students once asked Rabbi Eliezer: If the goat became ill, what is the halakha with regard to whether the escort may carry it on his shoulder? He said to them: That goat can carry me and you, meaning the goat designated healthy was unlikely to become ill. Rabbi Eliezer thereby avoided the question. They asked him: If the one sending the goat away became ill, what is the halakha with regard to whether they send it with someone else? He said to them dismissively: I and you shall be in peace, i.e., this would never happen.
דְּחָפוֹ וְלֹא מֵת, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּרֵד אַחֲרָיו וִימִיתֶנּוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם: ״כֵּן יֹאבְדוּ כׇל אוֹיְבֶיךָ ה׳״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָלָה — מַרְכִּיבוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, חָלָה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ — יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר. דְּחָפוֹ וְלֹא מֵת — יֵרֵד אַחֲרָיו וִימִיתֶנּוּ.
The students continued to question Rabbi Eliezer: If he pushed the goat and it did not die upon its fall, what is the halakha with regard to whether he should follow it down and kill it? He said to them: “So may all your enemies perish, Lord” (Judges 5:31). In other words, the goat will certainly die on its own. Rabbi Eliezer did not wish to answer these questions, as will be explained below. However, the Sages say: If the goat became ill, the escort carries it on his shoulder. If the one sending out the goat became ill, he sends the goat with someone else. If he pushes it and it does not die, he follows it down and kills it.
שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: פְּלוֹנִי, מַהוּ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא? אָמַר לָהֶם לֹא שְׁאֶלְתּוּנִי אֶלָּא עַל פְּלוֹנִי.
The Gemara cites more questions that the students asked Rabbi Eliezer, which he refused to answer. They asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the fate of so-and-so, a certain man who was known to be wicked, with regard to the World-to-Come? He evaded the question and said to them: You have only asked me about so-and-so, and not a different individual whom you believe to be righteous?
מַהוּ לְהַצִּיל רוֹעֶה כִּבְשָׂה מִן הָאֲרִי? אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא שְׁאֶלְתּוּנִי אֶלָּא עַל הַכִּבְשָׂה. מַהוּ לְהַצִּיל הָרוֹעֶה מִן הָאֲרִי? אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא שְׁאֶלְתּוּנִי אֶלָּא עַל הָרוֹעֶה. מַמְזֵר, מַה הוּא לִירַשׁ? מַהוּ לְיַבֵּם? מַהוּ לָסוּד אֶת בֵּיתוֹ? מַהוּ לָסוּד אֶת קִבְרוֹ?
They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a shepherd may save a ewe from a lion on Shabbat (Me’iri)? He said to them: You have only asked me about the ewe? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to saving the shepherd from the lion on Shabbat? He said to them: You have only asked me about the shepherd? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a mamzer inherits from his parents? Rabbi Eliezer responded with a question: Did you not ask me what is the halakha with regard to whether he may perform levirate marriage? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to plaster one’s house after the destruction of the Temple? Rabbi Eliezer responded: What is the halakha with regard to plastering one’s grave?
לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִפְלִיגָן בִּדְבָרִים. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ מֵעוֹלָם.
The Gemara explains: It was not because he was distancing them with words, and made irrelevant statements because he did not know the answers to these questions. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer responded in this way because he never said anything that he did not hear from the mouth of his teacher. Since he had not learned these points from his teacher, he did not answer directly, thereby indicating that he did not have a tradition with regard to these questions.
שָׁאֲלָה אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מֵאַחַר שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל שָׁוִין, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מִיתָתָן שָׁוָה? אָמַר לָהּ: אֵין חׇכְמָה לָאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא בְּפֶלֶךְ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל אִשָּׁה חַכְמַת לֵב בְּיָדֶיהָ טָווּ״.
The Gemara cites another question posed to Rabbi Eliezer. A wise woman asked Rabbi Eliezer: Since all bore equal responsibility for the incident of the Golden Calf, due to what factor were their deaths not equal? Some of the people were killed by the sword of Moses and the Levites, some were killed in a plague, and others were struck with an intestinal illness. He said to her: There is no wisdom in a woman except weaving with a spindle, and so it states: “And any woman who was wise-hearted spun with her hands” (Exodus 35:25). Therefore, it is unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such questions.
אִיתְּמַר, רַב וְלֵוִי. חַד אָמַר: זִיבֵּחַ וְקִיטֵּר — בְּסַיִיף. גִּפֵּף וְנִישֵּׁק — בְּמִיתָה. שָׂמַח בִּלְבָבוֹ — בְּהִדְרוֹקָן.
With regard to this issue, it was stated that the amora’im Rav and Levi disagreed: One of them said: One who sacrificed and burned incense to the calf, which are idolatrous practices that incur capital punishment, was punished by the sword. One who embraced and kissed it, which are not forms of idolatrous worship that incur capital punishment, was subject to a divine punishment of death by a plague. One who rejoiced inwardly but performed no act was killed by the intestinal illness known as hidrokan.
וְחַד אָמַר: עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה — בְּסַיִיף, עֵדִים בְּלֹא הַתְרָאָה — בְּמִיתָה, לֹא עֵדִים וְלֹא הַתְרָאָה — בְּהִדְרוֹקָן.
And one of them said: One who served the calf in the presence of witnesses and after a warning was punished by the sword. One who served the calf in the presence of witnesses but without warning was subject to death by a plague. One who served without witnesses and without warning was killed by hidrokan.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי לֹא עָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעֲמוֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Yehuda said: The entire tribe of Levi did not engage in idol worship, as it is stated: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said: Who is for God, let him come to me; and all the children of Levi gathered to him” (Exodus 32:26).
יָתֵיב רָבִינָא וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ בְּנֵי רַב פָּפָּא בַּר אַבָּא לְרָבִינָא: ״הָאוֹמֵר לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא רְאִיתִיו״.
Ravina sat and related this halakha with regard to the tribe of Levi. The sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba raised an objection to Ravina: The verse states in praise of the tribe of Levi: “Who said of his father and of his mother: I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledge his brothers, nor did he know his sons” (Deuteronomy 33:9). This indicates that some of them did engage in idol worship and were killed by their relatives.
״אָבִיו״ — אֲבִי אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, ״אֶחָיו״ — אֶחָיו מֵאִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, ״בָּנָיו״ — בְּנֵי בִתּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
Ravina answered them: “His father” does not refer to his actual father, but rather his mother’s father, who was an Israelite. Similarly, the term “his brothers” is referring to his half-brothers from his mother, who were fathered by an Israelite. “His sons” is referring to his daughter’s sons from an Israelite, who are considered Israelites. In fact, however, no one from the tribe of Levi worshipped the calf.
וְכֶבֶשׁ עָשׂוּ לוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לֹא בָּבְלִיִּים הָיוּ, אֶלָּא אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיִּים הָיוּ. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁשּׂוֹנְאִים אֶת הַבָּבְלִיִּים הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן עַל שְׁמָן. תַּנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּבְלִיִּים הָיוּ, אֶלָּא אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיִּים הָיוּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ, שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ אֶת דַּעְתִּי.
§ It was taught in the mishna that they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews in Jerusalem. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: They were not actually Babylonians, rather they were Alexandrians from Egypt. And since in Eretz Yisrael they hate the Babylonians, they would call all foreigners who acted inappropriately by their name as an insult. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: They were not Babylonians, rather they were Alexandrians. Rabbi Yosei, whose family was from Babylonia, said to him: May your mind be at ease, since you have put my mind at ease.
טוֹל וָצֵא. תָּנָא: מָה שָׁהֵי צָפִירָא דֵּין, וְחוֹבֵי דָרָא סַגִּיאִין.
It was taught in the mishna that the Babylonians would say: Take our sins and go. It was taught in the Tosefta that they would say as follows: Why does this goat remain here with the many sins of the generation; let him hurry and leave.
מַתְנִי׳ מִיַּקִּירֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ מְלַוִּין אוֹתוֹ עַד סוּכָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. עֶשֶׂר סוּכּוֹת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד צוּק,
MISHNA: People from among the prominent residents of Jerusalem would escort the one leading the goat until they reached the first booth. Booths were set up along the path to the wilderness to provide the escort a place to rest. There were ten booths from Jerusalem to the cliff,
