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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 16, 2021 | 讜壮 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 66

Today’s daf is sponsored by Oliver Mitchell in honor of his wife, Rabia Mitchell, on their 25th wedding anniversary. “Thank you HaKodosh Baruchu for enriching my life with Rabia – my best friend, wife, teacher, and mother to our 5 children. I鈥檓 appreciative for every minute we spend together. Your learning, mitzvot, and chessed is an inspiration to all. Looking forward to the next 25 and beyond! Lovingly.” And by Shari Mendes in honor of her husband, David, on their 36th wedding anniversary. “It is a blessing and a joy to have merited a few rounds of chai (18) together. Grateful for the wonderful years and praying for many more in health together.”

A fifth and final answer is brought regarding the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion (according to Rava’s explanation) regarding one who pays two half shekels and one who ends up with two animals dedicated for the bull or goat offering for Yom Kippur. What is the process of sending the goat out to the desert? Who can do it? Can he carry the goat out even on Shabbat, if necessary? Can he go into the Azara to get the goat if he is impure? Rabbi Eliezer is asked a slew of questions (|some relating to mess-ups that could happen on Yom Kippur with the scapegoat) that he is unwilling to answer and instead answers back with a question. Why was he behaving in that manner. One question is asked by a woman regarding the three methods by which people were killed after the sin of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Eliezer responds by saying, “A woman’s wisdom is in the spindle.” Even though Rabbi Eliezer didn’t answer the questions, the gemara brings answers for the ones relating to Yom Kippur and for the one about the Golden Calf. Did all of the Levites not sin in the Golden Calf or did some?

讜讗诐 谞转注讘专讛 谞转注讘专讛 诇诪讜讻专 讛转讬谞讞 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

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.

讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转 讜注讜讚 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 诇专注讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜专讜注讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转拽诇讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛

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鈥檚 value to the Temple treasury, nor dedicate items for sacred use at this time, when the Temple no longer exists.

讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讛注专讬讱 讜讛讞专讬诐 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 讬专拽讘讜 诪注讜转 讜讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讬拽讜专 谞讜注诇 讚诇转 诇驻谞讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪转讛 诪讗诇讬讛

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.

转拽诇讛 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 转拽诇讛 讚讛拽专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 专注讬讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 转拽诇讛 讚讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 专注讬讜转 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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?

诇注讜诇诐 转拽诇讛 讚讛拽专讘讛 讜讛谞讱 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讛拽专讘讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛讜 讛讱 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛

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.

讜转拽诇讛 注爪诪讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讚讗 驻住讞 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 讬拽专讘 讘砖谞讬 讘砖谞讬 讬拽专讘 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘转拽诇讛 驻诇讬讙讬

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鈥檌m. As it was taught in one baraita: A Paschal lamb that was not sacrificed on the first Pesa岣 is sold to someone who was impure on the first Pesa岣 or who was distant from Jerusalem, so that it may be sacrificed on the second Pesa岣. If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesa岣, it is sacrificed the following year. And it was taught in another baraita: If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesa岣, 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?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 [诇讗] 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇转拽诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara responds: No, these sources do not prove that the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转拽诇讛 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara challenges this rejection: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜住讜诪讱 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诪转讜讚讛 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 讞讟讗讜 注讜讜 驻砖注讜 诇驻谞讬讱 注诪讱 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 讻驻专 谞讗 诇讞讟讗讬诐 讜诇注讜谞讜转 讜诇驻砖注讬诐 砖讞讟讗讜 讜砖注讜讜 讜砖驻砖注讜 诇驻谞讬讱 注诪讱 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讻讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转 诪砖讛 注讘讚讱 诇讗诪专 讻讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讬讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 诇讟讛专 讗转讻诐 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 转讟讛专讜

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: 鈥淔or on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified鈥 (Leviticus 16:30).

讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛注诐 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讘注讝专讛 讻砖讛讬讜 砖讜诪注讬诐 砖诐 讛诪驻讜专砖 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讜 讻讜专注讬诐 讜诪砖转讞讜讬诐 讜谞讜驻诇讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讜讱 砖诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讜转讜 诇注讜诇诐 讜注讚 诪住专讜 诇诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讜诇讬讻讜 讗诇讗 砖注砖讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 拽讘注 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讜诇讬讻讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讜讛讜诇讬讻讜 注专住诇讗 讜讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讛 讜讻讘砖 注砖讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 讛讘讘诇讬讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪转诇砖讬诐 讘砖注专讜 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讟讜诇 讜爪讗 讟讜诇 讜爪讗

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鈥檚 hair and would say to the goat: Take our sins and go, take our sins and go, and do not leave them with us.

讙诪壮 讜讗讬诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 讻驻专讛 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞

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鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say: The priests receive atonement through the scapegoat, which indicates that their sins must be mentioned in the confession over the scapegoat?

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讟讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 注诪讱 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

诪住专讜 诇诪讬 砖诪讜诇讬讻讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 注转讬

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: 鈥淎nd he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness鈥 (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

砖讬讛讗 诪讝讜诪谉 注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讜诇讛 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讻转驻讜

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.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讗讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讗诪专 讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讞诇讛 砖讗谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

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.

注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗 诪砖诇讞讜 谞讻谞住 讟诪讗 诇注讝专讛 讜诪砖诇讞讜

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.

砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞诇讛 诪讛讜 砖讬专讻讬讘讛讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛专讻讬讘 讗谞讬 讜讗转诐 讞诇讛 诪砖诇讞讜 诪讛讜 砖讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讛讗 讘砖诇讜诐 讗谞讬 讜讗转诐

搂 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.

讚讞驻讜 讜诇讗 诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬专讚 讗讞专讬讜 讜讬诪讬转谞讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻谉 讬讗讘讚讜 讻诇 讗讜讬讘讬讱 讛壮 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诇讛 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讞诇讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讚讞驻讜 讜诇讗 诪转 讬专讚 讗讞专讬讜 讜讬诪讬转谞讜

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: 鈥淪o may all your enemies perish, Lord鈥 (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.

砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖讗诇转讜谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 驻诇讜谞讬

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?

诪讛讜 诇讛爪讬诇 专讜注讛 讻讘砖讛 诪谉 讛讗专讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖讗诇转讜谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讻讘砖讛 诪讛讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讛专讜注讛 诪谉 讛讗专讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖讗诇转讜谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛专讜注讛 诪诪讝专 诪讛 讛讜讗 诇讬专砖 诪讛讜 诇讬讘诐 诪讛讜 诇住讜讚 讗转 讘讬转讜 诪讛讜 诇住讜讚 讗转 拽讘专讜

They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a shepherd may save a ewe from a lion on Shabbat (Me鈥檌ri)? 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鈥檚 house after the destruction of the Temple? Rabbi Eliezer responded: What is the halakha with regard to plastering one鈥檚 grave?

诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛驻诇讬讙谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讚讘专 砖诇讗 砖诪注 诪驻讬 专讘讜 诪注讜诇诐

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.

砖讗诇讛 讗砖讛 讞讻诪讛 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讞专 砖诪注砖讛 讛注讙诇 砖讜讬谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讬转转谉 砖讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 诇讗砖讛 讗诇讗 讘驻诇讱 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讗砖讛 讞讻诪转 诇讘 讘讬讚讬讛 讟讜讜

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: 鈥淎nd any woman who was wise-hearted spun with her hands鈥 (Exodus 35:25). Therefore, it is unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such questions.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讜诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讬讘讞 讜拽讬讟专 讘住讬讬祝 讙驻祝 讜谞讬砖拽 讘诪讬转讛 砖诪讞 讘诇讘讘讜 讘讛讚专讜拽谉

With regard to this issue, it was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 注讚讬诐 讜讛转专讗讛 讘住讬讬祝 注讚讬诐 讘诇讗 讛转专讗讛 讘诪讬转讛 诇讗 注讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讛转专讗讛 讘讛讚专讜拽谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讘讟讜 砖诇 诇讜讬 诇讗 注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注诪讜讚 诪砖讛 讘砖注专 讛诪讞谞讛 讜讙讜壮

Rav Yehuda said: The entire tribe of Levi did not engage in idol worship, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Exodus 32:26).

讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘谞讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 专讗讬转讬讜

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: 鈥淲ho 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:9). This indicates that some of them did engage in idol worship and were killed by their relatives.

讗讘讬讜 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讬讜 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬讜 讘谞讬 讘转讜 诪讬砖专讗诇

Ravina answered them: 鈥淗is father鈥 does not refer to his actual father, but rather his mother鈥檚 father, who was an Israelite. Similarly, the term 鈥渉is brothers鈥 is referring to his half-brothers from his mother, who were fathered by an Israelite. 鈥淗is sons鈥 is referring to his daughter鈥檚 sons from an Israelite, who are considered Israelites. In fact, however, no one from the tribe of Levi worshipped the calf.

讜讻讘砖 注砖讜 诇讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讜诪转讜讱 砖砖讜谞讗讬诐 讗转 讛讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转谉 注诇 砖诪谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛谞讞转 讗转 讚注转讬

搂 It was taught in the mishna that they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews in Jerusalem. Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

讟讜诇 讜爪讗 转谞讗 诪讛 砖讛讬 爪驻讬专讗 讚讬谉 讜讞讜讘讬 讚专讗 住讙讬讗讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬拽讬专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讬讜 诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 住讜讻讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 注砖专 住讜讻讜转 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注讚 爪讜拽

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,

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...
cistern masada

Tradition, Tradition!

On daf 66 of Yoma, the Gemara relates a series of questions that students asked Rabbi Eliezer. Each time, Rabbi...

Yoma 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 66

讜讗诐 谞转注讘专讛 谞转注讘专讛 诇诪讜讻专 讛转讬谞讞 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

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.

讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 讬诪讜转 讜注讜讚 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 诇专注讬讛 讗讝诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讟讗转 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注讜诪讚转 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜专讜注讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转拽诇讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛

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鈥檚 value to the Temple treasury, nor dedicate items for sacred use at this time, when the Temple no longer exists.

讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讛注专讬讱 讜讛讞专讬诐 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 讬专拽讘讜 诪注讜转 讜讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 注讬拽讜专 谞讜注诇 讚诇转 诇驻谞讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪转讛 诪讗诇讬讛

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.

转拽诇讛 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 转拽诇讛 讚讛拽专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 专注讬讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 转拽诇讛 讚讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 专注讬讜转 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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?

诇注讜诇诐 转拽诇讛 讚讛拽专讘讛 讜讛谞讱 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讛拽专讘讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛讜 讛讱 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛

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.

讜转拽诇讛 注爪诪讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讚讗 驻住讞 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 讬拽专讘 讘砖谞讬 讘砖谞讬 讬拽专讘 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘转拽诇讛 驻诇讬讙讬

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鈥檌m. As it was taught in one baraita: A Paschal lamb that was not sacrificed on the first Pesa岣 is sold to someone who was impure on the first Pesa岣 or who was distant from Jerusalem, so that it may be sacrificed on the second Pesa岣. If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesa岣, it is sacrificed the following year. And it was taught in another baraita: If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesa岣, 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?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 [诇讗] 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇转拽诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara responds: No, these sources do not prove that the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转拽诇讛 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara challenges this rejection: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜住讜诪讱 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诪转讜讚讛 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 讞讟讗讜 注讜讜 驻砖注讜 诇驻谞讬讱 注诪讱 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 讻驻专 谞讗 诇讞讟讗讬诐 讜诇注讜谞讜转 讜诇驻砖注讬诐 砖讞讟讗讜 讜砖注讜讜 讜砖驻砖注讜 诇驻谞讬讱 注诪讱 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讻讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转 诪砖讛 注讘讚讱 诇讗诪专 讻讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讬讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 诇讟讛专 讗转讻诐 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 转讟讛专讜

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: 鈥淔or on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified鈥 (Leviticus 16:30).

讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛注诐 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讘注讝专讛 讻砖讛讬讜 砖讜诪注讬诐 砖诐 讛诪驻讜专砖 砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪驻讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讜 讻讜专注讬诐 讜诪砖转讞讜讬诐 讜谞讜驻诇讬诐 注诇 驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讘专讜讱 砖诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讜转讜 诇注讜诇诐 讜注讚 诪住专讜 诇诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讜诇讬讻讜 讗诇讗 砖注砖讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 拽讘注 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讜诇讬讻讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讜讛讜诇讬讻讜 注专住诇讗 讜讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讛 讜讻讘砖 注砖讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 讛讘讘诇讬讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪转诇砖讬诐 讘砖注专讜 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讟讜诇 讜爪讗 讟讜诇 讜爪讗

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鈥檚 hair and would say to the goat: Take our sins and go, take our sins and go, and do not leave them with us.

讙诪壮 讜讗讬诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 讻驻专讛 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞

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鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say: The priests receive atonement through the scapegoat, which indicates that their sins must be mentioned in the confession over the scapegoat?

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讟讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 注诪讱 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

诪住专讜 诇诪讬 砖诪讜诇讬讻讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 注转讬

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: 鈥淎nd he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness鈥 (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

砖讬讛讗 诪讝讜诪谉 注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讜诇讛 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讻转驻讜

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.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讗讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讗诪专 讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讞诇讛 砖讗谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

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.

注转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讗诐 谞讟诪讗 诪砖诇讞讜 谞讻谞住 讟诪讗 诇注讝专讛 讜诪砖诇讞讜

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.

砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞诇讛 诪讛讜 砖讬专讻讬讘讛讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛专讻讬讘 讗谞讬 讜讗转诐 讞诇讛 诪砖诇讞讜 诪讛讜 砖讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讛讗 讘砖诇讜诐 讗谞讬 讜讗转诐

搂 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.

讚讞驻讜 讜诇讗 诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬专讚 讗讞专讬讜 讜讬诪讬转谞讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻谉 讬讗讘讚讜 讻诇 讗讜讬讘讬讱 讛壮 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诇讛 诪专讻讬讘讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讞诇讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讚讞驻讜 讜诇讗 诪转 讬专讚 讗讞专讬讜 讜讬诪讬转谞讜

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: 鈥淪o may all your enemies perish, Lord鈥 (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.

砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖讗诇转讜谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 驻诇讜谞讬

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?

诪讛讜 诇讛爪讬诇 专讜注讛 讻讘砖讛 诪谉 讛讗专讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖讗诇转讜谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讻讘砖讛 诪讛讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讛专讜注讛 诪谉 讛讗专讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讗 砖讗诇转讜谞讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讛专讜注讛 诪诪讝专 诪讛 讛讜讗 诇讬专砖 诪讛讜 诇讬讘诐 诪讛讜 诇住讜讚 讗转 讘讬转讜 诪讛讜 诇住讜讚 讗转 拽讘专讜

They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a shepherd may save a ewe from a lion on Shabbat (Me鈥檌ri)? 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鈥檚 house after the destruction of the Temple? Rabbi Eliezer responded: What is the halakha with regard to plastering one鈥檚 grave?

诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛驻诇讬讙谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讚讘专 砖诇讗 砖诪注 诪驻讬 专讘讜 诪注讜诇诐

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.

砖讗诇讛 讗砖讛 讞讻诪讛 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讞专 砖诪注砖讛 讛注讙诇 砖讜讬谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 诪讬转转谉 砖讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 诇讗砖讛 讗诇讗 讘驻诇讱 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讗砖讛 讞讻诪转 诇讘 讘讬讚讬讛 讟讜讜

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: 鈥淎nd any woman who was wise-hearted spun with her hands鈥 (Exodus 35:25). Therefore, it is unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such questions.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讜诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讬讘讞 讜拽讬讟专 讘住讬讬祝 讙驻祝 讜谞讬砖拽 讘诪讬转讛 砖诪讞 讘诇讘讘讜 讘讛讚专讜拽谉

With regard to this issue, it was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 注讚讬诐 讜讛转专讗讛 讘住讬讬祝 注讚讬诐 讘诇讗 讛转专讗讛 讘诪讬转讛 诇讗 注讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讛转专讗讛 讘讛讚专讜拽谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讘讟讜 砖诇 诇讜讬 诇讗 注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注诪讜讚 诪砖讛 讘砖注专 讛诪讞谞讛 讜讙讜壮

Rav Yehuda said: The entire tribe of Levi did not engage in idol worship, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Exodus 32:26).

讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘谞讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 专讗讬转讬讜

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: 鈥淲ho 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:9). This indicates that some of them did engage in idol worship and were killed by their relatives.

讗讘讬讜 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讬讜 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬讜 讘谞讬 讘转讜 诪讬砖专讗诇

Ravina answered them: 鈥淗is father鈥 does not refer to his actual father, but rather his mother鈥檚 father, who was an Israelite. Similarly, the term 鈥渉is brothers鈥 is referring to his half-brothers from his mother, who were fathered by an Israelite. 鈥淗is sons鈥 is referring to his daughter鈥檚 sons from an Israelite, who are considered Israelites. In fact, however, no one from the tribe of Levi worshipped the calf.

讜讻讘砖 注砖讜 诇讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讜诪转讜讱 砖砖讜谞讗讬诐 讗转 讛讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转谉 注诇 砖诪谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛谞讞转 讗转 讚注转讬

搂 It was taught in the mishna that they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews in Jerusalem. Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

讟讜诇 讜爪讗 转谞讗 诪讛 砖讛讬 爪驻讬专讗 讚讬谉 讜讞讜讘讬 讚专讗 住讙讬讗讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬拽讬专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讬讜 诪诇讜讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 住讜讻讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 注砖专 住讜讻讜转 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注讚 爪讜拽

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,

Scroll To Top