Yoma 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, according to that latter formulation

the last one,

which says that they disagree,

that Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [and Rabbi Yannai holds that the lottery is indispensable], this formulation can be challenged from the following beraita [which says that if he did not conduct the lottery, the offering is nevertheless valid]:

Granted, according to the one who says

[Rabbi Yohanan] that the drawing of the lot

is not indispensable, this

beraita

is according to whom—

who taught it?

It is Rabbi Yehuda,

[who holds that a service performed outside the Holy of Holies in white garments is not indispensable].

Rather—

but

according to the one who says

[Rabbi Yannai] that the drawing of the lot

is indispensable

even according to Rabbi Yehuda, because the verse repeated the matter to indicate that it is indispensable, this is difficult:

this,

this beraita, which says that after the fact, if he did not conduct the lottery, the offering is valid—

is according to whom,

who taught it?

And we answer:

Teach—

the words of the beraita should be understood as though they were written in a different formulation:

“It is a mitzva to place

the lots upon the goats, but if he did not place them, the offering is valid.”

And with regard to this matter, everyone agrees that although according to Rabbi Yannai [in the second formulation] the lottery is indispensable even according to Rabbi Yehuda, because the verse repeated the matter to indicate that it is indispensable, nevertheless, placing the lots upon the goats is not indispensable, because the verse did not repeat that matter.

[Rather, the verse mentions placing them only once: “And Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats.” Leviticus 16:8].

Come and hear

a proof for the first formulation:

We learned in a beraita:

It is a mitzva to conduct the lottery

for the goats,

and to confess

over the goat sent to Azazel. And if he

did not conduct the lottery and did not confess,

the offering is

valid

after the fact.

From here there is proof for the first formulation, that according to Rabbi Yehuda everyone agrees that the lottery is not indispensable.

And from here there is a difficulty for the second formulation, according to which Rabbi Yannai holds that the lottery is indispensable after the fact according to everyone [even according to Rabbi Yehuda].

And if you would say

that perhaps you wish to answer as follows:

So too here,

we shall interpret the words of the beraita: “It is a mitzva

to place

[the lots] and to confess. But if he did not place them and did not confess, the offering is valid” [just as we explained the earlier beraita].

It is impossible to answer in this manner:

For

come and consider the latter clause;

I will bring you proof from the end of the beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he

did not conduct the lottery—

the offering is valid,

as the first tanna said. But if he did not

confess—

the offering is disqualified,

unlike the statement of the first tanna.

And Rabbi Shimon is referring to the statement of the first tanna. Therefore, one must ask:

What

is the meaning of

“did not conduct the lottery,”

as Rabbi Shimon said?

If you say,

if we interpret it to mean that he

did not place

the lots upon the goats, as we explained according to the first tanna [with Rabbi Shimon referring to his statement]:

If so, one can infer from this:

By inference, Rabbi Shimon holds

that specifically placing the lots upon the goats is not indispensable, but the

lottery

itself

is indispensable.

And this is impossible. For one can prove from a beraita that Rabbi Shimon certainly holds that even the lottery is not indispensable!

And it was taught

in a beraita:

If one of them died,

of the two goats, after the lottery, and only one goat remained [for the Lord or for Azazel], one must bring another goat to replace the missing one.

And it is impossible to conduct another lottery for the two goats [after bringing an additional goat in place of the one that died], since the goat remaining from the first lottery has already acquired the sanctity of an offering [for the Lord or for Azazel], and it cannot be reassigned through a second lottery.

What, then, should be done?

He brings

his

counterpart,

the missing goat,

without conducting a lottery for it.

For example, if the goat designated for “the Name” died, he brings another goat and designates it for “Azazel” without a lottery,

the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

This proves that Rabbi Shimon holds that the lottery is not indispensable. And necessarily, this is what the earlier beraita meant: “Rabbi Shimon says: If he did not conduct the lottery, the offering is valid [as the Sages said]. But if he did not confess, the offering is disqualified [unlike the statement of the Sages].”

And since Rabbi Shimon is referring to the statement of the first tanna, it necessarily follows that the first tanna himself, who said “if he did not conduct the lottery,” intended to say that he did not draw a lot from the receptacle [and did not mean that he did not place the lots upon the goats]!

And now the difficulty that we raised from the words of the first tanna against the second formulation returns [which holds that according to Rabbi Yannai, if he did not draw the lots from the receptacle, the offering is disqualified according to everyone]. For the first tanna in the beraita said that if he did not draw the lots, the offering is valid! And who was the tanna who taught the statement of the first tanna in the beraita?

And we answer: Actually, one can say as we answered above, that the first tanna was speaking about placing the lots upon the goats, and not about drawing the lot from the receptacle.

And as for what we proved from Rabbi Shimon’s statement—that he was speaking about drawing the lot from the receptacle, and therefore the first tanna was also speaking about this—we can reject that proof:

Rabbi Shimon

was uncertain about the words of the Sages, and

did not know what the Sages were saying in the statement, “It is a mitzva to conduct the lottery and to confess; if he did not conduct the lottery and did not confess, the offering is valid”—whether they were speaking about drawing the lot from the receptacle or about placing the lot upon the goats.

in the phrase, “It is a mitzva to conduct the lottery and to confess; if he did not conduct the lottery and did not confess, the offering is valid”—whether they were speaking about drawing the lot from the receptacle or about placing the lot on the goats.

And

therefore Rabbi Shimon

said this to them:

If,

when you said

“lottery”

[which is not indispensable after the fact], you meant

the lottery

from the receptacle

itself, then

I disagree with you on one matter.

In that case, I disagree with you only with regard to one matter [concerning confession]. This is what Rabbi Shimon said in the beraita: If he did not conduct the lottery, the offering is valid [after the fact, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages]. But if he did not confess, the offering is disqualified [unlike their opinion].

But

if the “lottery” of which you speak is

what you mean is

placing

alone, and you said that only with regard to placing them, if he did not place them, the offering is valid, but with regard to the lottery you [the Sages] hold that if he did not conduct it, the offering is disqualified—then

I disagree with you on two matters.

I disagree with you in two respects:

a. With regard to drawing the lot from the receptacle, which you deem disqualifying after the fact, I deem the offering valid.

b. With regard to confession, which you hold means that if he did not confess, the offering is valid after the fact, I deem the offering disqualified.

Come and hear

a proof from a beraita, from which one can prove against the second formulation:

The beraita before us discusses a High Priest who altered the order of the services of the bull and the goat performed inside.

And in order to understand the words of the beraita, we will first explain that the services of the bull were not performed one after another. Rather, the High Priest began the services of the bull, and before completing the services of the bull, he proceeded to the services of the goat [and to additional services], as follows.

We learned in a beraita:

The bull renders the goat indispensable!

The service of the bull has the power to render the service of the goat invalid.

For if he performed the later service of the goat before the earlier service of the bull, the service of the goat is disqualified, and he must perform it again after performing the service of the bull.

And

if

the goat does not render the bull indispensable!

The service of the goat does not have the power to render the service of the bull invalid.

For if he performed a later service of the bull before performing the preceding service of the goat, the service of the bull is not disqualified [and below we will explain this matter].

And this law applies

to the sprinklings

of the blood

performed inside,

in the Holy of Holies [as will be explained below]. This concludes the words of the beraita.]

16]. [

And now the Gemara begins to explain the distinction between the services of the bull and the goat in light of this principle:

And we raise a question concerning this:

Granted,

what the beraita says in its first clause:

“The bull renders the goat indispensable”

is understandable, as it is referring to the sprinklings performed inside [as mentioned at the end of the beraita].

And the intention of the beraita is to say:

For if he performed

the sprinkling of the blood of the

goat before the bull,

if he performed the sprinkling of the goat’s blood in the Holy of Holies before the sprinkling of the bull’s blood, —

he did not perform

anything

at all,

since “a statute” is stated with regard to services performed inside, and their order is indispensable.

Rather, what the beraita says in its latter clause,

“The goat does not render indispensable

“The goat does not render

disqualify

the bull”—

what does this mean?

What services of the bull are not disqualified by altering the order [with regard to the sprinklings performed inside]?

If you say,

if this is the intention of the beraita:

For if he performed first,

if he performed the

sprinklings of the bull in the Sanctuary

opposite the curtain,

before

he performed the

sprinklings of the

blood of the

goat inside,

in the Holy of Holies [thereby altering the proper order, in which the blood of the goat should first have been sprinkled in the Holy of Holies, and only afterward the blood of the bull should have been sprinkled in the Sanctuary]—it cannot be said that this is the meaning. For why should the goat not render the bull indispensable? After all,

“a statute” is written with regard to them,

with regard to the sprinklings of the goat inside, just as it is written with regard to the sprinklings of the bull inside!

And since he delayed performing the sprinklings of the goat inside until after he had performed the sprinklings of the bull in the Sanctuary, they disqualify the sprinklings of the bull that preceded them, since the sprinklings of the bull caused the order of the services in the Holy of Holies to be altered.

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that this is the intention of the beraita:

That he performed first

[that he performed first]

the sprinklings of the bull inside—

in the Holy of Holies—and performed them

before

[before] the

lottery

for the two goats, which is performed outside.

And the beraita teaches that in this case the bull’s sprinklings are not disqualified, even though they are performed inside [and “a statute” is stated with regard to services performed inside].

And now the Gemara proves:

And since the order is not indispensable,

since we learned from the beraita that one who alters the order of the lottery does not thereby render the blood sprinklings invalid [or disqualified], by inference,

the lottery itself is also not indispensable,

the lottery itself is likewise not indispensable. For if he refrained from conducting the lottery and verbally designated the goats, they are valid.

[And since the lottery itself is not indispensable, for this reason the beraita says that if he performed the bull’s sprinklings inside before the lottery, this does not render the offering invalid, because this is not considered an alteration of the order of the service. According to the Old Tosafot]. And we have learned from the words of the beraita that the lottery itself is not indispensable. This is a proof against the second formulation, which holds that according to Rabbi Yannai the lottery is indispensable according to everyone, even according to Rabbi Yehuda!

And we reject this:

No!

The beraita is not speaking of performing the bull’s sprinklings inside before the lottery. Actually, the lottery itself is indispensable, and therefore its order is also indispensable.

And what is the beraita speaking of?

It is speaking of a case

where he performed the bull’s sprinklings on the altar first,

on the inner altar, and performed them

before

the

goat’s sprinklings in the Sanctuary,

as both of these are services performed outside.

And

the beraita is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

For he says: Services performed in white garments outside—

outside the Holy of Holies—

are not indispensable—

their order is not indispensable [because “a statute” was not stated with regard to them].

But immediately the Gemara raises an objection:

But it teaches, “with regard to the sprinklings performed inside”—

the beraita explicitly explains that it is speaking of the sprinklings performed inside! If so, how can the beraita be interpreted as referring to sprinklings performed outside!?

And on the basis of this objection, the Gemara retracts its earlier statement and concludes that the words of the beraita must be understood as referring to performing the bull’s blood presentations inside before the drawing of lots, as we explained above [in the Gemara’s objection].

If so, according to the second formulation, the objection against Rabbi Yannai returns: according to his statement, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the drawing of lots is indispensable. If so, the order in which he arranged them should likewise be indispensable!

And to this we answer:

Rather, whose opinion is this—

who taught this beraita?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said

above in the beraita:

The drawing of lots does not invalidate.

Alternatively,

there is another answer:

Actually, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

and not that of Rabbi Shimon.

Rather, earlier we raised an objection according to the second formulation of Rabbi Yannai’s statement: according to him, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the drawing of lots is indispensable, and if so, the order in which he arranged them should also be indispensable, whereas in the beraita we learned that the order of the drawing of lots does not invalidate!

To this we answer:

And although the order does not invalidate,

indeed, in the beraita we learned that the order of the drawing of lots does not invalidate [and if he performed the bull’s blood presentations inside before it, this did not invalidate], but it can still be said that

the drawing of lots itself does invalidate—

for the verse repeated the phrase “that went up” twice [“that went up,” from which it is derived that the drawing of the lot is indispensable, as stated above].

The Gemara now retracts its earlier assumption that if the drawing of lots is indispensable, then necessarily the order in which he arranged them must also be indispensable. Rather, these two matters are not dependent upon one another. Actually, the drawing of lots is indispensable, and nevertheless the order in which he arranged them is not indispensable.

We learned in the beraita above: “It is a mitzva to draw lots and to confess. If he neither drew lots nor confessed, the rite is valid. Rabbi Shimon says: If he did not draw lots, it is valid; but if he did not confess, it is disqualified.”

The Gemara now explains the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon concerning the confession:

And they follow their respective principles—

the Sages and Rabbi Shimon in the beraita above follow their respective positions, as will be learned in the following beraita: