Yoma 40b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 16:10]: “And the goat upon which the lot came up for Azazel

shall stand alive before the Lord to make atonement for it.”

The verse emphasized: it shall stand “alive.” This teaches that if the goat died before it had made atonement, another goat must be brought in its place. And the tannaim disagreed in the beraita: What is the atonement mentioned in the verse?

Until when must

the goat sent to Azazel

be required to stand alive?

Until the time of the giving of the blood of its fellow —

until they give the blood of the goat for the Lord in all the applications stated concerning it. For the atonement mentioned in the verse is the giving of blood [as follows]. —

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says: “To make atonement for it” —

with verbal atonement,

with the confession said over the goat sent to Azazel itself,

the verse is speaking.

And the Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree,

upon what does their disagreement depend? [How do we know what the “atonement” mentioned in the verse is?]

And we explain: The explanation of their disagreement is

as it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

“To make atonement” is stated —

with blood atonement,

with the applications of the blood of the goat for the Lord,

the verse is speaking.

And so

the verse

says

later in the passage [Leviticus 16:20]:

“When he has finished

the High Priest

making atonement for the Sanctuary

and for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar.” And the atonement of the Sanctuary is through the sprinkling of the blood, which was mentioned in the preceding verse.

And from here, “atonement” is through the giving of blood,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is stated, “It shall stand alive before the Lord

to make atonement for it,”

and it implies that the atonement is performed “for it,” for the goat sent to Azazel itself. Whereas according to the words of the Sages, who explained that it refers to the blood atonement of its fellow [the goat for the Lord], the atonement is not for the goat sent to Azazel!

Rather,

with verbal atonement,

with the confession over the goat sent to Azazel,

the verse is speaking,

for the confession is over the goat of Azazel itself.

Now the Gemara returns to discuss the two formulations in the view of Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan [concerning the law of the lottery].

Come and hear

a proof for the first formulation from a beraita:

For it was taught:

His students asked

Rabbi Akiva

Rabbi Akiva:

If it happened that the lot for the Lord

came up

on the left,

what is the law of returning it to the right?

What is the law of returning it to the right?

Is it permitted for him to take the lot for the Lord that came up on the left and place it upon the goat standing on the right?

He said to them

Rabbi Akiva:

Do not give an opportunity

to the

Sadducees to dominate,

to rule over you [to defeat you with their arguments], so that they will say that the Pharisees alter the words of the verse.

Therefore, it is forbidden to transfer the lot that came up on the left and place it upon the goat on the right.

And the Gemara infers from the words of the beraita:

The reason,

the reason Rabbi Akiva prohibited placing the lot for the Lord [which came up on the left] upon the goat on the right is only because

“Do not give an opportunity to the Sadducees to dominate.”

And it implies:

Were it not so,

were it not for the concern regarding the Sadducees, indeed

we would return it —

we could take the lot for the Lord that came up on the left and place it upon the goat standing on the right!

But —

yet according to the second formulation above,

you said

that according to Rabbi Yannai

the lottery prevents completion

even according to Rabbi Judah [and all the more so according to Rabbi Nehemiah].

And

if so,

since the left has been designated,

since the lot for the Lord designated the goat on the left

how can we return it!?

How can it be changed so that the goat on the left will be for the Lord through speech alone, without the lot’s coming up?

If so, Rabbi Akiva’s words prove contrary to the second formulation above.

And we reject this:

Rava said: This is what they said,

this is what the students asked Rabbi Akiva:

The lot came up on the left —

what is the law that he

should leave the lot upon the goat on the left as required, and afterward

return it and its goat to the right,

that he should take the goat on the left together with the lot for the Lord upon it and transfer them to the right side?

And

he said to them

Rabbi Akiva:

Do not give an opportunity

to

the Sadducees to dominate

to rule over you [to defeat you with their arguments, so that they will say about the Pharisees: These people do everything according to their own will].

Until here, the Gemara attempted to prove against Rabbi Yannai’s words according to the second formulation. From here onward, the Gemara brings proofs to establish the position of the second formulation: according to Rabbi Yannai, even Rabbi Judah agrees that the coming up of the lot prevents completion.

Come and hear

from that which was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 16:9]: “And Aaron shall offer the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord.”

And we taught in a beraita:

Had it been stated

in the verse

“the goat upon which”

[and the word “came up” had not been stated],

I would say

that he

should place it upon it

— that he should place the lot for the Lord upon the goat.

The verse therefore says,

for this reason it says

“came up”

— to teach:

once it came up

the lot from the lottery box,

he no longer needs

to place it upon the goat.

And we raised an objection concerning the words of the beraita:

For what purpose,

for what matter does the verse speak with the word “came up”? Is it concerning the mitzva ideally, or concerning preventing completion?

If you say,

if it is said that the verse speaks

of

the matter of

the mitzva

ideally [that one must bring up a lot ideally, but after the fact, if he did not bring up a lot but merely designated it verbally, the offering is valid].

If so,

by inference,

it is proven from this that the beraita excludes through “came up”

the placing

of the lots upon the goats —

not even a mitzva!

For even ideally there is no mitzva to place lots upon the goats!

But this cannot be so, since it is explicitly stated: “And Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats”!

Rather, no,

necessarily the beraita interprets the verse “came up” as referring to

preventing completion.

And the intention of the beraita is to say that the coming up of the lot prevents completion, but placing it upon the goats does not prevent completion.

And

consequently,

learn from it,

one should learn from the words of the beraita that

the lottery prevents completion,

but

the placing does not prevent completion.

And from here there is proof against the first formulation in the view of Rabbi Yohanan, that even Rabbi Nehemiah agrees that the coming up of the lot does not prevent completion [because the lottery is not considered a Temple service, as above, 39b].

And we reject this:

Rava said:

The beraita interpreted the verse “came up” as referring merely to the mitzva. And

this is what it says,

this is what the tannay in the beraita said:

Had it been stated

in the verse, “the goat

upon which”

and “came up” had not been stated,

I would say

that he

should place it upon it

— that the lot must remain placed upon the goat for the Lord

until the time of

the

slaughter.

The verse therefore says,

the verse comes and says

“upon which it came up”,

to teach:

once it came up

the lot has already come out of the lottery box, and it is already known which goat is for the Lord and which is for Azazel, then, once he places the lots upon them [to fulfill the words of the verse, “And Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats”] —

he no longer needs

the lots to remain placed until the time of slaughter, even with regard to the mitzva ideally.

Come and hear

a proof for Rabbi Yannai’s position according to the second formulation — that even Rabbi Judah agrees that the coming up of the lot from the lottery box prevents completion:

It is stated [Leviticus 16:9]: “And Aaron shall offer the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and make it a sin-offering.” And they expounded this verse in a beraita [in Sifra ]: “

And make it a sin-offering” —

the lot

[which was mentioned in the preceding verse] is what

makes it

[the goat]

a sin-offering.

And

the calling of

the designation does not make it

[the goat]

a sin-offering.

For

I

could

say:

Is this not a logical inference

to learn the opposite, by a kal va-chomer:

And if in a place where a lot does not sanctify,

in other offerings, when two offerings are consecrated together and it is necessary to distinguish one from the other [such as the nests of men with emissions, women with emissions, and women after childbirth, where two birds are consecrated, one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering], then, if “sin-offering” and “burnt-offering” were written on one lot and one lot, we do not find that the lot designates them.

And even so,

the designation sanctified

them

the name,

for if he called one bird a sin-offering and one bird a burnt-offering, his words take effect.

In a place where a lot sanctifies,

with the goat of the sin-offering for the Lord, where the lot is what sanctifies it, then

is it not logical

that it should be stated

that the designation should sanctify

it

by the name,

by a kal va-chomer from the other offerings?!

The verse therefore says

for this reason it says

“And make it a sin-offering” —

to teach us that only

the lot

[which was mentioned in the preceding verse]

makes

it

a sin-offering, and

the calling of

the designation does not make

it

a sin-offering.