Yoma 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

And if the second was superior to it, he shall bring it.

Here, the case concerns a situation in which the first lamb was not fit to be slaughtered before the latter lamb, since by the time the time for slaughtering the Paschal offering arrived, both of them were already standing before him. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yosei said that he should offer the lamb that had been designated first.

And from here Rav learned that even in the case of the two goats of Yom Kippur, if one of them died, it is a mitzva to offer the goat from the first pair [even though the first one was not fit to be offered before the latter one].

Rava said: The Mishna is precise in accordance with Rav’s view,

as our Mishna is more precisely understood according to Rav’s method,

and

if the

beraita

below is more precisely understood

in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view.

And Rava proceeds to explain:

It is precise that the

Mishna is in accordance with Rav’s view, as it teaches:

in our Mishna,

“If the one designated for God died,”

he shall say,

“This one upon which the lot for God fell shall take its place.”

But with regard to the live goat, the Mishna does not state that the second one shall take its place,

and

this indicates that

the other one—

the second goat—

remains as it stands—

just as it was initially sacred and fit to be offered, so now it remains in its original state of sanctity, contrary to the view of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the law of rejection takes effect upon it and renders it unfit.

And it is precise that the

beraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view, as it teaches:

in the beraita that explains the words of the Mishna:

“The second one”

the one concerning which our Mishna taught that it shall graze until it becomes blemished,

“I do not know whether”

this refers to

the second of the pair

of the

first

pair, or

whether

it refers to

the second of the pair

of the

second

pair. And how can we determine which of them shall graze until it becomes blemished?

When it

the verse

says

[Leviticus 16:10]: “And the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel

shall be kept alive

before the Lord, to make atonement through it,” the intention of the verse is to say

“and not that its fellow has died,”

since it is impossible to achieve atonement with a goat whose fellow has died. [Because the law of rejection has taken effect upon it.]

The Gemara immediately asks:

What is the implication

of the verse that atonement cannot be achieved with a goat whose fellow has died?

And we explain:

“Shall be kept alive”

indicates that from now on [from the time of the lottery] it shall stand for atonement,

and not

that they should bring a goat

that had already stood

previously for atonement, and that was rejected through the death of its fellow, and now comes to stand once again for atonement.

The Gemara discusses the words of our Mishna in light of the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan:

We learned

in the Mishna:

“And Rabbi Yehuda further said:

if, after they slaughtered the sin-offering goat designated for God,

the blood was spilled

before the High Priest completed all the sprinklings prescribed for it, and he did not fulfill his obligation, he must bring two other goats and conduct a lottery for them [so that he can bring another sin-offering goat and sprinkle its blood], and he shall offer one for God and one for Azazel.

And since according to Rabbi Yehuda a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another offering is left to die, therefore,

the goat sent away shall die,

for atonement has already been achieved through the second pair.

And if

the

goat

sent away

died after the sin-offering goat designated for God had been slaughtered, he must bring two other goats and conduct a lottery for them, and he shall offer one for God and one for Azazel. It follows that the first sin-offering goat is superfluous; therefore,

the blood shall be poured out.

These are Rabbi Yehuda’s words in our Mishna.

Now, from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that if the blood of the goat designated for God was spilled, the goat sent away shall die, it follows that even after they brought a second pair and conducted a lottery for it, atonement cannot be achieved through the first goat sent away. Rather, atonement is achieved through the two goats of the second pair, and the first one shall die.

Indeed,

it is understandable

that this matter is understood

according

to the view

of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that living creatures can be rejected, and therefore

for this reason

the goat

sent

away shall die,

since when its fellow was not alive, it was rejected from being offered. Therefore, it is disqualified forever on account of “rejection.”

But according

to the view

of Rav, who said that living creatures cannot be rejected,

there is a difficulty:

Why

why

shall the

goat

sent away die?

After all, atonement can be achieved through it after they bring another goat for God by means of a lottery!

Rav can answer you

with the following resolution:

Indeed, Rabbi Yehuda holds that living creatures can be rejected. But when I [Rav] said that living creatures cannot be rejected,

I was not speaking in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s view;

I was not speaking according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rather,

when I said

I was speaking specifically

in accordance with the view of the Rabbis.

And I [Rav] maintain that it can be demonstrated from our Mishna that according to the Rabbis, living creatures cannot be rejected. For this is the order of the Mishna’s statements: We learned in the Mishna: “If one of them died, the second shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and its proceeds shall be allocated for a free-will offering [and it shall not die, because] a communal sin-offering [whose owners achieved atonement through another offering] does not die. Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall die.”

From here it follows that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the second goat shall die.

“And Rabbi Yehuda further said: If the blood was spilled, the goat sent away shall die; if the goat sent away died, the blood shall be poured out.”

This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda came to add another point of dispute with the Sages. Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages as follows: In addition to what I already said, that a communal sin-offering dies, and therefore the second goat shall die rather than graze until it becomes blemished [contrary to your view, Sages], I further say that the second goat of the first pair shall die because the law of rejection has taken effect upon it [and living creatures can be rejected], contrary to your view, according to which the second goat of the first pair is offered [and the second goat of the second pair grazes

until it becomes blemished].

From here it follows that Rabbi Yehuda heard from the Sages that they hold that the second goat of the first pair is offered, because living creatures cannot be rejected. Now that Rav has demonstrated from the Mishna that the Sages hold that living creatures cannot be rejected, the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan:

It is understandable

that it is understood

according

to the words

of Rav,

who holds

that in this matter they disagree—

that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis also disputed the law of rejection with regard to living creatures—

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

Therefore, the Mishna added in its conclusion: “And Rabbi Yehuda further said,” and so on.

But according

to the words

of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who explained that the Sages, when they said “the second shall graze until it becomes blemished,” were speaking about the second goat of the first pair, and the Sages agree that living creatures can be rejected, there is a difficulty:

In what do they disagree

—what is the additional matter over which the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda disagree?

Rava said: We have already said

that we already stated

that the Mishna is precise in accordance with Rav’s view,

and our intention was to say that the entire Mishna is precisely in accordance with Rav’s view.

The Gemara continues to discuss the words of our Mishna in light of the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan:

We learned:

And the second shall graze until it becomes blemished [but it shall not die, because

a communal sin-offering does not die.]

And we infer: From the words of the Mishna, which gave as the reason that the second goat does not die that a communal sin-offering does not die, it follows that

in the case of an individual, when it is like this—

if we found an individual sin-offering analogous to the case discussed in our Mishna, it would

die,

in accordance with the law concerning a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another offering [for which the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai states that it dies].

For example: One designates a sin-offering, it is lost, he designates another in its place, and the first one is then found, so that both of them are standing before us, and he achieves atonement through one of them. It follows from our Mishna that the second sin-offering shall die.

And in tractate Temura [23a], Rabbi and the Sages disputed the case of one who designated a sin-offering, it was lost, he designated another in its place, and the first one was then found, so that both of them were standing before us:

Rabbi said: He achieves atonement through one of them, and the second shall die.

And the Sages say: The second shall graze until it becomes blemished [and its proceeds shall be used for communal free-will burnt-offerings].

Rabbi Abba explains: The Sages are speaking specifically of a case in which he offered the lost sin-offering [after it was found]. In this, the Sages innovated that since the second sin-offering was never lost, the law of “a dead sin-offering” does not apply to it [and it grazes until it becomes blemished, and he brings free-will burnt-offerings with its proceeds].

But if he offered the second sin-offering [the one he designated last], in this case the Sages certainly agree with Rabbi. For this is like any sin-offering that was lost and whose owners achieved atonement through another offering, concerning which the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai states that it dies.

And now let us return to the words of our Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna: “And the second shall graze until it becomes blemished [but it shall not die, because] a communal sin-offering does not die.” It follows that an individual sin-offering in a comparable case dies.

And the Gemara says:

It is understandable

that our Mishna is understood

according

to the words

of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who said that “the second” mentioned in our Mishna [which shall graze until it becomes blemished] refers to the second goat of the first pair [which was designated first], whereas the second goat of the second pair, which was rejected and disqualified from being offered [and is therefore like a lost animal], is offered.

And a comparable case is an individual sin-offering that was lost, after which he offered the second one. In that case, the first sin-offering [the lost one] dies,

as Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav.

For Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav: