Yoma 64b — the Talmud in English

And if the second was more choice than it, he shall bring it.

And here it is speaking of a situation in which the first lamb was not fit to be slaughtered before the latter lamb, for when the time for slaughtering the Paschal offering arrived, both of them were already standing. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yosei said that he should offer the lamb that was set apart first .

And from here Rav learned that even with the two goats of Yom Kippur, when one of them dies, it is a mitzva to offer the goat of the first pair [even though the first one was not fit for offering before the latter one] .

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

our Mishna is more precisely in accordance with Rav’s method,

and

if the

baraita

below is more precise

in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view.

And Rava continues explaining:

It is precise

that the Mishna is in accordance with Rav’s view: for it teaches

in our Mishna:

“If that one died,”

he shall say

“This one upon which the lot for Hashem fell shall stand in its place.”

But with regard to the live goat, it was not mentioned in the Mishna that the second one shall stand in its place,

and

this implies that

the other one—

the second goat—

remains as it stands—

just as initially it was consecrated and fit for offering, so now it remains in its sanctity as at first, and not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the law of rejection takes effect upon it and it becomes unfit.

And it is precise

that the baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view: for it teaches

in the baraita that explains the words of the Mishna:

“The second”

this one, about which we learned in our Mishna that it shall graze until it becomes blemished,

I do not know whether

the intention is

the second of the pair

the

first,

or

whether

the intention is

the second of the pair

the

second,

and from where can we know which of them shall graze until it becomes blemished?

When it

the verse

says

“And the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel

shall stand alive

before Hashem, to atone through it,” the intent of the verse is to say

“and not that its fellow has died,”

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

And immediately the Gemara asks:

What is the implication

how is it implied from the verse that it is impossible to achieve atonement with a goat whose fellow has died?

And we explain:

“Shall stand alive”

implies that from now [from the time of the drawing of the lots ] onward, it shall stand for atonement,

and not

that they should bring a goat

that had already stood

earlier for atonement, and was rejected through the death of its fellow, and now comes to return and stand a second time for atonement .

The Gemara discusses the words of our Mishna in accordance with 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 for Hashem,

the blood was spilled

before the High Priest finished performing all the sprinklings stated concerning it, and he did not fulfill his obligation, he must bring two other goats and draw lots over them [so that he can bring another goat as a sin offering and sprinkle its blood], and he shall offer one for Hashem and one for Azazel.

And since according to Rabbi Yehuda a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one dies, therefore

the goat sent away shall die,

for atonement had already been achieved through the second pair.

And if

the goat

the

sent away

dies after the slaughter of the sin-offering goat for Hashem, he must bring two other goats and draw lots over them, and he shall offer one for Hashem and one for Azazel. It follows that the first sin-offering goat is superfluous, and therefore

the blood shall be spilled.

Thus far are the words of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna.

Now, from what Rabbi Yehuda said, that if the blood of the goat for Hashem was spilled, the goat sent away shall die, it follows that even after they brought a second pair and drew lots over it, it is impossible to achieve atonement 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 says that living creatures are subject to rejection, and therefore

therefore

the goat shall die,

the

sent away,

for when its fellow was not alive, it was rejected from offering. Therefore it is disqualified forever by the law of “rejection.”

But according to

the view of

Rav, who says that living creatures are not subject to rejection,

it is difficult:

why

why

shall

the

sent-away goat die?

After all, atonement can be achieved through it after they bring another goat for Hashem by means of the drawing of lots!

Rav could say to you

a resolution:

Indeed, Rabbi Yehuda holds that living creatures are subject to rejection, but when I [Rav] said that living creatures are not subject to rejection,

I did not say it according to Rabbi Yehuda’s view;

I was not speaking according to Rabbi Yehuda’s view. Rather,

when I said it,

I spoke specifically

according to the Rabbis.

And I [Rav] hold that one should prove from our Mishna that according to the Rabbis, living creatures are not subject to rejection. For this is the order of the words of the Mishna: 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 value shall fall to the communal free-will offering [and it shall not die, because] a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one does not die. Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall die.”

And 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 spilled.”

And it implies that Rabbi Yehuda came to add and dispute with the Sages in another matter, and this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages: Besides what I already said, that a communal sin offering dies, and therefore the second one shall die and shall not graze until it becomes blemished [and contrary to your words, Sages], I further say that the second of the first pair shall die because the law of rejection has taken effect upon it [and living creatures are subject to rejection]. And this is contrary to your view, for you hold that the second of the first pair is offered [and the second of the second pair shall graze].

And from here it follows that Rabbi Yehuda heard from the Sages that they hold that the second of the first pair is offered, because living creatures are not subject to rejection.

And now that Rav proved from the Mishna that the Sages hold that living creatures are not subject to rejection, the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan:

It is understandable

it is understood

according to

the words of

Rav,

that

in this they disagree—

that they also disagreed concerning the law of rejection with regard to living creatures—

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

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

But according to

the words of

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who explained that the Sages who said “the second shall graze until it becomes blemished” were speaking of the second goat of the first pair, and the Sages agree that living creatures are subject to rejection, if so it is difficult:

over what do they disagree—

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

Rava said: We have already said

after all, we have already said

“The Mishna is precise in accordance with Rav’s view,”

and we intended to say that the entire Mishna is precise according to Rav’s view .

The Gemara continues discussing the words of our Mishna in accordance with 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 one shall not die that a communal sin offering does not die, it follows:

in the case of an individual, in a similar situation

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

die,

as is the law of a sin offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one [for it was stated as a law to Moses from Sinai that it dies].

For example: one who set apart his sin offering and it was lost, and he set apart another in its place, and the first was found, and both of them are standing before us, and he achieved atonement through one of them. And it follows from our Mishna that the second sin offering shall die.

And in tractate Temura [23a], Rabbi and the Sages disputed concerning one who set apart his sin offering and it was lost, and he set apart another in its place, and the first was found, and both of them are 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 value shall fall to the communal free-will burnt offerings].

And Rabbi Abba explains: The Sages are speaking specifically of a situation in which he offered the lost sin offering [after it was found]. In this they innovated that since the second sin offering was never lost, the law of “a sin offering that is to die” was not stated in this case [and it shall graze until it becomes blemished, and he shall bring free-will burnt offerings with its value].

But if he offered the second sin offering [which he set apart 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 one, concerning which it was stated as a law to Moses from Sinai 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.” And it follows that an individual sin offering in a similar case dies.

And the Gemara says:

It is understandable

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] means the second of the first pair [which was set apart first], whereas the second of the second pair, which was rejected and disqualified from being offered [and it is thus like a lost offering], is offered.

And similarly, this is the case of an individual sin offering that was lost and 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: