Yoma 65a (סה.) — the Talmud in English

Everyone agrees

Rabbi and the Rabbis agree]

that if he achieved atonement through the

last sin-offering,

which was not lost

which had never been lost], then the

lost one must die.

But according to the

view of

Rav,

the “second” mentioned in our Mishna [which is to graze until it becomes blemished] is the second of the second pair, which was never lost or rejected. If so, the equivalent case with regard to an individual’s sin-offering would be when he sacrificed the lost animal, while the second one [which had never been lost] remained extant.

It follows from the Mishna that an individual’s sin-offering in such a case must die.

This is difficult: Even Rabbi, who holds [with regard to a sin-offering that was lost, for which another was designated, and then the first was found and sacrificed] that the second must die, would nevertheless concede here, in our Mishna [with regard to a Yom Kippur goat whose counterpart died], that even if the halakha of the goat were the same as that of an individual’s sin-offering, the second goat of the second pair would not die.

The reason is:

Everyone agrees concerning the law of a sin-offering whose owner achieved atonement through another that the halakha given to Moses at Sinai that it must die applies only if it had been rejected [so that it was impossible to sacrifice it], such as when it was lost, and therefore the Rabbis said that if he achieved atonement through the lost animal, its counterpart, which was not lost, does not die.

But why does Rabbi hold that its counterpart, which was not lost, must die? [After all, it was never lost!] Because, since it was designated in place of the lost sin-offering, it is as though it itself had been lost.

But in the case of a goat whose counterpart died [which according to Rav is not subject to the law of rejection], as soon as the lots were cast for the second pair, the first goat was found to be fit for sacrifice, [since it now had a counterpart]. And

it is therefore

as though he had

designated two sin-offerings

for the same sin

as a safeguard,

so that if one were lost he would sacrifice its counterpart:

And Rabbi Oshaya said: If one designated two sin-offerings

as a safeguard,

he achieves atonement through one of them, and the other grazes,

even according to Rabbi. It does not go to die, because it was never itself lost, nor was it designated in place of a lost sin-offering.

Similarly, in the case of a goat whose counterpart died, at the time the lots were cast both goats were fit for sacrifice. Therefore, even if the goat’s halakha were the same as that of an individual’s sin-offering, everyone agrees that it would not be subject to the law that it must die!

The Gemara answers:

Since Rava said

above that

Rav follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that the mitzva is performed with the first,

if so,

from the outset it is like one who designates an animal for a lost one.

When he designated the second one [of the second pair], it was clear that he would not be able to sacrifice it as a sin-offering, and it is therefore like a lost animal.

And since from the time of its designation it was like a lost animal, if its halakha had been the same as that of an individual’s sin-offering, the law of a sin-offering whose owner achieved atonement through another would have applied to it, and it would have had to die.

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

We learned—

the Mishna states: “And the second shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and the proceeds shall go to the free-will offerings” [but it does not die, because] “a communal sin-offering does not die.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must die.

It follows from the Mishna that the same “second” concerning which the Rabbis said that it should graze until it becomes blemished is the one about which Rabbi Yehuda said that it must die.

Granted,

the wording of the Mishna is understandable

according to

the view of

Rabbi Yohanan, who said that the “second” mentioned by the Rabbis is

the

second of the first pair,

which

shall graze.

And

according to Rabbi

Yehuda, it

must

die. According to this, it is clear that

atonement is achieved through the second of the second pair.

But according to Rav, who said that the second mentioned by the Rabbis is

the

second of the second pair,

which

shall graze,

and

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

it

must

die, the following difficulty arises:

Rabbi Yehuda certainly holds that living beings can be rejected, and if so, it is certainly impossible to achieve atonement through the second goat of the first pair. And since Rabbi Yehuda says [in the first clause] that the second goat of the first pair [about which the Rabbis spoke] must die, then

according to Rabbi Yehuda, through what does he achieve atonement?

Through which goat would they achieve atonement? It follows from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that both goats must die!

The Gemara rejects the difficulty:

Are you convinced that

you, the questioner, are certain that

Rabbi Yehuda,

who said “it must die,” was referring to the words of the Rabbis, and

was referring to the second of the second pair [

and speaking about the second of the second pair]?!

Rather, it may be said that

Rabbi Yehuda,

who said “it must die,”

was referring to the second of the first pair [

he was speaking about the second of the first pair]. Although the Rabbis spoke about the second of the second pair, Rabbi Yehuda said to them as follows:

a. With regard to what you said, that a communal sin-offering does not die, I disagree and hold that a communal sin-offering does die.

b. And Rabbi Yehuda further said: I do not hold, with regard to the animal concerning which you said that it should graze, that it should die. You said that the second of the second pair should graze; I hold that the second of the first pair should die [because living beings can be rejected], and he should sacrifice the second of the second pair.

The Gemara cites another formulation used by some amoraim in raising the first difficulty above:

We learned in the Mishna: “And Rabbi Yehuda further said: If the blood [of the goat for the Lord] was spilled, the goat sent away must die,”

and above we raised from this a difficulty against Rav’s view that living beings cannot be rejected: Rabbi Yehuda said that the goat sent away must die, even though it is alive!

We answered that Rav concedes that Rabbi Yehuda holds that living beings can be rejected, and only according to the Rabbis [as understood by Rav] can living beings not be rejected.

We then raised the opposite inference from the Mishna: On the contrary, the Mishna appears to support Rav and not Rabbi Yohanan. [As will be explained immediately below].

And some raise the difficulty in this manner:

There was one who initially raised the difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan, and he asked as follows:

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda further said: If the blood was spilled [

of the goat for the Lord],

the goat sent away must die; if the goat sent away died, the blood shall be poured out.

This is difficult: What did Rabbi Yehuda come to add here? Rabbi Yehuda had already said earlier that the second goat must die, because a communal sin-offering dies!

However,

granted,

it can be explained

according to

the words of

Rav,

since Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis in two matters: a. In

the first clause they disagree [

they dispute] concerning

a communal sin-offering:

The Rabbis said that a communal sin-offering does not die, while Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that it does die.

b.

And

in

the final clause they disagree [

they dispute] concerning

the

law of

living beings:

The Rabbis said that the second of the first pair is sacrificed [and the second of the second pair grazes], because living beings cannot be rejected. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that living beings can be rejected, and it is impossible to sacrifice the second of the first pair. [Rather, the second of the first pair dies, and the second of the second pair is sacrificed].

But

[

according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who says that even according to the Rabbis the second of the first pair is rejected [because living beings can be rejected], the difficulty remains:

What is the meaning of “and Rabbi Yehuda further

said”? What did Rabbi Yehuda come to add by this?

The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this difficulty

is difficult.

the blood was poured out [of the goat of the name],

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda further said:

If

the blood was spilled [

of the goat for the Lord],

the goat sent away must die.

And if

the goat sent away died, the blood shall be poured out.

The Gemara explained above that Rabbi Yehuda holds that living beings can be rejected. Since the second goat of the first pair is unfit for sacrifice when its counterpart dies, the law of rejection takes effect upon it, and it must die.

Here the Gemara examines the matter itself: Why is the second goat of the first pair unfit for sacrifice when its counterpart dies?

Granted,

it is understandable that if

the blood was spilled

of the goat for the Lord, the law of rejection takes effect and

the goat sent away must die,

because

its mitzva has still not been performed.

The blood-related mitzva has not yet been fulfilled, and another goat must be slaughtered and its blood brought. It is impossible to bring a goat for the Lord by itself without casting lots; rather, two goats must be brought and lots cast for them.

It follows that the first goat is rejected [and Rabbi Yehuda holds that since it was rejected temporarily, it is rejected permanently, because living beings can be rejected], and therefore it must die.

But,

if

the goat sent away died, why [

why]

shall the blood be poured out?

There is no need to bring another goat in its place, since

its mitzva has already been performed.

The essential mitzva of the goat sent away, the casting of the lots, has already been completed! Its dispatch to Azazel is not indispensable, because only services performed by the High Priest in white garments are indispensable, whereas the dispatch is performed by a designated man [ who is not the High Priest].

The mitzva of confession is also not indispensable according to Rabbi Yehuda, as is cited in the beraita [above, 40b].

And since the mitzva of casting the lots has been completed, and there is no need to bring another goat for Azazel, it is clear that there is no need to bring two goats and cast lots for them. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda say that the goat for the Lord is subject to the law of rejection and that the blood shall be poured out?

The Gemara answers:

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: The verse states [

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

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

Until when is

the goat sent away

required to be

standing

alive?

Until the time of the placing of the blood of its counterpart [

the goat for the Lord], as it is stated: “to make atonement for it.” And atonement means the placing of the blood [through which the owners achieve atonement]. It follows that if the goat sent away dies before the blood of its counterpart is placed, the blood does not effect atonement, and another goat for Azazel must be brought. It cannot be brought without casting lots; therefore, two new goats must be brought, and according to everyone the blood must be poured out, because everyone agrees that slaughtered sacred animals can be rejected.

We learned in our Mishna that if one of the goats dies, the other is left to graze until it becomes unfit, while according to Rabbi Yehuda it must die.

The Gemara here discusses a Yom Kippur goat that was lost, whose status is that it is left to graze until it becomes unfit. It explains why it cannot be offered the following year.

This discussion opens with the law of communal offerings, which were brought every year from the shekels donated by the Jewish people that year, as follows:

It is a positive mitzva from the Torah for every Jewish man to give half a shekel each and every year. The communal offerings were brought from these shekels.

The shekels were placed in the chamber that was in the Temple courtyard, and there were there more shekels than were needed for the communal obligatory offerings.

Three times a year, they would take out [set aside] money from the chamber for the communal offerings, on behalf of everyone who had donated a half-shekel. Thus, all the donors were considered partners in the offerings brought from the chamber’s contribution.

They would also set aside money on behalf of one who had sent his half-shekel by a messenger, whose shekel was lost, and the owner did not know at the time the chamber’s contribution was set aside that it had been lost. This was so that he too would be a partner in the communal offerings.

We learned there

We learned in tractate Shekalim [2:1]:

If the inhabitants of a city sent their shekels

by a messenger to bring them to the Temple,

and they were stolen or lost:

If

the chamber’s contribution had

already been set aside [

the

contribution

had been set aside] —the owners are not obligated to weigh another half-shekel, since the contribution was set aside also on behalf of one who sent his shekel and it was lost without his knowledge. It follows that the sacred funds, rather than the owners, suffer the loss resulting from the shekels’ disappearance.

Therefore,

the messengers take an oath

the

treasurers—the oath of bailees, that they were not negligent in guarding the money—and they are exempt from paying the sacred funds.

the oath required of custodians, that they were not negligent in guarding the money, and they are exempt from paying the consecrated funds.

But if not, meaning that the chamber’s contribution had not yet been set aside, since the inhabitants of the city learned [before the chamber’s contribution was set aside] that their shekels had been lost, they are obligated to bring other shekels. It follows that the inhabitants of the city, rather than the sacred funds, suffer the loss resulting from the shekels’ disappearance.

if the money had not yet been taken from the chamber, once the residents of the town learned [before the collection was made] that their shekels had been lost, they were required to bring other shekels. It follows that the residents of the town suffer the loss resulting from the lost shekels.

Therefore,

the messengers take an oath

the

inhabitants of the city—the oath of bailees, that they were not negligent in guarding the money—and they are exempt from paying.

the oath required of custodians, that they were not negligent in guarding the money, and they are exempt from paying.

And the inhabitants of the city weigh

shekels

in their place.

If

the lost shekels

were found, or the thieves returned them,

then

both these and those—

both the original shekels and the later shekels—

are shekels

of sacred funds.

They are, and the

shekels that were found

do not count for them

for the owners toward their obligation to give a half-shekel in the following year. Rather, they must weigh again

for the following year.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They count for them

the owners toward their obligation

for the following year.

And we raised a question:

What is the reason [

what is his reasoning]

of Rabbi Yehuda?

Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that obligations

that were set aside for the needs

of this year may be offered in the following year.

Abaye raised an objection

Abaye challenged Rava from a beraita:

It was taught in a beraita:

The bull [

the High Priest’s sin-offering]

and the Yom Kippur goat that were lost and others were set aside in their place, and likewise the goats

of the communal sin-offering, when the people sinned through

idolatry

on the instruction of the court

that were lost, and others were set aside in their place,

then

all of them must die—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda [

who holds that a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one must die].

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall graze until they become unfit, and they shall be sold, and their money shall be used

for elevation-offerings

as a voluntary offering

of the community. They must not die, because

a communal sin-offering does not die.

We learned in the beraita that Rabbi Yehuda said that the bull and the Yom Kippur goat that were lost must die, and we do not say that they may be offered the following year! This is difficult for Rava’s statement [that Rabbi Yehuda holds that obligations set aside in this year may be offered in the following year]!

He said to him

Rava offered Abaye the following answer: